SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Sushi, I honestly would be more than willing, but I"m still a little young I fear, only 23. In 2 elections (assuming 4 years apart) I honestly will be thinking very strongly about it.
Stop Possibility of NDP Government
- Thread starter SerengetiGuide
- Start date
Bassblaster
Active Member
No Worries S2,
That's why I made the comment about a simple change of leadership being the answer for today. My comments are directed more at what we decide to do about things after this election takes place. The fact is that unless an election gets called we all go about our days and for the most part hardly give politics a passing thought unless they do something that negatively effects us personally (ie. raise taxes etc), Again. How long we will suffer and wade through the BS is totally up to us.
My biggest point was that we are fortunate enough to live in the greatest democratic country on the planet, (sorry to all the american members on here), and because of that we can make the decision to stop doing what we are currently doing. Because these parties are here today does not mean that they have to be here tomorrow. If we wanted to we could drastically improve education, healthcare, the economy, reduce crime, embrace alternative energies to both petroleum and nuclear power, improve and protect the environment, and solve nearly all of the other problems faced by the country by changing our perspectives and beliefs about how we Can't solve those problems and start looking at the answers in front of us that already say we can.
If someone, or a group of someones, were to create a political platform that was actually based on what was best for the country and the population as a whole, instead of a system that is controlled by and for the needs of a few, I would bet that you could convince most independent candidates to join up. This would provide a base for the party to grow from, and over the course of a year or so you would probably find people eager to step forward and fill the holes in the ridings without representation.
It is time that the Canadian people stood against the current system of government and created their own Declaration of Independence. No revolution is required, just a change of attitude and a desire to convert ideas into action instead of sitting around bitching about things.
I have no personal desire to run this country, but I would be willing to make the effort to be the equivalent of a founding father regarding creating a new party and political platform.
So vote how you see fit this time around, it's too late to really make a difference, but make a decision to actually DO something after this is all over that will ensure we do not have to deal with it again next time around.
That's why I made the comment about a simple change of leadership being the answer for today. My comments are directed more at what we decide to do about things after this election takes place. The fact is that unless an election gets called we all go about our days and for the most part hardly give politics a passing thought unless they do something that negatively effects us personally (ie. raise taxes etc), Again. How long we will suffer and wade through the BS is totally up to us.
My biggest point was that we are fortunate enough to live in the greatest democratic country on the planet, (sorry to all the american members on here), and because of that we can make the decision to stop doing what we are currently doing. Because these parties are here today does not mean that they have to be here tomorrow. If we wanted to we could drastically improve education, healthcare, the economy, reduce crime, embrace alternative energies to both petroleum and nuclear power, improve and protect the environment, and solve nearly all of the other problems faced by the country by changing our perspectives and beliefs about how we Can't solve those problems and start looking at the answers in front of us that already say we can.
If someone, or a group of someones, were to create a political platform that was actually based on what was best for the country and the population as a whole, instead of a system that is controlled by and for the needs of a few, I would bet that you could convince most independent candidates to join up. This would provide a base for the party to grow from, and over the course of a year or so you would probably find people eager to step forward and fill the holes in the ridings without representation.
It is time that the Canadian people stood against the current system of government and created their own Declaration of Independence. No revolution is required, just a change of attitude and a desire to convert ideas into action instead of sitting around bitching about things.
I have no personal desire to run this country, but I would be willing to make the effort to be the equivalent of a founding father regarding creating a new party and political platform.
So vote how you see fit this time around, it's too late to really make a difference, but make a decision to actually DO something after this is all over that will ensure we do not have to deal with it again next time around.
Little Hawk
Active Member
"We shall defend our Salmon, whatever the cost may be... we shall never surrender!"
On one front of this election, clarity has come to me: I know who I'm not voting for.
Clearly, a vote for Harper is your endorsement of:
- salmon farming
- appallingly negligent stewardship of Pacific salmon
- privatization of Pacific Halibut and other Canadian resources
- absolute ignorance towards BC's recreational/commercial fisheries
- Tim Horton's health care
- continued central Canadian power-base by the uncaring big-heads in Ottawa & Quebec
- continued give-away of BC's fish-bearing rivers & streams to US owned IPP's.
These are but a few of the issues I take with my government, and if they are not as important to you as other things then you will likely accept the status-quo and vote for the Conservatives. For me, these issues are of paramount importance and Ottawa could give 2-***** about them; they've demonstrated this time and time again.
Moreover, I'm getting weary of listening to people champion the Conservatives economic policies and achievements while dangling the threats of an economic melt-down under a different government. As a self-employed carpenter whose taken a beating the last couple of years, from both a depressed (and cliquey) south Island construction climate and my bank who decided to take a big dump on me, I'm confident the 'Big Machine' won't be coming to my rescue any time soon. I'll be digging myself out of this one without any help from Ottawa.
I am long-ready for change - real change!
On one front of this election, clarity has come to me: I know who I'm not voting for.
Clearly, a vote for Harper is your endorsement of:
- salmon farming
- appallingly negligent stewardship of Pacific salmon
- privatization of Pacific Halibut and other Canadian resources
- absolute ignorance towards BC's recreational/commercial fisheries
- Tim Horton's health care
- continued central Canadian power-base by the uncaring big-heads in Ottawa & Quebec
- continued give-away of BC's fish-bearing rivers & streams to US owned IPP's.
These are but a few of the issues I take with my government, and if they are not as important to you as other things then you will likely accept the status-quo and vote for the Conservatives. For me, these issues are of paramount importance and Ottawa could give 2-***** about them; they've demonstrated this time and time again.
Moreover, I'm getting weary of listening to people champion the Conservatives economic policies and achievements while dangling the threats of an economic melt-down under a different government. As a self-employed carpenter whose taken a beating the last couple of years, from both a depressed (and cliquey) south Island construction climate and my bank who decided to take a big dump on me, I'm confident the 'Big Machine' won't be coming to my rescue any time soon. I'll be digging myself out of this one without any help from Ottawa.
I am long-ready for change - real change!
I would point out all the years that places like several Norwegian countries, Sweden being only one, Holland, etc were held out to us as socialist utopias.
Way better than us, more benign, more "green", better quality of life, more welcoming of virtually any so called downtrodden (and virtually non screened ) immigrants....... ad nauseam.
Where are they now? Flat butt broke! Wanna move there? Go for it and don't forget your wife's burqa. France is starting to "get it".
Multiculturalism, once a liberal dream has absolutely failed worldwide but the NDP still pushes it with vigor. Just one of their pet theories along with free drugs for addicts and now i hear, free booze for alkies.
How about we lobby Jack for free "carbon credits" for those of us who must use a gas lawn mower? Perhaps "credits" also for us meat eaters who do not use up extra agriculture space by eating "Bambi"? Oops my mistake, we won't be able to hunt cause he and his clones will totally take away our "tools", thereby using even more agricultural land which will be in very short supply due in part to unrestricted immigration (remember the NDP reaction to the migrant ships?) and overseen by Suzuki.
We would however, as an upside, have many many more well fed and well heeled "artists"
Way better than us, more benign, more "green", better quality of life, more welcoming of virtually any so called downtrodden (and virtually non screened ) immigrants....... ad nauseam.
Where are they now? Flat butt broke! Wanna move there? Go for it and don't forget your wife's burqa. France is starting to "get it".
Multiculturalism, once a liberal dream has absolutely failed worldwide but the NDP still pushes it with vigor. Just one of their pet theories along with free drugs for addicts and now i hear, free booze for alkies.
How about we lobby Jack for free "carbon credits" for those of us who must use a gas lawn mower? Perhaps "credits" also for us meat eaters who do not use up extra agriculture space by eating "Bambi"? Oops my mistake, we won't be able to hunt cause he and his clones will totally take away our "tools", thereby using even more agricultural land which will be in very short supply due in part to unrestricted immigration (remember the NDP reaction to the migrant ships?) and overseen by Suzuki.
We would however, as an upside, have many many more well fed and well heeled "artists"
Sushihunter
Active Member
Jacko and Olivia - Entitled to their entitlements
Jacko and Olivia - Entitled to their entitlements
For all those who think the Sun shines out of Jack's bottom end....
The basic facts are as follows.
Layton and his wife Olivia Chow both sat on Toronto City Council for years before making the move to federal politics. While on City Council, they were making $100,000 a year. They used a fraudulent scheme to get into subsidized housing. What they did was register the house in the name of Chow's mother who was an unemployed immigrant. In this way, they lived for years in a taxpayer funded house while being paid $100,000 yearly from taxpayers. They only moved when a reporter exposed the story.
The real irony is that Chow styled herself as an advocate for the homeless on City Council.
It astounds me that the media never mention this. It was theft, pure and simple.
Today, Layton and Chow earn $350,000 together as MPs. They each get a housing allowance for living in Ottawa although they live together. According to House of Commons records for 2010, they spent one million dollars last year on travel and perks. Because they're MP's there is no detail. When asked, Layton said that most of it was for travel back to Toronto to visit their constituents. That comes out to $20,000 a week for travel. Toronto is 300 miles from Ottawa. Again, it's theft, pure and simple.
But speaking of simple, NDP loyalists see Jack and Olivia as the working man's friends. The simplistic media play up this image. Simplistic Canadians give Jack a free ride on trust.
Now the other night during the big debate Jack had the nerve to say we don't need more jails because all the crooks are already in the Senate. I think we better make Jack a Senator!
Thanks to Saint Jack its costing millions for this election !!!!
Jacko and Olivia - Entitled to their entitlements
For all those who think the Sun shines out of Jack's bottom end....
The basic facts are as follows.
Layton and his wife Olivia Chow both sat on Toronto City Council for years before making the move to federal politics. While on City Council, they were making $100,000 a year. They used a fraudulent scheme to get into subsidized housing. What they did was register the house in the name of Chow's mother who was an unemployed immigrant. In this way, they lived for years in a taxpayer funded house while being paid $100,000 yearly from taxpayers. They only moved when a reporter exposed the story.
The real irony is that Chow styled herself as an advocate for the homeless on City Council.
It astounds me that the media never mention this. It was theft, pure and simple.
Today, Layton and Chow earn $350,000 together as MPs. They each get a housing allowance for living in Ottawa although they live together. According to House of Commons records for 2010, they spent one million dollars last year on travel and perks. Because they're MP's there is no detail. When asked, Layton said that most of it was for travel back to Toronto to visit their constituents. That comes out to $20,000 a week for travel. Toronto is 300 miles from Ottawa. Again, it's theft, pure and simple.
But speaking of simple, NDP loyalists see Jack and Olivia as the working man's friends. The simplistic media play up this image. Simplistic Canadians give Jack a free ride on trust.
Now the other night during the big debate Jack had the nerve to say we don't need more jails because all the crooks are already in the Senate. I think we better make Jack a Senator!
Thanks to Saint Jack its costing millions for this election !!!!
Sushihunter
Active Member
Well, I have been a member since 1996 and have worked in all elections from 1997 to 2008. I haven't been able to do much in this election becuase I'm stuck in Tahsis, but I am doing what I can online.
I have to admit that I am better known in the Vancouver area where I have done most of my work. I have been a board member on two different constituency associations including secretary and 1st vice president. I have helped various candidates including Alice Wong who is now the MP in Richmond and is now up against an old 'friend' Joe Peschisolido who I helped before he jumped to the Liberals. I helped in doing his MP website after he became MP and turned it against him after he bailed on the party. Google actually gave my spoof site a higher ranking than Joe's real MP site.
I worked on Keith Martin's leadership campaign in 2000. I know Stockwell Day.
After Stephen Harper became leader of the Canadian Alliance, I attended the convention in Edmonton and was invited into the rather private National Councillors meeting that was held there to take photos of all the party's head organizers. While walking past Stephen Harper on the street, he stopped me and introduced me to his wife Laureen. No security, no assistants, just him and his wife on an Edmonton street.
Ya, you could say I have been active in the party. The sad thing is that because of distance, I haven't been able to get as involved locally as I would have liked.
And for the record, yes, I am very pissed at the way Duncan is dealing with the Halibut Allocation issue. If I were advising him, I would tell him to be at every meeting he could be to answer questions and either learn the issue or at least defend his position face to face with sports fishermen.
The press releases he has issued on this subject are so lame it is embarrassing to me. He is an idiot. But, he is OUR idiot. If we were headed for a solid majority, I would have voted against him, but we need every possible seat we can get this election. The NDP surge has thrown a real monkey wrench into things. It is hard to say if this going to show up on Monday or not. People may take a good look at NDP policy and realize it is a fantasy built on clouds.
God help us if Jack Layton becomes PM as part of the coalition!
Sushihunter
Active Member
Face it, holmes. Jack Layton has never been under much scrutiny. Becuase he was going to be elected to any position where he could do real damage. Now, there is a slim possibility that he could end up as Prime Minister in a coalition government.
I for one want to know if he is trustworthy or not. Turns out that Jacko is just another political sleazeball who wants power for his own ends. Nothing to do with helping the working man at all. It is all about Jack and Olivia and what they can get out of the system to further their lifestyle.
But feel free to shoot the messanger.
Sushihunter
Active Member
No worries. My friend James Moore was the youngest MP ever elected when he first got elected. Now he is a cabinet minister!
Only 23, really? From your writing I would have guessed much more... mature... ya, that's the word I looking for. Mature.
Get involved in the process and learn it from the inside. When you are ready, you will be far ahead of anyone who just shows up one day looking for a nomination.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Well Said Sushi
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Dave-- just take a minute to read this editorial. While my focus is Duncan, the bigger picture you espouse is not what everyone sees.
The election choice: No new mandate for Conservatives
Published On Thu Apr 28 2011
Two-and-a-half years ago, when Stephen Harper was seeking his second mandate from Canadian voters, some of those inclined to support him and his Conservatives were seduced by the hope that he would grow in office. He might seem mean-spirited and divisive, they argued, but give him another chance. The sobering exercise of power would surely shape him into a more mature, more inclusive leader.
So much for that. Canadians have now had more than five years to see the Harper Conservatives in action, constrained only by having to navigate the shoals of two minority Parliaments. Throughout, the Conservatives had a choice. They could have accepted the fact that two voters in three did not support them. They could have reached out to opponents and sought genuine compromise on tough issues. They could have tried to unite an electorate fractured among parties and philosophies.
Instead, they took another path. They chose to double down on the politics of division. The second minority Harper government was like the first one — only more so. Contempt for Parliament, demonizing critics, shutting down legitimate questions — the sorry litany has become all too familiar. As with all organizations, the tone is set at the top. If the guy in charge does not trust others and is terminally suspicious of every contrary view, his government will reflect that.
It is especially ironic that Harper finds himself in this position. He has betrayed — or perhaps forgotten — the democratic Reform principles that sent him to Ottawa vowing to break up the cozy club of entrenched power brokers. “You’ve become what you used to oppose. What happened to you?” the NDP’s Jack Layton asked Harper in one of the few memorable moments of the televised leaders’ debates. There was no answer — nor could there be.
On other issues, the Harper government has disappointed. Its foreign policy has squandered much of the credibility that previous Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments built for Canada around the world. Even Brian Mulroney, while negotiating much closer trade links with the United States, championed a clearly distinct role for this country in such areas as the Middle East and opposing apartheid in South Africa. The Harper Conservatives seem dismissive of the possibility that Canada could play a progressive, constructive role in international affairs; their failure to obtain a seat on the United Nations Security Council showed that the rest of the world has — sadly — reached a similar conclusion.
At home, it has pushed an expensive and counterproductive tough-on-crime agenda. Its pork-barrelling around the G8/G20 summits is all too predictable. Its support for the military has morphed into a blank cheque for fancy fighter jets that we don’t need, and will cost many billions more than advertised. It has presided over growing social and economic inequality, stripping millions of Canadians of any stake in the country’s economic success.
The Conservatives’ strongest suit — their main claim to the “stable” majority government they crave — is the economy. Voters are rightly relieved that Canada escaped the worst of the global recession. They should keep in mind that the record is much more mixed. The Conservatives get credit for the durability of our closely regulated banking system, despite their doubts on regulation. Just as important, previous governments, most notably those of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, built the firm foundation that carried us through. The Conservatives are riding on the tough and controversial deficit-fighting work of their Liberal predecessors.
Harper is now going for broke, grasping for the majority mandate that has twice eluded him. By now it is clear what that would mean: smaller government, a diminished role for Ottawa in national affairs, and a push, if not a lurch, to the right on social issues.
Above all, it would mean a government that would not propose a bold vision of a better Canada five and 10 years down the road, mainly because it does not believe in such things. Government as the solution to all problems may be out of date. But government can still be a vitally relevant part of the solution — if it wants to be.
The Harper Conservatives deliberately chose not to aim high. Far from growing in office, they have diminished themselves and our national politics. For that alone, they do not deserve a renewed mandate.
The election choice: No new mandate for Conservatives
Published On Thu Apr 28 2011
Two-and-a-half years ago, when Stephen Harper was seeking his second mandate from Canadian voters, some of those inclined to support him and his Conservatives were seduced by the hope that he would grow in office. He might seem mean-spirited and divisive, they argued, but give him another chance. The sobering exercise of power would surely shape him into a more mature, more inclusive leader.
So much for that. Canadians have now had more than five years to see the Harper Conservatives in action, constrained only by having to navigate the shoals of two minority Parliaments. Throughout, the Conservatives had a choice. They could have accepted the fact that two voters in three did not support them. They could have reached out to opponents and sought genuine compromise on tough issues. They could have tried to unite an electorate fractured among parties and philosophies.
Instead, they took another path. They chose to double down on the politics of division. The second minority Harper government was like the first one — only more so. Contempt for Parliament, demonizing critics, shutting down legitimate questions — the sorry litany has become all too familiar. As with all organizations, the tone is set at the top. If the guy in charge does not trust others and is terminally suspicious of every contrary view, his government will reflect that.
It is especially ironic that Harper finds himself in this position. He has betrayed — or perhaps forgotten — the democratic Reform principles that sent him to Ottawa vowing to break up the cozy club of entrenched power brokers. “You’ve become what you used to oppose. What happened to you?” the NDP’s Jack Layton asked Harper in one of the few memorable moments of the televised leaders’ debates. There was no answer — nor could there be.
On other issues, the Harper government has disappointed. Its foreign policy has squandered much of the credibility that previous Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments built for Canada around the world. Even Brian Mulroney, while negotiating much closer trade links with the United States, championed a clearly distinct role for this country in such areas as the Middle East and opposing apartheid in South Africa. The Harper Conservatives seem dismissive of the possibility that Canada could play a progressive, constructive role in international affairs; their failure to obtain a seat on the United Nations Security Council showed that the rest of the world has — sadly — reached a similar conclusion.
At home, it has pushed an expensive and counterproductive tough-on-crime agenda. Its pork-barrelling around the G8/G20 summits is all too predictable. Its support for the military has morphed into a blank cheque for fancy fighter jets that we don’t need, and will cost many billions more than advertised. It has presided over growing social and economic inequality, stripping millions of Canadians of any stake in the country’s economic success.
The Conservatives’ strongest suit — their main claim to the “stable” majority government they crave — is the economy. Voters are rightly relieved that Canada escaped the worst of the global recession. They should keep in mind that the record is much more mixed. The Conservatives get credit for the durability of our closely regulated banking system, despite their doubts on regulation. Just as important, previous governments, most notably those of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, built the firm foundation that carried us through. The Conservatives are riding on the tough and controversial deficit-fighting work of their Liberal predecessors.
Harper is now going for broke, grasping for the majority mandate that has twice eluded him. By now it is clear what that would mean: smaller government, a diminished role for Ottawa in national affairs, and a push, if not a lurch, to the right on social issues.
Above all, it would mean a government that would not propose a bold vision of a better Canada five and 10 years down the road, mainly because it does not believe in such things. Government as the solution to all problems may be out of date. But government can still be a vitally relevant part of the solution — if it wants to be.
The Harper Conservatives deliberately chose not to aim high. Far from growing in office, they have diminished themselves and our national politics. For that alone, they do not deserve a renewed mandate.
Sushihunter
Active Member
Just for the record. The Jack Layton Massage story was originally being shopped around about 2 years ago by a LIBERAL operative, according to reporter Johnathon Kay
jonkay jonkay
For those who care, someone tried to shop me the Layton-massage story 2 yrs ago (without docs). It was a Liberal fixer
jonkay jonkay
For those who care, someone tried to shop me the Layton-massage story 2 yrs ago (without docs). It was a Liberal fixer
so true abaout harper taking credit, he was easing regulations on the banks when the shat hit the fan, suddenly pulled back and now takes credit. what a tool
Steelhead S2
Active Member
There has been a good amount of discussion of NDP policy on here. And the criticism of is has been pretty unpersuasive. Sweeping statements like "too expensive", which doesn't address it at a policy level, and doesn't even explain how it is too expensive. The Cons have proven to be second-rate economic managers, giving us the biggest deficit in history and increasing the size of government by a substantial margin. I really don't know what the Cons stand for other than power tripping and scrapping the gun registry.
They promote themselves as good economic stewards, which their record disproves. They speak of open and accountable government, but once again they have the worst record in history on that front. Families? Nothing for families has been promised that would be available for at least 4 years... cuz oil companies need bigger subsidies (even while their profits continue to rise). So that's it I think, that's what the Cons purport to represent, and they have a record that is totally contrary to their words. Lamentable leadership. And lamentable disrespect for Canadians.
So lets hear something positive from you hard line Con artists. What does your party stand for? What does it have to offer? Smearing the leaders of other parties on a fishing site doesn't really do much to lend credibility to your cause. What do you believe in? Why get Con-ed? What's in it for me, for my family, for my community, and for my country? We are all tired of your negative messages. What's your positive message? If the best you propose is more of the same then you definitely should be scared. Cuz most of us don't want to be ignored, disrespected, lied to and taxed in order to transfer our meager wealth to the tar sands any more.
And Justfish, regarding the vandalism of Con signs, that is terrible. But in Campbell River the NDP signs at the top of the hill into town and a number of Lib signs have been smashed and shredded. The Con signs continue to stand tall. We all know there are a-holes in any campaign.
And to the entire site: I agree with Gunsmith, none of this is worth losing friends over. I am never one turn on a person because of how they vote. Reasonable people can disagree on politics. And I know many very good people who make questionable political decisions. I hope that my views here don't prejudice any of you against me (though I hardly know any of you in real life). I may profoundly disagree with your political beliefs, but it takes more than to turn me against you.
Long live the coalition!
They promote themselves as good economic stewards, which their record disproves. They speak of open and accountable government, but once again they have the worst record in history on that front. Families? Nothing for families has been promised that would be available for at least 4 years... cuz oil companies need bigger subsidies (even while their profits continue to rise). So that's it I think, that's what the Cons purport to represent, and they have a record that is totally contrary to their words. Lamentable leadership. And lamentable disrespect for Canadians.
So lets hear something positive from you hard line Con artists. What does your party stand for? What does it have to offer? Smearing the leaders of other parties on a fishing site doesn't really do much to lend credibility to your cause. What do you believe in? Why get Con-ed? What's in it for me, for my family, for my community, and for my country? We are all tired of your negative messages. What's your positive message? If the best you propose is more of the same then you definitely should be scared. Cuz most of us don't want to be ignored, disrespected, lied to and taxed in order to transfer our meager wealth to the tar sands any more.
And Justfish, regarding the vandalism of Con signs, that is terrible. But in Campbell River the NDP signs at the top of the hill into town and a number of Lib signs have been smashed and shredded. The Con signs continue to stand tall. We all know there are a-holes in any campaign.
And to the entire site: I agree with Gunsmith, none of this is worth losing friends over. I am never one turn on a person because of how they vote. Reasonable people can disagree on politics. And I know many very good people who make questionable political decisions. I hope that my views here don't prejudice any of you against me (though I hardly know any of you in real life). I may profoundly disagree with your political beliefs, but it takes more than to turn me against you.
Long live the coalition!
Sushihunter
Active Member
T.O. councillor skeptical of Layton story
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/2011/04/30/18087876.html?cid=rssnews
T.O. councillor skeptical of Layton story
By Jenny Yuen, QMI Agency
Canada’s NDP leader Jack Layton answers reporters’ questions after a campaign rally in Winnipeg, Manitoba April 27, 2011. Canadians will head to the polls in a federal election on May 2. REUTERS/Fred Greenslade
TORONTO – The Velvet Touch Massage parlour — where NDP Leader Jack Layton was found during a 1996 police visit — was suspected to be a bawdy house since it opened, Toronto Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti alleged.
The massage parlour in the city's Chinatown neighbourhood, which ceased operations down shortly after the police came calling, opened in 1994 and was among 26 suspected bawdy houses Toronto Police cracked down on with more than 300 charges.
Layton has denied any wrongdoing and said he did not know it was a suspected bawdy house.
Despite the Velvet Touch being a "pretty active illicit" operation, no one at Toronto City Hall received any complaints about it, Mammoliti said.
"I've asked recently if anyone at City Hall had complained in 1996 and there were no complaints that came out of councillors, but police had their eye on it, and at the end of the day, shut it down," Mammoliti said.
"I can pretty much guarantee wherever there's a rub-and-tug, it's run by organized crime, and drugs are always a part of the equation. That's just a reality of the business."
As for his thoughts on Layton being caught in the room with an attractive 5-foot-10 Asian woman, he said he doesn't buy that the NDP leader didn't know it was a place where he could get sexual services.
"He's claiming he got a legitimate massage, but the issue here is it's clear it was a rub-and-tug and most people in society would know that when they go in. I'd be very surprised that a very smart politician would not have known ... and Jack was very smart."
At the time, police were targeting massage parlours using underage girls from Thailand.
On Twitter, there was mixed reaction, especially from women.
"I'm surprised by politicians' tweets saying Layton visit to alleged bawdyhouse is no big deal; respect 4 women is overlooked by the tweets," wrote lawyer Cyndee Law.
But Kimberly Hussey called the allegations an attack on Layton.
"All the women I know will be voting for him. He was getting a massage by RMT (registered massage therapist)," she said.
Mammoliti hopes now that this story is widely publicized, the federal government will begin to take shutting down body-rub parlours more aggressively.
"Maybe now, we can start talking about what we're going to do with 3,000 illicit massage parlours that are scattered around the city today and how to clean it up." he said.
jenny.yuen@sunmedia.ca
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/2011/04/30/18087876.html?cid=rssnews
T.O. councillor skeptical of Layton story
By Jenny Yuen, QMI Agency
Canada’s NDP leader Jack Layton answers reporters’ questions after a campaign rally in Winnipeg, Manitoba April 27, 2011. Canadians will head to the polls in a federal election on May 2. REUTERS/Fred Greenslade
TORONTO – The Velvet Touch Massage parlour — where NDP Leader Jack Layton was found during a 1996 police visit — was suspected to be a bawdy house since it opened, Toronto Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti alleged.
The massage parlour in the city's Chinatown neighbourhood, which ceased operations down shortly after the police came calling, opened in 1994 and was among 26 suspected bawdy houses Toronto Police cracked down on with more than 300 charges.
Layton has denied any wrongdoing and said he did not know it was a suspected bawdy house.
Despite the Velvet Touch being a "pretty active illicit" operation, no one at Toronto City Hall received any complaints about it, Mammoliti said.
"I've asked recently if anyone at City Hall had complained in 1996 and there were no complaints that came out of councillors, but police had their eye on it, and at the end of the day, shut it down," Mammoliti said.
"I can pretty much guarantee wherever there's a rub-and-tug, it's run by organized crime, and drugs are always a part of the equation. That's just a reality of the business."
As for his thoughts on Layton being caught in the room with an attractive 5-foot-10 Asian woman, he said he doesn't buy that the NDP leader didn't know it was a place where he could get sexual services.
"He's claiming he got a legitimate massage, but the issue here is it's clear it was a rub-and-tug and most people in society would know that when they go in. I'd be very surprised that a very smart politician would not have known ... and Jack was very smart."
At the time, police were targeting massage parlours using underage girls from Thailand.
On Twitter, there was mixed reaction, especially from women.
"I'm surprised by politicians' tweets saying Layton visit to alleged bawdyhouse is no big deal; respect 4 women is overlooked by the tweets," wrote lawyer Cyndee Law.
But Kimberly Hussey called the allegations an attack on Layton.
"All the women I know will be voting for him. He was getting a massage by RMT (registered massage therapist)," she said.
Mammoliti hopes now that this story is widely publicized, the federal government will begin to take shutting down body-rub parlours more aggressively.
"Maybe now, we can start talking about what we're going to do with 3,000 illicit massage parlours that are scattered around the city today and how to clean it up." he said.
jenny.yuen@sunmedia.ca
Sushihunter
Active Member
What is interesting is Warren Kinsella's comment
http://warrenkinsella.com/
http://warrenkinsella.com/
Similar threads
