Wynne has â??grave concernâ?? about new prostitution law

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wynne-has-grave-concern-about-new-prostitution-law/article21982770/

[Sweet Emily J 172062]

[Ice4fun 78407]

This concern will only amount to something if it is accompanied by actual action... she should immediately refer the new law to the courts.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[Cloud 1210]

Sounds like she's trying to pass the buck to the Attorney General of Ontario. Then, if things go south she can always say it wasn't her fault

[fortunateone 156618]

Sounds like she's trying to pass the buck to the Attorney General of Ontario. Then, if things go south she can always say it wasn't her fault

 

 

it did seem like a deflection to me. Why the study, she must have known about the issue for months.

[Phaedrus 209521]

I'm not convinced Kathleen Wynne is passing the buck here, or deliberately slowing things down. She's just going through the process.

 

To have acted publicly before the bill became law, even after it had been signed by the GG, would have opened her up to accusations of jumping the gun and possibly weakened any advice the AG might give. As for what she's done: in her position as Premier, she has simply asked the person whose job it is to give her legal advice and to represent her government on legal issues to... provide some legal advice. That seems to me to be a prudent and sensible first step on the road to referring it to court, and eventually challenging the law. This stuff is political enough already; trying to do too much too soon will make it very much more political, which will distract from the important stuff.

 

What we don't know is what's happening behind closed doors. I'm sure the AG was not in the least bit surprised to have received this request for advice, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe she probably already has a pretty solid idea of what advice she's going to give in response.

 

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do get there eventually. In this case I'd prefer *not* to see a rushed and weak case against the new law brought to court prematurely. That's not in anybody's interest.

[roamingguy 300292]

I'm not convinced Kathleen Wynne is passing the buck here, or deliberately slowing things down. She's just going through the process.

 

To have acted publicly before the bill became law, even after it had been signed by the GG, would have opened her up to accusations of jumping the gun and possibly weakened any advice the AG might give. As for what she's done: in her position as Premier, she has simply asked the person whose job it is to give her legal advice and to represent her government on legal issues to... provide some legal advice. That seems to me to be a prudent and sensible first step on the road to referring it to court, and eventually challenging the law. This stuff is political enough already; trying to do too much too soon will make it very much more political, which will distract from the important stuff.

 

What we don't know is what's happening behind closed doors. I'm sure the AG was not in the least bit surprised to have received this request for advice, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe she probably already has a pretty solid idea of what advice she's going to give in response.

 

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do get there eventually. In this case I'd prefer *not* to see a rushed and weak case against the new law brought to court prematurely. That's not in anybody's interest.

 

 

Wynne said she isn't a lawyer, it seems prudent to go to your Justice Minister before making a policy with legal ramifications,

especially since the law just passed. Had MacKay thought like a lawyer and justice minister to begin with, instead of a CPC Neanderthal using the justice portfolio for his own agenda we wouldn't be here now

 

RG

[Ice4fun 78407]

I'm not convinced Kathleen Wynne is passing the buck here, or deliberately slowing things down. She's just going through the process.

 

To have acted publicly before the bill became law, even after it had been signed by the GG, would have opened her up to accusations of jumping the gun and possibly weakened any advice the AG might give. As for what she's done: in her position as Premier, she has simply asked the person whose job it is to give her legal advice and to represent her government on legal issues to... provide some legal advice. That seems to me to be a prudent and sensible first step on the road to referring it to court, and eventually challenging the law. This stuff is political enough already; trying to do too much too soon will make it very much more political, which will distract from the important stuff.

 

What we don't know is what's happening behind closed doors. I'm sure the AG was not in the least bit surprised to have received this request for advice, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe she probably already has a pretty solid idea of what advice she's going to give in response.

 

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do get there eventually. In this case I'd prefer *not* to see a rushed and weak case against the new law brought to court prematurely. That's not in anybody's interest.

 

I agree... the steps are appropriate and one would suspect should lead to a referral of the new law to the courts... but when it comes to politicians I want to wait to ensure that their good words are actually followed up with actual action.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk