GeorgeH 110 Report post Posted January 6, 2015 Justin Trudeau is apparently considering an "evidenced based approach" - particularly considering legislation concerning pot and prostitution. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-urges-evidence-based-approach-on-marijuana-prostitution-laws/article22285641/ This is in contrast to the existing government's ideology-based approach. If you agree with Trudeau's approach, now might be a good time to email him with your comments about it and how his adopting this as a plank in the election platform would influence your voting decision. Just my two cents... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FunAdventures 4501 Report post Posted January 19, 2015 In a failed attempt to search for how Justin Trudeau actually voted on the matter, I came across this interesting piece. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/Briefs/C-36/SM_C-36_brief_John_Lowman_E.pdf Perhaps if we could remain anonymous, this John Lowman could tell the adult side of the story. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted January 20, 2015 In a failed attempt to search for how Justin Trudeau actually voted on the matter, I came across this interesting piece. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/Briefs/C-36/SM_C-36_brief_John_Lowman_E.pdf Perhaps if we could remain anonymous, this John Lowman could tell the adult side of the story. The footnotes in his brief are also very informational, and if you go search out those reports as well, like Estes and Weiner. The researchers there are also very firm about the results: they only talked to those under 18, their whole study was about kids in the street sex trade. Also, they were looking for those pimps. They discovered that not more than 10% of all these teens working on the streets had any one exploiting/pimping/forcing them. Even young, they were well aware this was an exchange, more so they would not be in a group home, not be at home being abused, not being exploited by the system or adults or parents against their own will. This they felt they had control of, and this provided them for what they need. Lowman's work is a good source for anyone who wants to argue that minimum age and abusive childhood angle used to excuse these draconian laws. just wanted to say draconian, not sure if it is used correctly lol Basically, if you never study anyone over the age of 18, then what results are you likely to get? That they started when under 18. I once did polls on at least 3 or 4 sites, so all indoor, former mp and agency types, independent, etc asking how old were you when you started. The average age of entry was at least 23. there were not more than 10% who started under 18, and many of those were just shy of being 18. There were an equal number (10%) who didn't start until after 35. 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloud 1210 Report post Posted January 21, 2015 In a failed attempt to search for how Justin Trudeau actually voted on the matter, I came across this interesting piece. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/Briefs/C-36/SM_C-36_brief_John_Lowman_E.pdf Perhaps if we could remain anonymous, this John Lowman could tell the adult side of the story. You can find how MPs voted here and clicking the links in the Votes section. Trudeau didn't vote in the second reading, but voted against the bill in the third reading http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-36/ He also hasn't said what he thinks of the new law or what his party would have done differently. I think he knows that if he supports decriminalization or doesn't support the new Act then the Conservatives would have a field day with him Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted January 21, 2015 I believe there is a Liberal statement that specifically says that C36 is not supported, i.e. so that does tell you what Trudeau/Liberals think about C36. Many people are saying that NDP and Libs "must' come up with an alternative, or some such nonsense. They do not. Not doing any new laws is taking a stand, that these parties accept the SCC ruling that overturned those 3 clauses in the existing laws, and also means that they accept that the remaining laws are more than sufficient to deal with the issue of prostitution. The point of the SCC ruling wasn't to bring in replacement laws, it was to remove damaging laws. The rest of the laws cover all of the issues the Cons, the antis, and C36 supporters say were lacking in the existing laws. In other words, the govmint lied to you. :) 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
