Is Canada a Democracy? I Doubt...

[westwoody]

All they need is to just barely be ahead in each of the 338 individual races

A party only needs to win 170 seats to have a majority government.

They could get zero votes in the other 168.

 

[rlock]

[stuff]

I don't think anybody here is going to defend C36, and its many absurdities.

 

[Larry Storch]

Yeah. That's why they're over there.

Lol, somebody was drinking the kool aid

lol somebody is jumping to conclusions with zero facts.
Unless of course the facts you employ are of the "alternative" variety. In which case what you don't understand or agree with is wrong.
I'm surprised you didn't include the standard, prerequisite "tin foil hat" meme

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

[Stuff]

Of all of the problems facing Canadian society, it's a pretty tough case to say that C-36 ranks #1 , especially since there have been essentially no prosecutions under the law since it came into effect.

If you actually want to know why this law is not unconstitutional --which seems unlikely given your post history-- I'll try to explain it. What it boils down to though is that your opposition to a law does not necessarily make it unconstitutional. Neither does the fact that certain people, e.g. Johns, are discriminated against. The law against murder discriminates against murderers; it's constitutional.

Section 1 of the Charter tells us when laws are constitutional even when they limit or infringe a right guaranteed by other parts of the Charter. The Supreme Court laid down a well-know test to use in figuring out whether a law or other government action goes too far. The point is to balance our rights against legitimate public concerns, like the need not to have people yelling "Fire" in crowded theatres even though the Charter guarantees free speech.

To use this test (the Oakes test) to assess a law that impacts a Charter right you have to ask four questions:

1. Is there a valid purpose for the law? Most of the time, there is.
2. Does the law that was written actually do something that advances that purpose?
3. Is there the least possible amount of infringement of the Charter right the way that the law is written?
4. Overall, when we look at the effect of the law, is it worth the social cost of infringing the right the way that it has?

If the answer to all of these questions is yes, the law passes muster, and it remains in effect. If any court looking at such a law answers no to any of these questions, the law is unconstitutional until a higher court says it isn't. No court has had a reason to look C-36 over this way because there haven't been any prosecutions that I'm aware of. But it is very unlikely that C-36 would fail to get the required four yesses from a court.

 

[westwoody]

Bear in mind this is the same poster who thinks pussy should be affordable.

 

[Papacito]

[Stuff]

Of all of the problems facing Canadian society, it's a pretty tough case to say that C-36 ranks #1 , especially since there have been essentially no prosecutions under the law since it came into effect.

If you actually want to know why this law is not unconstitutional --which seems unlikely given your post history-- I'll try to explain it. What it boils down to though is that your opposition to a law does not necessarily make it unconstitutional. Neither does the fact that certain people, e.g. Johns, are discriminated against. The law against murder discriminates against murderers; it's constitutional.

Section 1 of the Charter tells us when laws are constitutional even when they limit or infringe a right guaranteed by other parts of the Charter. The Supreme Court laid down a well-know test to use in figuring out whether a law or other government action goes too far. The point is to balance our rights against legitimate public concerns, like the need not to have people yelling "Fire" in crowded theatres even though the Charter guarantees free speech.

To use this test (the Oakes test) to assess a law that impacts a Charter right you have to ask four questions:

1. Is there a valid purpose for the law? Most of the time, there is.
2. Does the law that was written actually do something that advances that purpose?
3. Is there the least possible amount of infringement of the Charter right the way that the law is written?
4. Overall, when we look at the effect of the law, is it worth the social cost of infringing the right the way that it has?

If the answer to all of these questions is yes, the law passes muster, and it remains in effect. If any court looking at such a law answers no to any of these questions, the law is unconstitutional until a higher court says it isn't. No court has had a reason to look C-36 over this way because there haven't been any prosecutions that I'm aware of. But it is very unlikely that C-36 would fail to get the required four yesses from a court.

Rufus, you clearly have legal background, and your input is appreciated. At the same time some of your statements are quite vague and not exactly relevant.

May be C-36 doesn't rank #1, but the government somehow made it #1 of all of the problems facing Canadian society, and found all the time and resources in the world to implement it. Make no mistake who made it # 1. And considering how grossly it violates the Charter and fundamental principles of justice, it is in fact #1.

You examples of "the law against murder discriminates against murderers" and "the need not to have people yelling "Fire" in crowded theatres even though the Charter guarantees free speech" do not make any sense. Any limitation of freedoms is based on protecting freedoms of other individuals. Murdering another individual will definitely infringe his/her right to life, and that's the only reason why law discriminates against murderers. Yelling "Fire" infringes the safety of other individuals, so discrimination is warranted in this case as well. Paying for sex does NOT infringe the rights of other individuals because consensual adult sex is obviously not a crime, so paying for it is not a crime either. So why would you discriminate against "johns"?


You claim that it is very unlikely that C-36 would fail to get the required four yesses from a court, but don't explain how it would be possible, even in theory. Could you, please, clarify it? Four yesses IMHO, when it comes to C-36, would be possible only in ideologically driven totalitarian society. Government claiming that ALL SP are "victims" of sexual exploitation without providing any proof, just in order to be able to persecute "johns" as a social group, and establishing guilt by association with this group; and not a single court putting a stop to it in a timely manner? How is this possible in a free and democratic society based on the rule of law?

 

[Papacito]

Bear in mind this is the same poster who thinks pussy should be affordable.

If you don't have any positive experience with "affordable pussy", maybe at least do some research BEFORE making idiotic statements. Or do some travel outside the barbaric Vancouver (Europe, Asia just to give you a clue). SPs' services are ALWAYS affordable in places where prostitution is regulated, and based purely on supply and demand, not on fraud. If SPs' provide legit services without defrauding their clients, they have to cater to general public based on what most individuals can afford. So SPs in this case must be affordable in order to achieve sustainable profitability.

 

[westwoody]

If you don't have any positive experience with "affordable pussy", maybe at least do some research BEFORE making idiotic statements. Or do some travel outside the barbaric Vancouver (Europe, Asia just to give you a clue). SPs' services are ALWAYS affordable in places where prostitution is regulated, and based purely on supply and demand, not on fraud. If SPs' provide legit services without defrauding their clients, they have to cater to general public based on what most individuals can afford. So SPs in this case must be affordable in order to achieve sustainable profitability.

ROTFLMAO, the common folk always are so entertaining.

Trolling or total lack of reading comprehension, whichever you are, that was a good laugh.

 

[Warl0ck]

Tell it to the government. Last time I checked the bill is still in force. Good to see you at least have somewhat of a backup for your naked rhetoric. Here's a suggestion, offer me money to have sex with you and when I report you to the cops you can mount a charter challenge

Well technically reporting him to the cops wouldn't elicit a criminal charge Goldhunter. It requires more than accusations, but you know that, right #wink.

 

[Warl0ck]

If he wants a charter challenge he will admit the allegations I suppose. No need to go to the cops either. If he wants to fast track it I can complain directly to a Crown prosecutor, since they need to lay the charge

I'd be happy to offer my services in digital forensics. Just looking out for you regardless of your choice of shitty cars #wink

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Rufus, you clearly have legal background, and your input is appreciated. At the same time some of your statements are quite vague and not exactly relevant.

May be C-36 doesn't rank #1, but the government somehow made it #1 of all of the problems facing Canadian society, and found all the time and resources in the world to implement it. Make no mistake who made it # 1. And considering how grossly it violates the Charter and fundamental principles of justice, it is in fact #1.

You examples of "the law against murder discriminates against murderers" and "the need not to have people yelling "Fire" in crowded theatres even though the Charter guarantees free speech" do not make any sense. Any limitation of freedoms is based on protecting freedoms of other individuals. Murdering another individual will definitely infringe his/her right to life, and that's the only reason why law discriminates against murderers. Yelling "Fire" infringes the safety of other individuals, so discrimination is warranted in this case as well. Paying for sex does NOT infringe the rights of other individuals because consensual adult sex is obviously not a crime, so paying for it is not a crime either. So why would you discriminate against "johns"?


You claim that it is very unlikely that C-36 would fail to get the required four yesses from a court, but don't explain how it would be possible, even in theory. Could you, please, clarify it? Four yesses IMHO, when it comes to C-36, would be possible only in ideologically driven totalitarian society. Government claiming that ALL SP are "victims" of sexual exploitation without providing any proof, just in order to be able to persecute "johns" as a social group, and establishing guilt by association with this group; and not a single court putting a stop to it in a timely manner? How is this possible in a free and democratic society based on the rule of law?

The courts don't make laws. When they review laws for constitutional validity, they don't assess the validity of legislative objectives, only their existence. That's the rule of law at work right there.

Parliament makes laws. The party that the people elected to power decides what the legislative priorities are and enacts legislation to meet them. That's democracy in action. It could be that you or I don't agree with the legislative objective. That's why we get to vote every four years.

So the Oakes test as it applies to this Bill is likely something like this:

1. Is there a valid legislative objective? Yes, to protect women from exploitation and other members of society from exposure to prostitution.
2. Does the law actually connect to that purpose? Yes. Specific provisions protect unwilling victims of prostitution. Others criminalize purchasing sex to depress the market for prostitutes, thereby reducing the incentive to enter that life.
3. Is there minimal impairment of Charter rights? Yes. The old prostitution laws failed here in the Bedford decision because the offences actually endangered working women, thereby unnecessarily depriving them of security of the person. This model imposes potential liability on the customers, and does so without significant other erosions of their Charter-based rights. What actual right would you say is being denied or limited here? The Charter does not guarantee the right to a free-market economy for sexual services.
4. Is the law proportional? Sure. It isn't necessary to make it illegal, but it's not unconstitutional to do so.

 

[Papacito]

The courts don't make laws. When they review laws for constitutional validity, they don't assess the validity of legislative objectives, only their existence. That's the rule of law at work right there.

Parliament makes laws. The party that the people elected to power decides what the legislative priorities are and enacts legislation to meet them. That's democracy in action. It could be that you or I don't agree with the legislative objective. That's why we get to vote every four years.

So the Oakes test as it applies to this Bill is likely something like this:

1. Is there a valid legislative objective? Yes, to protect women from exploitation and other members of society from exposure to prostitution.
2. Does the law actually connect to that purpose? Yes. Specific provisions protect unwilling victims of prostitution. Others criminalize purchasing sex to depress the market for prostitutes, thereby reducing the incentive to enter that life.
3. Is there minimal impairment of Charter rights? Yes. The old prostitution laws failed here in the Bedford decision because the offences actually endangered working women, thereby unnecessarily depriving them of security of the person. This model imposes potential liability on the customers, and does so without significant other erosions of their Charter-based rights. What actual right would you say is being denied or limited here? The Charter does not guarantee the right to a free-market economy for sexual services.
4. Is the law proportional? Sure. It isn't necessary to make it illegal, but it's not unconstitutional to do so.

"The courts don't make laws. When they review laws for constitutional validity, they don't assess the validity of legislative objectives, only their existence." That's a good point! So we don't expect courts to tell the government they are wrong in their intentions, but, still, isn't any new law supposed not to contradict the constitution (Charter)? Correct me if I'm wrong, Rufus, but the main reason why constitution exists (which is called "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" in Canada) is to make sure certain major laws create the basis for any other laws. Charter rights are very basic and general and provide guidelines which actually define the country as being free, democratic and ruled by law. Not following these guidelines defies the purpose of having the constitution, so any speculation like it may be OK to violate this or that charter right under some circumstances; or it's OK because a violation is minor; or it's OK because a purpose is good and the society will benefit from it is unacceptable. Any violation of the Charter, no matter what the reason is, would have grave consequences for the society, and only possible and warranted under extreme circumstances (e.g. state of emergency / martial law). That's why changing the Charter is not as easy as adopting a new law by simple majority vote in the Parliament.

Keep in mind, that C-36 is about CRIMINAL prosecution (which may result in jail time), so the burden of proof is not "balance of probabilities", but "beyond the reasonable doubt". So even from that perspective we can't say it's OK to "minimally" impair charter rights due to minor consequences. Consequences are major (criminal record / jail). Also I would question the whole idea of "minimal impairment of Charter rights" - since the Charter is the MAJOR and GENERAL law of Canada, ANY erosion of it can't be considered as minor and, as I mentioned earlier, is warranted only under extreme and rare circumstances, defined by law.

You claim that "This model imposes potential liability on the customers, and does so without significant other erosions of their Charter-based rights. What actual right would you say is being denied or limited here? The Charter does not guarantee the right to a free-market economy for sexual services." Well, the Charter guaranties that the law must be applied exactly the same way to everyone ("Every individual is equal before and under the law") Selling sex is legal, buying is not? Legal nonsense! Gross Charter violation! Why customers are treated differently under the law than SPs? Filming porn and selling it is legal (which mean paying actors to have sex), buying sex is not? WTF? C-36 targets certain social group and that’s why the Government applies the law selectively, and this kind of law application means persecution.

The Charter guaranties "the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." Potentially going to jail for consensual adult sex? Not for sex with minors, not for rape, just for something as natural for a human being as it could be - the desire to have sex. Pay for it - go to jail! Cruel, unusual, barbaric? Hell, yes!!! The Charter is violated again!

The Charter also "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So why would you consider limiting consensual adult sex in a free and democratic society as reasonable? Whether I pay for it or not is no one else's business because sex is as personal as it gets - that's my Charter right to liberty!

And now the most interesting part - prosecution. The Charter guarantees the right not to be deprived of liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. At least two of the principles of fundamental justice are grossly violated:

- Arbitrariness: the state cannot limit an individual's rights where "it bears no relation to, or is inconsistent with, the objective that lies behind it." Prosecuting people who buy sex to reduce demand for prostitution, right? Demand for prostitution is demand for sex. But demand for sex is not created by prostitution, and sex is not illegal. "Johns" do not organize prostitution, so they can't be held liable for it.

- Overbreadth: this principle is violated when the government, in pursuing a "legitimate objective", uses "means" that unnecessarily and disproportionately interfere with an individual's rights. Does it ring the bell? Even if we agree with the government that the prostitution is "bad", it's not an excuse to criminally prosecute people who buy consensual adult sex.

Considering all of the above, how come courts have never suspended this gross lawlessness and Charter violations? I can suggest only one explanation: they haven't done it because they are not independent - their major task is not to inconvenience the government at any cost, forget about protecting fundamental rights and freedoms.

 

[storm rider]

You want a lack of democracy ?
Try our first-past-the-post electoral system. 39% of the vote, but absolute power in the House of Commons. Most MP's don't even represent a majority of their own constituency's voters; most votes are actually wasted, basically meaningless.
Until that gets fixed, we're not really a democracy, just a sad excuse for one.

Justin Trudeau campaigned promising he'd enact electoral reform. And then last week after all those promises, committee hearings, town halls, and surveys, he decided to throw the whole effort into the trash bin.

Well, his party won't be getting my strategic vote again.

If it aint broke dont fix it.For each riding every party puts forth a candidate.Canadians cast their votes and in each riding the candidate with the most votes wins the riding.The party with the most seats forms government.I suppose you think
proportional representation is a good thing.Makes so much sense that say the Green party gets say 15% of the popular vote and thusly gets awarded 15% of the seats in the house of commons even though they would not have won a single seat by actually winning via counted ballots.Yeah lets have participation trophy politics in Canada then we can be just as screwed up as Germany with it's constant coalition governments.

I cant think of a nastier outcome for canadians after a federal election than an NDP/Green party coalition government made possible by proportional representation.

There is nothing wrong with our electoral process.The only bad thing about it is the pathetically low voter turn out at the polls.

SR

 

[westwoody]

If we had proportional representation people would vote differently.
NDP/Green would be disaster.

 

[rlock]

If it aint broke dont fix it.
There is nothing wrong with our electoral process.The only bad thing about it is the pathetically low voter turn out at the polls.

Except it is broke. For nearly a century - since the country had more than 2 parties.

It doesn't matter which parties; they can all be scrapped and the core problems would still remain: the FPTP system attacks free choice and grants power to those that do not have enough support to legitimately claim they represent us.

Don't expect high voter turnout when the system fails the voters, who to have to hold their nose every time they vote.

Go see how it works in other countries, in real democracies. You've been eating fast food for so long that if someone offers steak, you turn it down.

 

[Papacito]

If it aint broke dont fix it.For each riding every party puts forth a candidate.Canadians cast their votes and in each riding the candidate with the most votes wins the riding.The party with the most seats forms government.I suppose you think
proportional representation is a good thing.Makes so much sense that say the Green party gets say 15% of the popular vote and thusly gets awarded 15% of the seats in the house of commons even though they would not have won a single seat by actually winning via counted ballots.Yeah lets have participation trophy politics in Canada then we can be just as screwed up as Germany with it's constant coalition governments.

I cant think of a nastier outcome for canadians after a federal election than an NDP/Green party coalition government made possible by proportional representation.

There is nothing wrong with our electoral process.The only bad thing about it is the pathetically low voter turn out at the polls.

SR

First Past The Post has a few alternatives, not just Proportional Representation. "If it aint broke dont fix it"? The problem with FPTP is not that it is broken, but that it is undemocratic, inherently fraudulent and unconstitutional.

- FPTP allows a candidate with less than 50% of votes to get elected (sometimes it may be as low as 15-20%). Democracy by definition is the rule of the majority. So those candidates don't have mandate from their voters to represent them.

- FPTP deprives many Canadian citizens of their Charter right to vote. If you are not lucky enough to vote for a candidate who gets relative majority (e.g. 30%), your vote will be thrown into the garbage right away and will have no bearing whatsoever on the election outcome. This way about 5 milling voters lose their right to vote at each federal election. And that's in a country with the total population of 35 million.

What do we have right now as a result of the last fraudulent federal election? Trudeau the Imposter, who was rejected by 61% of voters, is our prime minister. His party got absolute majority of seats in the parliament with only 39% of votes. The number of seats they got corresponds to getting around 55% of votes. So the margin of error was 16%. And potentially it could be more than that. Who the fuck needs elections with 15-20% margin of error? One has to be an illiterate retard or a scammer to even seriously consider anything like that. But given that this is done deliberately - this is called FRAUD!

 

[summerbreeze]

"blows my mind how any normal person with some common sense may even consider Bill C-36 as legitimate and constitutional. It is based purely on extremist ideology and persecution. And the fact that it is not suspended yet by "independent judiciary" means we don't have any... Yes, it may be eventually striken down by higher courts but it doesn't mean much, as in the meantime (and we are talking a few years at least) law abiding citizens and taxpayers will be brutally and arbitrary persecuted by the totalitarian government."


cant wait for this moron to get punted for being the troll he is

try reviewing escorts on this board rather than stirring up controversy and gossip

and your self appointed expert opinion should be applied on some other board

 

[Papacito]

"blows my mind how any normal person with some common sense may even consider Bill C-36 as legitimate and constitutional. It is based purely on extremist ideology and persecution. And the fact that it is not suspended yet by "independent judiciary" means we don't have any... Yes, it may be eventually striken down by higher courts but it doesn't mean much, as in the meantime (and we are talking a few years at least) law abiding citizens and taxpayers will be brutally and arbitrary persecuted by the totalitarian government."


cant wait for this moron to get punted for being the troll he is

try reviewing escorts on this board rather than stirring up controversy and gossip

and your self appointed expert opinion should be applied on some other board

This thread has been started in "The Lounge. Open discussion area for all". The topic of this thread is directly related to the purpose of this board's existence. The topic of this thread has always been extremely controversial, so I can't really add more to it. I've never made any statement in this thread, which I haven't supported by logical arguments and references to the existing legislation and Charter. Where do you see trolling?

If intellectual discussion is more than what you can handle, it doesn't mean someone is trolling. Please, stop spamming my thread unless you have something that would make sense to say.

 

[westwoody]

cant wait for this moron to get punted for being the troll he is

try reviewing escorts on this board rather than stirring up controversy and gossip

and your self appointed expert opinion should be applied on some other board

I think he's pretty funny, don't take him seriously.

 

[Papacito]

I think he's pretty funny, don't take him seriously.

Is it some kind of a Canadian thing I didn't know about: any intellectual conversation is perceived as offensive or funny?