26 March 2012

Dalton McSlippery's Ontario...

...strikes yet another blow for oppressed womankind...get it on, bang the gongI guess Jack Layton was just ahead of his time...

"The judges conceded that brothels can be used to conceal underaged prostitutes or those trafficked from foreign countries, but said those ills must be attacked as best the police are able."
Yeah, you know... like going after the "real" criminals.

**********

RELATED: Globe & Mail jumps in...

...it's about "health & safety" stupid...
"The laws around prostitution make it impossible to hire, say, a bodyguard or a driver, or to work out of an apartment."
Of course, the same thing could be said about dealing crack up at Jane & Finch... to wit, that it is an inherently dangerous enterprise.

Perhaps the question ought to be... should the government be enabling behavior that apparently attracts criminals and sociopaths like, say... salmon attracts grizzly bears?

**********

FROM THE GLOBE COMMENTS:
land of the brave, home of the lubed


8 comments:

Simeon (Sam) George Drakich said...

What would you expect from Liberal appointed judges. Does not the legislature create the laws of the land, the police enforce,lawyers defend and the courts up hold.
So do not expect the McGuinty government to challenge the ruling as it is part of their budget.
Liberal appointed judges probably on client lists doing McGuinty's bidding as Spanky has already included the "sex trade" tax revenue into the budget.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"challenge the ruling?" seriously?

i imagine the lunatic left is breaking out the cigars, champagne AND CONDOMS as we speak.

*

Rich said...

So if a native was to kill an Ont. prostitute, leftie judges' heads would spin uncontrollably into the ether with no chance of being stopped.

Neo Conservative said...

*
well, rich... that is the question.

*

Rich said...

Perzactly...that's why I asked it here, with the 2 topics back to back.

Anonymous said...

Let's see....

1) The public believes a given problem requires a given law. The public is made up of a few lawyers, a few people people with a familiarity with the law and quite a few who simply have some common sense.

2) The politicians, most of whom are lawyers and have staffs of lawyer advisors concieve of a law they believe is effective AND CONSTITUTIONAL and they instruct bureaucrat lawyers to write such a law.

3) It is written and debated in parliament by lawyers with other lawyers observing and the law is passed everyone still believing it's constitutional.

4) The law sits on the books for being enforced & debated by hundreds of lawyers and other people familiar with the law & constitution every day for alllll that time.

5) Then along comes one dipshit judge with an overblown ego and a politically correct liberal weed up his/her ass and "POOF"! the law is suddenly SURPRISE! - unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

Holy COW! That judge must be some sort of god-like ultra-genuis!

What's wrong with this picture?

gimbol said...

The idiocy of the judiciary.
Wonder what logic it is that while admitting this is human trafficking, they still treat prostitution as a legit career move?

I'll just save that question for the next radio call in that features one of these experts and ask if they would recommend this career to a young lady and if not why not.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"gimbol says... recommend this career to a young lady"

exactly.

let's ask canadian parents... "how many of you hope your child ends up as a prostitute?"

*