NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, at least that is what our new Justice Minister claims.

Despite never once mentioning it as an issue during the election, the first order of business he intends to tackle is to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/07/toews-justice060207.html)



Nice to see that the new government's priorities are in line with the citizens. Because I can't count how many times on CPAC during the debates that people were phoning in asking "B-b-b-b-but what about teens f*cking!? When is this government going to do something about THAT!!!!".


Yep, it almost seemed like that was every second call didn't it?

Hey! I've always liked <<insert NS General inappropriate behavior here>>!

Who says that <<more NS General inappropriate topic>> is a bad thing for anyone?

I think that Canada is finally getting as progressive as some parts of the US...

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that two Quebec swingers' clubs did not breach decency standards when they allowed group sex to take place on their premises. The reasoning: orgies do not cause harm to society.

I'm all for <<insert NS General inappropriate topic here>>.

Darnit, I was planning on going to Canada. I'll have to wait 2 more years....or find some nearby state with 14 as the age of consent....Where's that website again...

About fucking time someone fucking did something about those fucking teens fucking around. :rolleyes:

About fucking time someone fucking did something about those fucking teens fucking around. :rolleyes:

You think Canada has a problem with <<insert NS General inappropriate topic here>>?

The main reason I keep getting temporary forumbans is because I say something like the person I just quoted (he said it, I didn't).

Darnit, I was planning on going to Canada. I'll have to wait 2 more years....or find some nearby state with 14 as the age of consent....Where's that website again...http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

go to mexico, there it's 12.

Hey! I've always liked <<insert NS General inappropriate behavior here>>!

Who says that <<more NS General inappropriate topic>> is a bad thing for anyone?

I think that Canada is finally getting as progressive as some parts of the US...



I'm all for <<insert NS General inappropriate topic here>>.


Well, we have a minority government looking to rectify all that now.... and my bet is that this is just an early test to see what sort of response they get. A social issue such as this is normally NOT stated to be the highest priority of an incoming government, but this clearly puts out the word that legislating morality is on the agenda - even if they only try to go after small chunks for now until they solidify their position (they hope) with a majorty government in the future.

14 is already too high.

If you can bleed, you can breed.

edit, it turns out that they're tacking this stuff onto a bill to help out with gun violence.

Still stupid though.

You think Canada has a problem with <<insert NS General inappropriate topic here>>?Nah, not really. I was being satirical (or attempting to, at least).

The main reason I keep getting temporary forumbans is because I say something like the person I just quoted (he said it, I didn't).Really? I thought gratuitous swearing was allowed.
Besides, it's the fourth most commonly used english word after 'is', 'the' and 'a' ;)

Because everyone knows that teens f*cking is really the cause of gun violence...

14?
Lucky canadian buggers.
Your new Justice Minister is clearly an idiot. Poor Canadians.

If you can bleed, you can breed.They shouldn't though.

Nah, not really. I was being satirical (or attempting to, at least).

Really? I thought gratuitous swearing was allowed.
Besides, it's the fourth most commonly used english word after 'is', 'the' and 'a' ;)

If someone complains that they're offended by it, or someone thinks you're trying to imply sex, then ZZZZZAP!

The problem in Canada is sex.
Too much or not enough???

My personal problem right now is not enough! :p

edit, it turns out that they're tacking this stuff onto a bill to help out with gun violence.

Still stupid though.
I don't see how the two relate...

Hey, just because you can't bleed doesn't mean you shouldn't breed!

I don't see how the two relate...


You'll find that out when 14 year-olds whose parents own guns suddenly get told they have to wait two more years before they can have sex....

I don't see how the two relate...
They don't. They probably just put them together so people can't vote against their unnecessary socially conservative law without also voting against the necessary gun law.

They don't. They probably just put them together so people can't vote against their unnecessary socially conservative law without also voting against the necessary gun law.

I'll be polite and not argue gun laws in Canada. By some miracle, we managed to drop gun violence in the US by 65 percent without reducing the number of guns on the street.

They don't. They probably just put them together so people can't vote against their unnecessary socially conservative law without also voting against the necessary gun law.with the same logic you could say, that people cant vote for this necessary childprotecting law without also voting against the right to self defense.

I'll be polite and not argue gun laws in Canada. By some miracle, we managed to drop gun violence in the US by 65 percent without reducing the number of guns on the street.
And by some miracle, 50% of the guns used in crimes in Canada came from the states.

with the same logic you could say, that people cant vote for this necessary childprotecting law without also voting against the right to self defense.
...This is Canada, not the U.S. on average we have a different view of guns.

Most guns are actually used for hunting here. We own more guns per capita than the U.S., however, they're not used for self defense usually, they're used for getting food.

And by some miracle, 50% of the guns used in crimes in Canada came from the states.
So that's how we're doing it...

And by some miracle, 50% of the guns used in crimes in Canada came from the states.

The major reduction in firearm violence, firearm murder (and violent crime overall) in the US occured over a time when gun ownership increased from 200 million to 300 million guns - when assault weapons, which were previously rarely bought, were bought wholesale due to fears of further restrictions on them.

Two things:

1. Incarceration of people for minor drug offenses. For ten years or more. This picks up trouble off the streets and ages them out.

2. Eliminate housing projects - disperse your welfare housing recipients among the general population in order to prevent concentrated areas of drugs and crime.

It works far, far better than banning guns, which in the US turned out to be a feel-good measure.

Actually, changing the age of consent to 16 was part of their platform, just not a highly publicized part of it. The problem here isn't about teenagers having sex, there's a 2 year age range that is justifiable by law. Which means that in the current state of affairs, a 14 year old can have sex with a 12 year old, legally (pictures, drawings or diary entries describing the event are a strict no-no, as is handing over money for the act.)

The problem is about finding out your 14 year old daughter is doing it with her 30 year old boyfriend, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. (and the aforementioned 14 and 12 year-old thing.)

I doubt the RCMP is going to start raiding classrooms and throwing kids in grade 9 and 10 in jail for 'doing it.'

Two things:

1. Incarceration of people for minor drug offenses. For ten years or more. This picks up trouble off the streets and ages them out.

2. Eliminate housing projects - disperse your welfare housing recipients among the general population in order to prevent concentrated areas of drugs and crime.

1. Yes, let's lock up kids who had a dime bag and release the rapists and violent criminals because the place is overcrowded. That's a good idea. :rolleyes: Personally, I think that legalizing drugs, getting the organized crime element out of the picture and allow legitimate entrepreneurs to set up shop would help lower gun related crimes more than locking away people for minor drug offenses.
2. I don't even know that we have housing projects. I know in Toronto, where there has been a spate of gun crime (which I think is a problem for the mayor of Toronto to fix more than the Prime minister*) it has been concentrated in a poor area, but I don't think it was a housing project so much as run down apartment buildings...


*The prime minister should work with the american government to keep illegal guns from crossing the border and perhaps change the laws regarding guns.

1. Yes, let's lock up kids who had a dime bag and release the rapists and violent criminals because the place is overcrowded. That's a good idea. :rolleyes: Personally, I think that legalizing drugs, getting the organized crime element out of the picture and allow legitimate entrepreneurs to set up shop would help lower gun related crimes more than locking away people for minor drug offenses.

We're not releasing anyone. Prison populations in the US are soaring, and prisons are a thriving private business now.

2. I don't even know that we have housing projects. I know in Toronto, where there has been a spate of gun crime (which I think is a problem for the mayor of Toronto to fix more than the Prime minister*) it has been concentrated in a poor area, but I don't think it was a housing project so much as run down apartment buildings...

You can't have any concentration of them anywhere, especially welfare recipients.

You have to disperse them as widely and as evenly as possible - it really, really works.


*The prime minister should work with the american government to keep illegal guns from crossing the border and perhaps change the laws regarding guns.

Guns can be manufactured to exacting standards by anyone with a knowledge of light machining skills. Guns also tend to last for decades. You could build a wall 100 meters high along the entire border, and strip search everyone who crosses, and dismantle their vehicles down to basic parts, and there would still be illegal guns.

Haven't been able to stop illegal drugs, have you?

Why do you guys have to blame the US for your gun problems? made if you had better cops or something you wouldnt have your problems.

Why do you guys have to blame the US for your gun problems? made if you had better cops or something you wouldnt have your problems.

Shh. It is blasphemy to think or say that guns are the sole cause of gun violence. To suggest that other, more easily addressed social ills are at the root of gun violence is apostasy.

We're not releasing anyone. Prison populations in the US are soaring, and prisons are a thriving private business now.
I don't think that's something to be proud of.

You can't have any concentration of them anywhere, especially welfare recipients.

You have to disperse them as widely and as evenly as possible - it really, really works.
Well, write a letter and suggest this to the mayor of Toronto. It's not the job of the prime minister to deal with the problems in one city.

Guns can be manufactured to exacting standards by anyone with a knowledge of light machining skills. Guns also tend to last for decades. You could build a wall 100 meters high along the entire border, and strip search everyone who crosses, and dismantle their vehicles down to basic parts, and there would still be illegal guns.

Haven't been able to stop illegal drugs, have you?
It is possible to reduce the number... but the american government doesn't like this thing called "cooperation". Also, if the drugs were legal, there would be fewer guns used in crimes...

Why do you guys have to blame the US for your gun problems? made if you had better cops or something you wouldnt have your problems.
I'm not blaming the U.S., I'm saying that half the guns used in crimes come from the U.S.. And yes, there are other problems, especially in Toronto where guns have become a problem. I don't think it's up to the prime minister to deal with Toronto's problems though. It's part of why the rest of Canada hates Toronto and by extention, Ontario...

I'll be polite and not argue gun laws in Canada. By some miracle, we managed to drop gun violence in the US by 65 percent without reducing the number of guns on the street.


The gun issue is very much not the same in our countries.

In the U.S., the guns are out there, you'll never get them off the streets now.

In Canada, our guns are hunting rifles predominatly, and they aren't on the streets. Canadian laws are designed to keep the genie in the bottle.

Actually, changing the age of consent to 16 was part of their platform, just not a highly publicized part of it. The problem here isn't about teenagers having sex, there's a 2 year age range that is justifiable by law. Which means that in the current state of affairs, a 14 year old can have sex with a 12 year old, legally (pictures, drawings or diary entries describing the event are a strict no-no, as is handing over money for the act.)

The problem is about finding out your 14 year old daughter is doing it with her 30 year old boyfriend, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. (and the aforementioned 14 and 12 year-old thing.)

I doubt the RCMP is going to start raiding classrooms and throwing kids in grade 9 and 10 in jail for 'doing it.'

It's illegal for 14 year olds to write about having sex in their diary? That's a pretty retarded law, any 14 year old with a diary is almost definately going to make entries about their sex life.

Let's not seque this into another interminable gun-control debate. Please.


And, after doing much digging, I discovered that the raising of the age of majority IS indeed buried in their policy document, although I have found zero record of any member ever mentioning it in speech or debate.

It is one of their line-items on how best to deal more effectively with sex crimes. The full list is:

A Conservative government will:
• Require the registration of all convicted sex offenders and dangerous offenders. The registry will include mandatory DNA sampling of all those convicted or currently in custody on such offences.

• Rename the Age of Consent to the Age of Protection and raise the age from 14 to 16 years of age to stop adults from sexually exploiting vulnerable young people.

• Adopt a zero tolerance policy for child pornography, eliminating the so-called “legitimate purpose” defence.

• Prohibit conditional sentences for sex offences committed against children. Anyone who commits these crimes should serve prison time.

• Amend s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code (the provisions that recently allowed Karla Homolka to avoid post-sentencing supervision) to permit the participation of the prosecutors involved in the original trial, as well as the victims of the crime and their families, at the hearing. Allow judges to impose residency restrictions on offenders, and extend the term of the order.


However, I still find it odd that it's the consentual sex that they target first from a policy perspective, and indeed that amids the rest of their crime and security package that this even cracks the top 20.

But there it is. Our first justice priority.





Go figure.

It's illegal for 14 year olds to write about having sex in their diary? That's a pretty retarded law, any 14 year old with a diary is almost definately going to make entries about their sex life.
I would think he means publishing such.

However, I still find it odd that it's the consentual sex that they target first from a policy perspective, and indeed that amids the rest of their crime and security package that this even cracks the top 20.

Perhaps it is the easiest to enact.

Let's not seque this into another interminable gun-control debate. Please.


And, after doing much digging, I discovered that the raising of the age of majority IS indeed buried in their policy document, although I have found zero record of any member ever mentioning it in speech or debate.

It is one of their line-items on how best to deal more effectively with sex crimes. The full list is:

A Conservative government will:
• Require the registration of all convicted sex offenders and dangerous offenders. The registry will include mandatory DNA sampling of all those convicted or currently in custody on such offences.

• Rename the Age of Consent to the Age of Protection and raise the age from 14 to 16 years of age to stop adults from sexually exploiting vulnerable young people.

• Adopt a zero tolerance policy for child pornography, eliminating the so-called “legitimate purpose” defence.

• Prohibit conditional sentences for sex offences committed against children. Anyone who commits these crimes should serve prison time.

• Amend s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code (the provisions that recently allowed Karla Homolka to avoid post-sentencing supervision) to permit the participation of the prosecutors involved in the original trial, as well as the victims of the crime and their families, at the hearing. Allow judges to impose residency restrictions on offenders, and extend the term of the order.


However, I still find it odd that it's the consentual sex that they target first from a policy perspective, and indeed that amids the rest of their crime and security package that this even cracks the top 20.

But there it is. Our first justice priority.





Go figure.


So, how would this have prevented the Homolka thing? The part mentioned seems to address the post-prison situation, not the precipitating event.

Is changing the age of consent really going to stop men in their mid-20s from having sex with 14 year old girls?

Eh?

Let's not seque this into another interminable gun-control debate. Please.


And, after doing much digging, I discovered that the raising of the age of majority IS indeed buried in their policy document, although I have found zero record of any member ever mentioning it in speech or debate.

It is one of their line-items on how best to deal more effectively with sex crimes. The full list is:

A Conservative government will:
• Require the registration of all convicted sex offenders and dangerous offenders. The registry will include mandatory DNA sampling of all those convicted or currently in custody on such offences.

• Rename the Age of Consent to the Age of Protection and raise the age from 14 to 16 years of age to stop adults from sexually exploiting vulnerable young people.

• Adopt a zero tolerance policy for child pornography, eliminating the so-called “legitimate purpose” defence.

• Prohibit conditional sentences for sex offences committed against children. Anyone who commits these crimes should serve prison time.

• Amend s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code (the provisions that recently allowed Karla Homolka to avoid post-sentencing supervision) to permit the participation of the prosecutors involved in the original trial, as well as the victims of the crime and their families, at the hearing. Allow judges to impose residency restrictions on offenders, and extend the term of the order.


However, I still find it odd that it's the consentual sex that they target first from a policy perspective, and indeed that amids the rest of their crime and security package that this even cracks the top 20.

But there it is. Our first justice priority.





Go figure.
This election the conservatives kept a lid on the social conservative issues. If they hadn't managed to shut up the more extreme members of their party, they wouldn't be in office now. Like last time... you had one person spout off about gays being evil, another about severely restricting abortions, voters run off, conservatives lose. This time everyone cooperated and the liberals managed to fall to pieces and the conservatives won.

This election the conservatives kept a lid on the social conservative issues. If they hadn't managed to shut up the more extreme members of their party, they wouldn't be in office now. Like last time... you had one person spout off about gays being evil, another about severely restricting abortions, voters run off, conservatives lose. This time everyone cooperated and the liberals managed to fall to pieces and the conservatives won.
Aye; it's a game. And one that has Martin red-faced, incredulous, pointing and shouting, "...but they don't say HOW they are going to do it!"

It's illegal for 14 year olds to write about having sex in their diary? That's a pretty retarded law, any 14 year old with a diary is almost definately going to make entries about their sex life.

Canada has very loose worded child pornography laws. For example, there was a high profile case in BC where a man felt that he should be allowed to draw images of naked children for his own use, and his appeal was thrown out. Part of the irony of Canada's age of consent, is that teenagers can have sex, but can suffer legal ramifications for photographs and the like.

It's kind of Canada's 'Patriot Act' for child pornography. They give themselves lots of legal leeway so they can hunt down sexual predators.

Canada has very loose worded child pornography laws. For example, there was a high profile case in BC where a man felt that he should be allowed to draw images of naked children for his own use, and his appeal was thrown out. Part of the irony of Canada's age of consent, is that teenagers can have sex, but can suffer legal ramifications for photographs and the like.

It's kind of Canada's 'Patriot Act' for child pornography. They give themselves lots of legal leeway so they can hunt down sexual predators.
Still, the 14-year old's diary entry cannot become an issue unless the document gets into the hands of the public, or for some reason is brought into the light. Our Charter guarantees protection against 'unreasonable search and seizure.'

• Rename the Age of Consent to the Age of Protection and raise the age from 14 to 16 years of age to stop adults from sexually exploiting vulnerable young people.



vulnerable young people? what century do that live in? most of the 14 year olds I know who are sexually active WANT to have sex, especially with older men.


• Adopt a zero tolerance policy for child pornography, eliminating the so-called “legitimate purpose” defence.


So the RCMP trying to crack down on prostitution would also get thrown into prison? good move on the government's part to eliminate Canada's police force.


However, I still find it odd that it's the consentual sex that they target first from a policy perspective, and indeed that amids the rest of their crime and security package that this even cracks the top 20.

But there it is. Our first justice priority.

Go figure.

That's the Tories for you. But then again, they KNOW a conservative minority has a lifespan of a mosquito, so they're trying to get the angry parents on their side? i'm still scratching my head over the reason behind this. Hey, they might just want to destroy the Canadian way of life. Who knows?

Well, at least that is what our new Justice Minister claims.

Despite never once mentioning it as an issue during the election, the first order of business he intends to tackle is to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/07/toews-justice060207.html)



Nice to see that the new government's priorities are in line with the citizens. Because I can't count how many times on CPAC during the debates that people were phoning in asking "B-b-b-b-but what about teens f*cking!? When is this government going to do something about THAT!!!!".

Yep, it almost seemed like that was every second call didn't it?Y'know, it's going to be a real pleasure to turf these arseholes out on their ham-handed moralistic prairie-boy duffs.

Too much or not enough???

My personal problem right now is not enough! :p
I concur. Not enough it is.

Sex should be mandatory.

Is there an issue about this? If not, why am I not writing it right now?

Sex is bad, Mkay? The mods say so and so to the conservatives around the world so it must be true.

Well, at least that is what our new Justice Minister claims.

Despite never once mentioning it as an issue during the election, the first order of business he intends to tackle is to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/07/toews-justice060207.html)
Stupid law, IMO.

Still, the 14-year old's diary entry cannot become an issue unless the document gets into the hands of the public, or for some reason is brought into the light. Our Charter guarantees protection against 'unreasonable search and seizure.'

I know nobodies going to charge a 14 yr old girl for writing something in her diary, it was an extreme example. However, I believe posession alone is punishable by law, publication isn't necessary.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.163.1.html

Let's not seque this into another interminable gun-control debate. Please.


And, after doing much digging, I discovered that the raising of the age of majority IS indeed buried in their policy document, although I have found zero record of any member ever mentioning it in speech or debate.

It is one of their line-items on how best to deal more effectively with sex crimes. The full list is:

A Conservative government will:
• Require the registration of all convicted sex offenders and dangerous offenders. The registry will include mandatory DNA sampling of all those convicted or currently in custody on such offences.

• Rename the Age of Consent to the Age of Protection and raise the age from 14 to 16 years of age to stop adults from sexually exploiting vulnerable young people.

• Adopt a zero tolerance policy for child pornography, eliminating the so-called “legitimate purpose” defence.

• Prohibit conditional sentences for sex offences committed against children. Anyone who commits these crimes should serve prison time.

• Amend s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code (the provisions that recently allowed Karla Homolka to avoid post-sentencing supervision) to permit the participation of the prosecutors involved in the original trial, as well as the victims of the crime and their families, at the hearing. Allow judges to impose residency restrictions on offenders, and extend the term of the order.


However, I still find it odd that it's the consentual sex that they target first from a policy perspective, and indeed that amids the rest of their crime and security package that this even cracks the top 20.

But there it is. Our first justice priority.





Go figure.

I'm going to go against the grain and agree with the majority of this list, is the Canadian population of NS comprised mainly of NDP voters or what? :confused:

I'm going to go against the grain and agree with the majority of this list, is the Canadian population of NS comprised mainly of NDP voters or what? :confused:
The Canadian population at large did not elect Harper and his clique in order for him and his lieutenants to promulgate their personal pet projects and pursue issues that did not form a part of the official stated policy of the Conservative Party in the recent elections. That this is occurring under a minority government is all the more disturbing.

It speaks volumes of the air of presumption and entitlement that wafts from the Tory benches - and this odiousness is centered on one man in particular - Steven Harper, who demands accountability while in Opposition, but who shirks it in office - immediately after taking office. The same Steven Harper who worked the backrooms and made a dishonest man of Peter MacKay. The Same Steven Harper who made deals with Separatists in his quest for political dominance.

Is anyone other than me glad we didn't hand these parochial, backwater bastards an actual Parliamentary majority?

Well, at least that is what our new Justice Minister claims.

Despite never once mentioning it as an issue during the election, the first order of business he intends to tackle is to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/07/toews-justice060207.html)


How can 14 years old be enough to make an informed decision about having sexual relations with someone ? at 14 many kids arn't even fully developed.. As wel kids are more suseptiable to manipulation, especially by adults who often are seen as authoritative figures. 16 is a little young but man.. 14!?!?! why not 10..

How can 14 years old be enough to make an informed decision about having sexual relations with someone ? at 14 many kids arn't even fully developed.. As wel kids are more suseptiable to manipulation, especially by adults who often are seen as authoritative figures. 16 is a little young but man.. 14!?!?! why not 10..
I don't know about that. I was sexually active as a pre-teen, and by age 12 I'd completed an exhaustive, year-long course on human sexuality. I was thrilled when I finally had turned 14.

I don't know about that. I was sexually active as a pre-teen, and by age 12 I'd completed an exhaustive, year-long course on human sexuality. I was thrilled when I finally had turned 14.

I think your misunderstanding the raising of the age of consent...

I think your misunderstanding the raising of the age of consent...
In what way do you feel that I am misunderstanding it?

The Canadian population at large did not elect Harper and his clique in order for him and his lieutenants to promulgate their personal pet projects and pursue issues that did not form a part of the official stated policy of the Conservative Party in the recent elections. That this is occurring under a minority government is all the more disturbing.

It speaks volumes of the air of presumption and entitlement that wafts from the Tory benches - and this odiousness is centered on one man in particular - Steven Harper, who demands accountability while in Opposition, but who shirks it in office - immediately after taking office. The same Steven Harper who worked the backrooms and made a dishonest man of Peter MacKay. The Same Steven Harper who made deals with Separatists in his quest for political dominance.

Is anyone other than me glad we didn't hand these parochial, backwater bastards an actual Parliamentary majority?

Ever think that comments like 'parochial, backwater bastards' is why the Conservatives are in power? Canada's a little bigger than Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

Harper's a dumbass for his latest hipocritical actions, but if that doesn't prove the need for senate reform, than what else does? The real problem with our current political situation is the BQ. How can we ever have realistic political opposition when an entire province is held by separatists, and the biggest province is too scared of 'the hicks' to vote anything but Liberal.

Hell, if it weren't for Paul Martin consistently putting his foot in his mouth, we'd have yet another Liberal government that does whatever it feels like, regardless of what it campaigned on.

At least the conservatives are quickly moving on items which are part of their platform. Welcome to Democracy folks.

At least the conservatives are quickly moving on items which are part of their platform. Welcome to Democracy folks.
Welcome to Demagoguery is more like it. And say hello to your welcome wagon. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/reaction.html)

Welcome to Demagoguery is more like it. And say hello to your welcome wagon. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/reaction.html)
Wait, so did this guy jump parties to join cabinet? 'Cause a PM can pick anyone from any party for their cabinet.

Wait, so did this guy jump parties to join cabinet? 'Cause a PM can pick anyone from any party for their cabinet.
Quite right. This man will be the former member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway just as soon as his constituents can manage it, I'll tell you that.

If he ever dares to show his face around there ever again. Which I doubt.

Wait, so did this guy jump parties to join cabinet? 'Cause a PM can pick anyone from any party for their cabinet.

Really? Didn't know that... can't see why someone would want to do that in these partisan days we live in.

And thanks for the welcome wagon 'Bobs'. Makes me feel all warm and gushy inside. ;)

Quite right. This man will be the former member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway just as soon as his constituents can manage it, I'll tell you that.

If he ever dares to show his face around there ever again. Which I doubt.

I thought the same about Stronach.

I thought the same about Stronach.
I'll give Stronach this much; she gave it a year. This guy Emerson was already a Liberal cabinet member, fer cryin' out loud - with no complaints - and two weeks after being re-elected as a Liberal, crosses the floor for the promise of a cabinet position?

The stench of opportunism is overpowering. This is accountability in government?

I'll give Stronach this much; she gave it a year. This guy Emerson was already a Liberal cabinet member, fer cryin' out loud - with no complaints - and two weeks after being re-elected as a Liberal, crosses the floor for the promise of a cabinet position?

The stench of opportunism is overpowering. This is accountability in government?

Your right... it's very smelly. What gets me wondering though, is that I can see why Harpers going through the motions here. It smells, kinda like his 'free vote on same-sex marriage', but it means the liberals have one less seat, he has one more, which means that all of a sudden, the Conservatives and NDP can hold the balance of power. Stinks but... thats politics for ya.

Emerson though? Does he have a political future after this? Who knows. I thought Belinda was done for too. Damn girl broke all our Conservative hearts. :(

I thought the same about Stronach.
She should have been a liberal to begin with, if you listen to what she says and compare it to the conservative party line...

I also think that people voted for her because she's her, not her party... if these people voted for the man because he was running as a liberal and then jumped less than a month after the election, it's a bit of a different situation.

She should have been a liberal to begin with, if you listen to what she says and compare it to the conservative party line...

I also think that people voted for her because she's her, not her party... if these people voted for the man because he was running as a liberal and then jumped less than a month after the election, it's a bit of a different situation.

So you have asked every person that voted for Emerson if they voted for him because he was a liberal or because he was Emerson?

So you have asked every person that voted for Emerson if they voted for him because he was a liberal or because he was Emerson?
No, I haven't, however since you seem to have ignored the entire rest of my post... it seems a little underhanded to jump ship less than a month after the election, especially after saying some harsh words towards the conservatives during the election.

No, I haven't, however since you seem to have ignored the entire rest of my post... it seems a little underhanded to jump ship less than a month after the election, especially after saying some harsh words towards the conservatives during the election.

He was asked to jump ship, Belinda wasn't. I don't like it that much, but it is a minor issue to me right now.

He was asked to jump ship, Belinda wasn't. I don't like it that much, but it is a minor issue to me right now.
I wasn't making it an issue, someone else brought it up, I responded.

Too much or not enough???

My personal problem right now is not enough! :p

You kiddin'? It's wintertime. People huddle together at night, etc. Sex is all there is to do when the storm knocks the power out. But yeah, personally it's been a dry spell as of late.

I'm indifferent about the age of consent change. I'd rathe that people weren't boning at age 14, that's for sure.

You kiddin'? It's wintertime. People huddle together at night, etc. Sex is all there is to do when the storm knocks the power out. But yeah, personally it's been a dry spell as of late.

I'm indifferent about the age of consent change. I'd rathe that people weren't boning at age 14, that's for sure.

I believe people under 16 will still be able to legally have sex with each other, just people over 16 can't have sex with them. So I don't see a problem with it.

I'm going to go against the grain and agree with the majority of this list, is the Canadian population of NS comprised mainly of NDP voters or what? :confused:


The point is that during debates and discussions on law and order priorities during the debates and entire election cycle - this issue was never really raised. Lots of others were, but not this one. And now it is the TOP priority.

My thread did not address whether this is or is not a good thing, but rather that it is an extremely suprising thing to be suddenly touted as the most pressing priority that the justice department NEEDS to address. Because law and order issues WERE a big campaign issue....but this item never showed up.

I mean, wasn't the other big campaign focus on supposedly the Liberal's being a party that campaigned dishonestly?

So far - between poaching a sitting cabinet minister to switch parties on the day of the new government taking over, making someone who stated that he didn't run because he didn't WANT to run a senator in order to give him a cabinet post - after a long capaign talking about how you hate an appointed Senate, and now having party priorities not reflecting what was claimed were the priorities during the campaign cycle.... well, Stevie is doing a bang-up job at proving that his party is no better than what he accused the Liberals of being - all in his first week in power.

Between that and pissing off his base by giving more cabinet posts to Quebecers than Albertans, well - it may be a really bumpy ride for him and his party if he keeps this up.

The point is that during debates and discussions on law and order priorities during the debates and entire election cycle - this issue was never really raised. Lots of others were, but not this one. And now it is the TOP priority.

The issue was raised alot in Question Period, just wasn't an issue big enough for the election.

I believe people under 16 will still be able to legally have sex with each other, just people over 16 can't have sex with them. So I don't see a problem with it.

That's not much of a change at all, then. As it stands, the age of consent is 14, but that's ONLY for consent with peope under 20. as soon as someone involved is 20 or older, the younger has to be 18, I think.

The issue was raised alot in Question Period, just wasn't an issue big enough for the election.


But, apparently, big enough to be the primary focus of the government?

If it's that big, should it not have been big enough for the election?

Emerson though? Does he have a political future after this? Who knows. I thought Belinda was done for too. Damn girl broke all our Conservative hearts. :(

Key difference:

Belinda won her Conservative seat with only a 700 vote majority over the 2nd place Liberal candidate. The Liberal party already had a strong presence.

Emerson won his Liberal seat with almost a 12,000 vote majority over the 3rd place Conservative candidate. The Conservative party definitely does not have a strong presence there.

Unless Mr. Emerson is able to dole out a lot from the government piggy-bank, and fast, this is his last term.

Unless Mr. Emerson is able to dole out a lot from the government piggy-bank, and fast, this is his last term.It sure is his last term in my riding. People aren't too pleased. But, don't put it past the consrvatives to run him somewhere else where people's political memory isn't so sharp.

It sure is his last term in my riding. People aren't too pleased. But, don't put it past the consrvatives to run him somewhere else where people's political memory isn't so sharp.

HA! the tories will have to do some hardcore research on that then. This will probably have to go down as one of the cheapest political moves in Canadian history, since we seems to be lacking a lot of that.

I think that Canada is finally getting as progressive as some parts of the US...

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that two Quebec swingers' clubs did not breach decency standards when they allowed group sex to take place on their premises. The reasoning: orgies do not cause harm to society.

imo, said orgies DO cause harm to society.
Two examples:
1. Said orgy consists of a dozen beautiful women frisky playing with each other and getting very hot and sweaty. And I'm not there to watch/help just drives me wild.
2. Said orgy (and this is prob most likely) consists of a bunch of overweight middle-aged gone to seed swingers complete with varicose veins, hairy arses (men and women), saggy lils, beer bellys (and gunts) and horrid stretchmarks. Just thinking of that mass of foul sweaty heaving blubber makes me feel ill.

So surely the fact that orgies can either drive people wild or make them nauseous is a harm to society. Think about the effect on my driving ability if I was to start thinking of either of the above scenarios while doing 120 kph down the motorway?

No harm to society indeed.