Who wants this lobbed into an election?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No. They are not

I think they are, you think they aren't.

But the SC according to you, they soon will be. Since our elected representatives have lost all power to resist the courts. According to you.

For my part, I would like to see a King-Byng affair, but it being the courts pling the Byng and learning their limits.

I think whore houses -- where you have a consenting adult having sex with another consenting adult for money should be legal. They are consenting adults.

Just because the Bible says this is wrong doesn't mean our laws should dictate that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No Charter right was invoked.

Next.

Apparently it didn't have to be, it doesn't make the point invalid. It does provide you for a nice escape route here.

Just admit you're a prude and stop the handwaving and justifications.

[notyoueither]

Human decency says that the exploitation of a human being on that level is wrong.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Apparently it didn't have to be, it doesn't make the point invalid. It does provide you for a nice escape route here.

Just admit you're a prude and stop the handwaving and justifications.

Apparently, the dreaded NWC does not have to be invoked for the next government to use the power of legislation to say that, indeed, judges do not make our laws.

Like I said. Harper could make a lot of hay on the issue.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Human decency says that the exploitation of a human being on that level is wrong.

"human decency" and "exploitation"?

They're consenting. Exploitation is kidnapping children and forcing them to be whores.

Your ideals of "human decency" with regards to sex (you seem to think it is sacred...) are religious/spiritual/moral grounds that have no business being confused with liberty of legislation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Apparently, the dreaded NWC does not have to be invoked for the next government to use the power of legislation to say that, indeed, judges do not make our laws.

Like I said. Harper could make a lot of hay on the issue.

And if he's smart, he won't. He just has to give the illusion that he's a social prude and he'll lose the election. Canada is a progressive nation, and he needs to stay far away from social issues. Regardless of legal technicalities that you think are important, but most voters will not give a sh*t about.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

"human decency" and "exploitation"?

They're consenting. Exploitation is kidnapping children and forcing them to be whores.

No. That's slavery.

Pretty funny that you only see child slavery as exploitation though.

Your ideals of "human decency" with regards to sex (you seem to think it is sacred...) are religious/spiritual/moral grounds that have no business being confused with liberty of legislation.

You don't seem to have much of a clue about my ideas of decency.

And you don't seem to have much of a clue about how we arrive at our laws and govern ourselves.

Don't worry, you'll grow up.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

And if he's smart, he won't. He just has to give the illusion that he's a social prude and he'll lose the election. Canada is a progressive nation, and he needs to stay far away from social issues. Regardless of legal technicalities that you think are important, but most voters will not give a sh*t about.

I doubt surendering Parliamentary Supremecy to the SC will score on this issue, but I hope that Martin continues to listen to people who tell him the same things you do.

In case you didn't figure it, a good deal of voters will...

A: give a damn about the morals, and...

B: give a **** about the SC usurping the powers of legislators.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It should be noted that the charge was 'keeping a common bawdy house', not 'wife swapping'.

Do you want a club on your block where men view women as objects to be traded?

Your question assumes that the women are a passive, even unwilling, party to all this. Do note that they, too, get to sleep with a variety of partners.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by joncha


Bull. From your article:

And bull.

The part you missed was 'indecency'.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by JohnT


Your question assumes that the women are a passive, even unwilling, party to all this. Do note that they, too, get to sleep with a variety of partners.

I'm sure they enjoy it, one and all.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And bull.

The part you missed was 'indecency'.

I'll follow this up with...

The SC has decided that swingers clubs are not indecent. Wrong in the eyes of our legislators, but fine.

What Charter right prompted them to do so?

None?

You're right.

What they have said is that they disagree with our legislators, and they will therefore go ahead and make new laws.

Who signed on for this?

Who voted for those seven?

Who makes our laws?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No. That's slavery.

Pretty funny that you only see child slavery as exploitation though.

You don't seem to have much of a clue about my ideas of decency.

And you don't seem to have much of a clue about how we arrive at our laws and govern ourselves.

Don't worry, you'll grow up.

You're old, but that doesn't make you wise.

You've got these old-fashioned values where sex isn't just a physical act. Not everybody feels the same. If you can pay to get a peticure you should be able to pay to get a blowjob.

The people objecting to that do so on their moral grounds, not legislative or reasoning. They'll resort to saying it is simply "exploitation" (while at the same time, they usually support the $5.90 minimum wage which forces desperate young women to supplement their income other ways).

I appreciate your morals, but you have no right to impose those on everyone else. Even if you are old.

[notyoueither]

I'm not imposing anything. The legistatures and our federal Parliament have.

You know. Those people we elect to make our laws and govern us.

Christ, do I have to give a civics class in every thread?

[notyoueither]

This is our Constitution. Say hello to it, as likely you've never been exposed to anything but the highlights.