Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Lucy Goosey
Lucy Goosey's Journal
Lucy Goosey's Journal
March 28, 2012
Look at Ricky, saving the kid from being photographed with something pink! I mean, some people might see a male with a pink bowling ball and assume he's gay! Of course, anyone making that assumption is probably a bigot, but bigots are Rick's base, no?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/28/santorum-tells-young-man-not-to-use-pink-bowling-ball-on-camera/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Rick Santorum says, “Friends don’t let friends use pink balls
Santorum tells young man not to use pink bowling ball ‘on camera’Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Wednesday told a young man not to use a pink ball at a bowling alley in Wisconsin.
“You’re not gonna use the pink ball. We’re not gonna let you do that. Not on camera,” he said, according to Reuters reporter Sam Youngman.
“You’re not gonna use the pink ball. We’re not gonna let you do that. Not on camera,” he said, according to Reuters reporter Sam Youngman.
Look at Ricky, saving the kid from being photographed with something pink! I mean, some people might see a male with a pink bowling ball and assume he's gay! Of course, anyone making that assumption is probably a bigot, but bigots are Rick's base, no?
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group in the country, blasted Santorum for his comment.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/28/santorum-tells-young-man-not-to-use-pink-bowling-ball-on-camera/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
March 26, 2012
It's a good ruling, in my opinion, but it's obviously going to go to the Supreme Court. I wonder if the Cons will fight it if the SCC rules to uphold the Ontario ruling? This seems like a fight they would want to take on.
Ruling: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0186.htm#_Toc320089341
Ontario’s top court legalizes brothels in bid to protect prostitutes
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarios-top-court-legalizes-brothels-in-bid-to-protect-prostitutes/article2381372/In a landmark decision today, the court said that prostitution is extremely dangerous work where inherent risks are multiplied by laws preventing prostitutes from working together under one roof or hiring security staff.
It's a good ruling, in my opinion, but it's obviously going to go to the Supreme Court. I wonder if the Cons will fight it if the SCC rules to uphold the Ontario ruling? This seems like a fight they would want to take on.
Ruling: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0186.htm#_Toc320089341
March 26, 2012
I expect our Conservative government to appeal this to Canada's Supreme Court, if they can, but it's an interesting ruling regardless.
ON EDIT: More information becoming available:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarios-top-court-legalizes-brothels-in-bid-to-protect-prostitutes/article2381372/page1/
Ontario's top court strikes down ban on brothels
Source: CBC
Ontario's top court has struck down the ban on brothels and ruled that prostitutes should be able to hire bodyguards.
The Ontario Court of Appeal agrees that the ban puts sex workers in danger and says they should be allowed to work safely indoors.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/03/26/ontario-appeal-court-sex-trade-laws-monday.html
I expect our Conservative government to appeal this to Canada's Supreme Court, if they can, but it's an interesting ruling regardless.
ON EDIT: More information becoming available:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarios-top-court-legalizes-brothels-in-bid-to-protect-prostitutes/article2381372/page1/
March 15, 2012
Tasha Kheiriddin: Tori Stafford case shows why Canada needs the death penalty
This all has me worried. I know it's Kheiriddin, not an MP or anything, but this attempt at marshalling public opinion is worrisome, especially after the front page of the Ottawa Sun featured a full-page photo of a death chamber (as a good thing!) earlier this week.
And of course I'm not an apologist for the assholes who killed Tori Stafford. They are clearly horrible people.
Kheiriddin's assertion that feelings of vengefulness are "basic" is interesting - laws are in place because of "basic" (base?) feelings like that. It might be "human" to want things someone else has, but it's illegal to steal those things.
How long before we can vote the Cons out, again?
I wonder if any western countries have ever gone back to capital punishment after having abolished it?
Death Penalty drumbeat continues...
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/tasha-kheiriddin-stafford-case-shows-why-canada-needs-the-death-penalty/Tasha Kheiriddin: Tori Stafford case shows why Canada needs the death penalty
...the death penalty has been vigorously debated and is often considered to be “settled” law, at least by those who support the status quo. Opponents cite its lack of deterrence, its cost to the legal system and the fact that invariably, innocent people would be put to death. The state’s use of the death penalty makes of society the very thing it deplores: a murderer, a killer in revenge.
These points are all valid. And yet, upon reading McClintic’s testimony, a common gut reaction is that if what she says is true, she and Rafferty simply don’t deserve to live. It is simple, it is basic, it is human; it survives statistics, defences based on horrible childhoods and theories prizing rehabilitation over punishment.
These points are all valid. And yet, upon reading McClintic’s testimony, a common gut reaction is that if what she says is true, she and Rafferty simply don’t deserve to live. It is simple, it is basic, it is human; it survives statistics, defences based on horrible childhoods and theories prizing rehabilitation over punishment.
This all has me worried. I know it's Kheiriddin, not an MP or anything, but this attempt at marshalling public opinion is worrisome, especially after the front page of the Ottawa Sun featured a full-page photo of a death chamber (as a good thing!) earlier this week.
And of course I'm not an apologist for the assholes who killed Tori Stafford. They are clearly horrible people.
Kheiriddin's assertion that feelings of vengefulness are "basic" is interesting - laws are in place because of "basic" (base?) feelings like that. It might be "human" to want things someone else has, but it's illegal to steal those things.
How long before we can vote the Cons out, again?
I wonder if any western countries have ever gone back to capital punishment after having abolished it?
March 15, 2012
Just curious - are there any fellow Canadian federal public servants here?
How are you coping with the fear of imminent unemployment and the fact that your government is demonizing you to the whole country?
I signed up to do the shop steward training with my union (because public servant bashing is also always union bashing), which at least a makes me feel like I'm doing something, however tiny. Waiting for the axe to drop is no fun, though, is it?
March 14, 2012
This might be my favourite part:
Well, Steve, considering how long the law in question has been in place without there even being any attempts to define, say, women or black people or criminals as "not human beings," NOBODY'S NEXT. Douche. I learned in my first year Intro to Reasoning and Critical Thinking class that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. Also, I question your rather specious premise.
This is the sort of shit that leads to women being investigated for murder if they suffer a miscarriage.
And Harper? You weren't going to let this be reopened. I never trusted you anyway, but why should anyone believe anything you say? What about pro-choice women who are fiscal cons? They exist, you know.
I know that this debate doesn't mean that any new laws are imminent, but this is an incredibly sensitive topic. There is very little in this world that makes me angrier than when middle aged male strangers try to get their government up into my reproductive system.
House of Commons to hold abortion-related debate in April
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/House+Commons+hold+abortion+related+debate+April/6296017/story.htmlA controversial proposal from a Conservative backbencher to legally define fetuses as human beings — and reopen the abortion debate — will have its day in the House of Commons.
This might be my favourite part:
"If a child five minutes before birth can be defined as not a human being, then the question is who's next?" he argued.
Well, Steve, considering how long the law in question has been in place without there even being any attempts to define, say, women or black people or criminals as "not human beings," NOBODY'S NEXT. Douche. I learned in my first year Intro to Reasoning and Critical Thinking class that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. Also, I question your rather specious premise.
This is the sort of shit that leads to women being investigated for murder if they suffer a miscarriage.
And Harper? You weren't going to let this be reopened. I never trusted you anyway, but why should anyone believe anything you say? What about pro-choice women who are fiscal cons? They exist, you know.
I know that this debate doesn't mean that any new laws are imminent, but this is an incredibly sensitive topic. There is very little in this world that makes me angrier than when middle aged male strangers try to get their government up into my reproductive system.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHome country: Canada
Member since: Thu Jan 17, 2008, 01:27 PM
Number of posts: 2,940
