Where does it mention the penalties for the prostitute? And if if this
document does make it illegal for 14 year olds to be prostitutes, it took
Canada untill 2005 to implement it? Unbelievable...
I realize that it's not pleasant for anyone to be proven wrong, but I'm
going to give you a piece of advice. It's much better to be man enough to
admit it when it happens than to attempt to smear your opponents in
argument by insinuating, with no basis whatsoever, that they must have
horrific moral failings.
You should have the good grace to simply admit it when you're proven
wrong.
I have repeatedly explained that there are no penalties for the prostitute
under Canadian law. That fact is simply not material to the question
whether all of your many statements about Canadian law in this thread are
correct or not. Many of them are not correct. You should admit that you
were wrong. It would be the honest and gracious thing to do.
I suggest that you try re-reading the whole wording and description of the
statute carefully. It clearly implies that the wording of the paragraph
containing the statute forbidding the prostitution of people under the age
eighteen was
modified in 2005. The statute was in effect before
then, quite obviously. You have to do a more extensive search to find
out when it went into force, and to find out what the modification was.
I suspect, but do not yet know for a fact, that the wording was changed in
order to make the mere act of communicating with anyone in public for the
purpose of procuring the services of a child prostitute equivalent under the
law to the actual act of having sex with the child prostitute. That makes
prosecution much easier, and allows the police to run sting operations to
catch the johns, using adult police officers. Not all of the material seems to
be available online. Specifically I can't yet find the legislation from more
than about 10 years ago.
A wonderful work of pedophila you mean?
Have you read the book?
If not, you're unqualified to venture an opinion about it.
I meant that it is a wonderful work of fiction, in the sense that it is
very well written.
The monstrous plot of the novel is brutally detailed in what surely must
be some of the best English prose in existence. Nabokov created what seems
to be a very convincing portrait of a sexual deviant.
I say seems, since I don't have any personal experience at all with
pedophiles, and I don't have any idea whether it's a true portrait.
It's a work of fiction.
In Lolita, the character Humbert-Humbert is portrayed as a monster,
a horrific man, in my view.
The love affair between Humbert and Lolita is clearly a disaster for
everyone involved. It's not clear to the reader at the start, but Lolita
is for all practical purposes dead as soon as she makes her appearance in
the novel and meets Humbert. In fact, almost every important character in
the book is dead on arrival. Humbert's first wife dies, supposedly of
typhus, his second wife dies of `a bad accident', his second wife's friend
also dies. Lolita's first lover dies in Korea. Then Humbert dies. Then
Lolita dies. Finally Lolita's infant daughter dies.
What is the moral message here? That pedophilia is a good thing?
I don't think so.
So you have read this perverts book? Shame on you.
Being well-read is not something to be ashamed of.
I can see why you are so much involved in this
thread...
I am no more `involved' in this thread than you are, and it's you
who
originated the thread. Why did you originate it?
The article you've quoted contains misinformation about Canadian
law. You yourself are also wrong about Canadian law.
I've corrected the misinformation you've spread about the legality of
prostitution with underage people in Canada. It's illegal. The
misinformation you are spreading, if believed by a pedophile, could well
encourage him to go to Canada and try to hire child prostitutes. That is
not something I want to see happening.
Why would you read such a book in the first place?
And what are you insinuating here?
