Mackay...
- Thread starter man77777
- Start date
MacKay a Canadian tea bagger? Does he pray before he does the dirty thing ? Again we dint vote for him or Harper but we can pressure the government on other issue like this one ! More we dig more I bet we will find his gimp kit !
Papa a raison.
The same story in English for our french-impaired friends:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/24/peter-mackay-mom-dad-emails_n_5526436.html
The same story in English for our french-impaired friends:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/24/peter-mackay-mom-dad-emails_n_5526436.html
According to what Justice Min. officials said, they could not be arrested just for being in each other's presence. But they could be arrested for working somewhere where you can be expected to find children (such as a mall). Of course I don't know if I trust what they say. To me the law could be interpreted by police and prosecuters in just about any way to do what they want.
Also, anyone can be arrested for stopping or impeding traffic for the purpose of selling sex, so they can arrest minors for that too.
It's the basis of the rescue industry. It's okay to do anything to ''victims'', so long as you get them to stop this job.
Mackay is a douchebag of epic proporstions, if you were to look up the word douchebag in the dictionary you would see a picture of Peter Mckay.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchebag
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchebag
Yes, and another bit I just noticed from your link:
''There is nothing in the new bill that would permit police to charge a prostitute for selling his or her services from home if children live there. The prostitution bill contains a series of exceptions to the "material benefit" offence, including legitimate living arrangements, which cover people who live with sex workers such as spouses, roommates or children.''
It seems they are confusing two different provisions: communicating in a place where you have children & the ''material benefit''. This material benefit provision says the children are allowed to benefit from the money their parent earns. It does not say the woman has a right to work in the same place where her children live.
During debates in the house of commons one politician said newspaper would not be criminalized for advertisements, because third parties are allowed to provide their services for a normal, non-exploitive fee. Once again they are confusing two different provisions: material benefit is one thing. Advertisement for someone else would be illegal regardless. Even if you provide free advertisement it would be illegal.
I can't say if these confusions are just from their own ignorance or if they are willingly twisting things so that people won't look at it too closely.
''There is nothing in the new bill that would permit police to charge a prostitute for selling his or her services from home if children live there. The prostitution bill contains a series of exceptions to the "material benefit" offence, including legitimate living arrangements, which cover people who live with sex workers such as spouses, roommates or children.''
It seems they are confusing two different provisions: communicating in a place where you have children & the ''material benefit''. This material benefit provision says the children are allowed to benefit from the money their parent earns. It does not say the woman has a right to work in the same place where her children live.
During debates in the house of commons one politician said newspaper would not be criminalized for advertisements, because third parties are allowed to provide their services for a normal, non-exploitive fee. Once again they are confusing two different provisions: material benefit is one thing. Advertisement for someone else would be illegal regardless. Even if you provide free advertisement it would be illegal.
I can't say if these confusions are just from their own ignorance or if they are willingly twisting things so that people won't look at it too closely.
When the Reform party and the Progressive Conservative party were hopelessly out of government, Mackay made a deal at a leadership convention with a strong contender for his position in the PCs never to merge the two parties ever. Once he got the deal and won what he wanted, he promptly reneged (ie doublecrossed) on his "deal" with the other hopeful and entered into merger discussions which eventually gave us the Conservative party. Mackay is one of the sleaziest politicians imho.
It disappoints me that the Canadians have elected such a person to be their Attorney General. He is clearly engaged in electioneering for his political party and everything that I have seen and heard leads me to conclude that notwithstanding the idiocy of some of the legislation he is proposing and the complete lack of any analysis as to how it is proposed to be enforced, his opposition is very weak and not doing a good job of standing up to him. I listened to the debates in the House of Commons and nobody who spoke mounted any kind of meaningful challenge to Mackay. What I saw does not speak well of your elected representatives in parliament.
It's not just the fault of the opposition. The government passed a motion putting a very short time limit on the debates, so there would be as little discussion as possible on the matter. They have done this more than 70 times already for other bills. Because they have a majority they can get away with just about anything. Even in committees, members of oppositions are overruled during witness interviews and such. And even if the opposition manages to propose some amendments to bills, the Cons can just vote them down. Fortunately, we still have the supreme court.
The committee hearings for C-36 is supposed be on July 7. I'm curious to see how it's going to go, even if it's moot.
The committee hearings for C-36 is supposed be on July 7. I'm curious to see how it's going to go, even if it's moot.
Similar threads
