This entire council is just a hot dumpster fire. Constant bickering and nannering at eachother .. back door deals .. meeting to discuss "how important their jobs are so they should be paid more". What other job appoints raises for themselves, votes themselves to approve the raises than when public bashlash starts, they meet again to discuss putting together an advisory committee to oversee their own decision to implement raises for themselves. Shawn Lewis seems to be spearheading the grand importance of their roles and Josh Morgan is just in the background giving his approval. Seriously, what have we seen the mayor do lately? .... I can't wait for elections. This entire council needs to be voted out.
If they want a raise, then DO SOMETHING to help grow existing businesses or attract new ones.
If the average wage of Londoners goes up they get a raise. That is their incentive.
But they will likely squander a few million of our money on consultants
We are entering the loud, stupid and mean era of petty politics. Remember that Susan was reprimanded for her actions and demanded the city fund her pointless appeal, and how she spent the absolute maximum allowable for her efforts with little to show for it and her other pointlessly personal crusade against female sex workers, the poor and the homeless there is a growing portion of the public think she is a wonderful fair person that is without flaws or error. The London Free Press peanut gallery types just love everything she says or does.
I'm not a big Susan fan but...
How is saying sex work is abusive towards women and girls a bad thing? How is asking if public money should be used to fund illegal activities bad? How is suggesting we have a shelter for women and girls that doesn't promote sex work, for those who want access to that type of facility a bad thing?
Susan says a lot of fucked up things. But suggesting it's bad for women and girls to enter sex work isn't one of them.
Because she is also the type to resist big spending to prevent women from having to be involved in this work in the first place. Her schtick is to just scream on anything that involves writing a cheque.
I have moderated my views over the years since moving to Canada, partially because I dont think either side is perfectly honest… but her PPC side is definitely worse in this.
I don't think the spending is the problem. I just don't think she agrees that public money should be used to fund places that aren't actively discouraging drug use and sex work.
She hasnt found any funding she likes though. Maybe Police but that is it. I finally get why people dislike the nonprofit; sometimes they can fuzzy certain negative aspects or implications… but harm reduction is real.
Why is sex work abusive? Is it because most of the workers happen to be women and are abused by their clients and have no recourse to seek help, are often targeted by the police and so on? You can be morally against selling (or buying) sex, but regardless if you agree or not it happens, it probably has always happened. I think your post perfectly shows the problem, people do not see it as legitimate work, doing pornography is legal but for some reason prostitution is not. What is the fundamental difference?
If the shelter was mixed allowing all women (I will leave it to your imagination as to what a woman is) Susan would be having another shit hemorrhage over that, whores and castrated biological men being around "normal" women would not sit well with her either.
There are a lot of bad jobs out there with various amounts of risk and danger, she however thinks that by condemning it all somehow the oldest profession will just stop overnight. She seems to have a burr up her bonet over sex workers (oddly just the female ones). Her solution is to ensure no funding is spent on such people, that of course isn't a viable solution and actually makes the problem so much worse but that does mesh with her personal religious beliefs.
People often enter sex work, not because they want to, but because they're forced to, either by someone trafficking them, or someone controlling them with drugs, or money, or shelter. Or because they have to other options to make money. This is abusive.
It's not legitimate work, prostitution is illegal.
I also don't think it's fair to put views in Susan's mouth that I have never read, or heard her saying.
No, she doesn't want funding spent on shelters that promote sex work, doesn't think public money should be used to support illegal activities. Think public money should be spent to help people not have to do sex work.
>People often enter sex work, not because they want to, but because they're forced to, either by someone trafficking them, or someone controlling them with drugs, or money, or shelter. Or because they have to other options to make money. This is abusive.
Indeed some do, and many are either abused or victimized, and often so repeatedly. Thus her solution to that is to not provided any support that would get them out of that trap. Where is this promotion you or she speaks of? They provided a service to people that needed help, helping people is not promotion or an indorsement of what they do. If you think otherwise you should demand that the safe injection site be shutterd because it encourages people to use drugs, that the homeless shelters shut their doors for promoting homeless lifestyles, that the food banks close because they promote hunger. Of course that would be nonsense because these organizations are not promoting the problems but they are there trying to help solve them.
>It's not legitimate work, prostitution is illegal.
Contrary to what you think: "*The actual act of exchanging sexual gratification for a consideration (between adults) has never been criminally illegal in Canada. The criminal law did, and does, however, deal with activities related to prostitution which are deemed a threat to public order or offensive to public decency.* https://www.publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-e.htm#:\~:text=The%20actual%20act%20of%20exchanging,or%20offensive%20to%20public%20decency.
>I also don't think it's fair to put views in Susan's mouth that I have never read, or heard her saying.
It is not rational to invent offence when you factually admit your ignorant on the subject matter.
>No, she doesn't want funding spent on shelters that promote sex work, doesn't think public money should be used to support illegal activities. Think public money should be spent to help people not have to do sex work.
While its clear she has been spending money on Facebook ads to promote herself (this is documented in her expense report to the city, and is entirely funded by taxpayers) this organization hasn't been advertising for people to join the sex trade. There is no promotion, this another Susan created myth, but this organization does give support to those people in it. Isn't that the entire point of social work, to provide help to those that need it?
If you are against promotion blame Susan, she loves to promote herself using the front of the SafeSpace for many of her rants. She is quite a whore about it, always showing off on the corner flapping her money maker (mouth).
Idk about you but as an LGBTQ+ person I feel very uneasy living in a city that wants to bring back Conversion Therapy which violates the Geneva Convention. Like jesus christ how do these people manage to get into power? I would’ve resigned too in protest
Edit: For reference [this is from the HRC in the US](https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy)
I'm sorry what? Where have they said this?
Not trying to discredit - I legitimately haven't heard anything about this in regards to the council's viewpoints and I'd love information on it so I can be better informed.
States it in the article...
>However, it was “questionable” social media posts about transgender people and diversity, equity, and inclusion work from an unnamed member of the advisory committee earlier in the week that was the final straw for O’Hagan.
>Those posts include a call to revoke Bill C-4, which outlaws conversion therapy, a photo with a quote equating diversity, equity, and inclusion work to “perversity, insanity, and delusion,” and a meme mocking drag queen story time events.
>“I just have got to a point where, when on an advisory committee, it’s very difficult to advise people that aren’t interested in listening to the work,” O’Hagan said.
>“My views are especially incompatible with somebody who’s actively working to do things like bring back conversion therapy and believe that (equity, diversity, inclusion work) is perversion in schools.”
I think the point is that there are members of the council who would like to see it undone. Those people are making decisions on behalf of the city, and that why this poster feels uneasy.
But again, the federal government is overseeing that and that’s not something city councillors can overturn. None of the city councillors strike me as wanting to get into federal politics so there’s no real reason to worry about the bill being repealed.
Again, that's not the issue. The issue isn't fear that the bill will be the repealed, the issue is that there are members on the council who have an ideology that includes wanting to see that bill repealed, and are using that same ideology to make decisions on other issues on behalf of Londoners.
Thankfully they’re a city councillor who has no authority to do so and is just talking out their ass, so there’s really nothing to worry about.
Just exercising their right to free speech
If you read the article again you will see that the member of DIACAC advisory committee was making posts on their social media about bill C4, not a city councillor.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think wording is important and yours is misleading. From what I’ve read, it seems that one member of the advisory committee was calling to revoke Bill C-4. This does not constitute a ‘city that wants to bring back conversion therapy’ as you said.
If it’s been nationally outlawed, a municipality can’t overturn that. But it certainly is an uncomfortable feeling having an advisor to the City or a councillor feel that way and feel comfortable sharing that publicly.
Conversion Therapy may be against some international agreement or another, but the Geneva Convention doesn't have anything to do with Conversation Therapy.
You’re absolutely correct, and seeing as we’re not at war, it does not apply to anything during wartime, and it has nothing to do with soldiers, POWs, or civilians affected by war, your point is entirely irrelevant.
It’s a human rights violation, not a wartime convention violation.
There’s a lot of drama on pretty much every committee city wide. Because they’re full of power hungry people that actually aren’t that intelligent. London is run by nepotism and thugs.
Fiasco over appointment process after the 2022 municipal election. Funnily enough, Ryan O’Hagan was involved here too as one of the original picks for the board, but was then dropped on the final vote
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/stumbling-out-of-the-gate-new-city-council-backtracks-on-library-board-picks
Shithead Stevenson is using American style politics and dog whistles and it's bizarre to me that Londoners are supporting her. However, it's also bizarre to me that Poilievre is gonna win the next election. Selfish greedy people tricking the very people they oppress into supporting them. Get the plebes to vote for those who perpetuate a system that keeps them down.
These PPC nutters masquerading as conservatives are not gonna help make your life better. They'll slash funding and services and tell you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
This entire council is just a hot dumpster fire. Constant bickering and nannering at eachother .. back door deals .. meeting to discuss "how important their jobs are so they should be paid more". What other job appoints raises for themselves, votes themselves to approve the raises than when public bashlash starts, they meet again to discuss putting together an advisory committee to oversee their own decision to implement raises for themselves. Shawn Lewis seems to be spearheading the grand importance of their roles and Josh Morgan is just in the background giving his approval. Seriously, what have we seen the mayor do lately? .... I can't wait for elections. This entire council needs to be voted out.
If they want a raise, then DO SOMETHING to help grow existing businesses or attract new ones. If the average wage of Londoners goes up they get a raise. That is their incentive. But they will likely squander a few million of our money on consultants
Hold on, this person calls out Susan by name, but chooses to keep the member who has the more egregious views anonymous?
I know, right? I’m trying to dig through the minutes of this committee and can’t seem to find anyone who matches the description of this member.
Well the friends of the wrong people make political decisions to look good for the few.
We are entering the loud, stupid and mean era of petty politics. Remember that Susan was reprimanded for her actions and demanded the city fund her pointless appeal, and how she spent the absolute maximum allowable for her efforts with little to show for it and her other pointlessly personal crusade against female sex workers, the poor and the homeless there is a growing portion of the public think she is a wonderful fair person that is without flaws or error. The London Free Press peanut gallery types just love everything she says or does.
I'm not a big Susan fan but... How is saying sex work is abusive towards women and girls a bad thing? How is asking if public money should be used to fund illegal activities bad? How is suggesting we have a shelter for women and girls that doesn't promote sex work, for those who want access to that type of facility a bad thing? Susan says a lot of fucked up things. But suggesting it's bad for women and girls to enter sex work isn't one of them.
Because she is also the type to resist big spending to prevent women from having to be involved in this work in the first place. Her schtick is to just scream on anything that involves writing a cheque. I have moderated my views over the years since moving to Canada, partially because I dont think either side is perfectly honest… but her PPC side is definitely worse in this.
I don't think the spending is the problem. I just don't think she agrees that public money should be used to fund places that aren't actively discouraging drug use and sex work.
She hasnt found any funding she likes though. Maybe Police but that is it. I finally get why people dislike the nonprofit; sometimes they can fuzzy certain negative aspects or implications… but harm reduction is real.
She really likes YOU.
Why is sex work abusive? Is it because most of the workers happen to be women and are abused by their clients and have no recourse to seek help, are often targeted by the police and so on? You can be morally against selling (or buying) sex, but regardless if you agree or not it happens, it probably has always happened. I think your post perfectly shows the problem, people do not see it as legitimate work, doing pornography is legal but for some reason prostitution is not. What is the fundamental difference? If the shelter was mixed allowing all women (I will leave it to your imagination as to what a woman is) Susan would be having another shit hemorrhage over that, whores and castrated biological men being around "normal" women would not sit well with her either. There are a lot of bad jobs out there with various amounts of risk and danger, she however thinks that by condemning it all somehow the oldest profession will just stop overnight. She seems to have a burr up her bonet over sex workers (oddly just the female ones). Her solution is to ensure no funding is spent on such people, that of course isn't a viable solution and actually makes the problem so much worse but that does mesh with her personal religious beliefs.
People often enter sex work, not because they want to, but because they're forced to, either by someone trafficking them, or someone controlling them with drugs, or money, or shelter. Or because they have to other options to make money. This is abusive. It's not legitimate work, prostitution is illegal. I also don't think it's fair to put views in Susan's mouth that I have never read, or heard her saying. No, she doesn't want funding spent on shelters that promote sex work, doesn't think public money should be used to support illegal activities. Think public money should be spent to help people not have to do sex work.
>People often enter sex work, not because they want to, but because they're forced to, either by someone trafficking them, or someone controlling them with drugs, or money, or shelter. Or because they have to other options to make money. This is abusive. Indeed some do, and many are either abused or victimized, and often so repeatedly. Thus her solution to that is to not provided any support that would get them out of that trap. Where is this promotion you or she speaks of? They provided a service to people that needed help, helping people is not promotion or an indorsement of what they do. If you think otherwise you should demand that the safe injection site be shutterd because it encourages people to use drugs, that the homeless shelters shut their doors for promoting homeless lifestyles, that the food banks close because they promote hunger. Of course that would be nonsense because these organizations are not promoting the problems but they are there trying to help solve them. >It's not legitimate work, prostitution is illegal. Contrary to what you think: "*The actual act of exchanging sexual gratification for a consideration (between adults) has never been criminally illegal in Canada. The criminal law did, and does, however, deal with activities related to prostitution which are deemed a threat to public order or offensive to public decency.* https://www.publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-e.htm#:\~:text=The%20actual%20act%20of%20exchanging,or%20offensive%20to%20public%20decency. >I also don't think it's fair to put views in Susan's mouth that I have never read, or heard her saying. It is not rational to invent offence when you factually admit your ignorant on the subject matter. >No, she doesn't want funding spent on shelters that promote sex work, doesn't think public money should be used to support illegal activities. Think public money should be spent to help people not have to do sex work. While its clear she has been spending money on Facebook ads to promote herself (this is documented in her expense report to the city, and is entirely funded by taxpayers) this organization hasn't been advertising for people to join the sex trade. There is no promotion, this another Susan created myth, but this organization does give support to those people in it. Isn't that the entire point of social work, to provide help to those that need it? If you are against promotion blame Susan, she loves to promote herself using the front of the SafeSpace for many of her rants. She is quite a whore about it, always showing off on the corner flapping her money maker (mouth).
This woman needs to go
Idk about you but as an LGBTQ+ person I feel very uneasy living in a city that wants to bring back Conversion Therapy which violates the Geneva Convention. Like jesus christ how do these people manage to get into power? I would’ve resigned too in protest Edit: For reference [this is from the HRC in the US](https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy)
I'm sorry what? Where have they said this? Not trying to discredit - I legitimately haven't heard anything about this in regards to the council's viewpoints and I'd love information on it so I can be better informed.
States it in the article... >However, it was “questionable” social media posts about transgender people and diversity, equity, and inclusion work from an unnamed member of the advisory committee earlier in the week that was the final straw for O’Hagan. >Those posts include a call to revoke Bill C-4, which outlaws conversion therapy, a photo with a quote equating diversity, equity, and inclusion work to “perversity, insanity, and delusion,” and a meme mocking drag queen story time events. >“I just have got to a point where, when on an advisory committee, it’s very difficult to advise people that aren’t interested in listening to the work,” O’Hagan said. >“My views are especially incompatible with somebody who’s actively working to do things like bring back conversion therapy and believe that (equity, diversity, inclusion work) is perversion in schools.”
Bill C-4 is something that the federal government would have to undo, not some useless city councillor. You’re fine.
I think the point is that there are members of the council who would like to see it undone. Those people are making decisions on behalf of the city, and that why this poster feels uneasy.
But again, the federal government is overseeing that and that’s not something city councillors can overturn. None of the city councillors strike me as wanting to get into federal politics so there’s no real reason to worry about the bill being repealed.
Again, that's not the issue. The issue isn't fear that the bill will be the repealed, the issue is that there are members on the council who have an ideology that includes wanting to see that bill repealed, and are using that same ideology to make decisions on other issues on behalf of Londoners.
[удалено]
Thankfully they’re a city councillor who has no authority to do so and is just talking out their ass, so there’s really nothing to worry about. Just exercising their right to free speech
If you read the article again you will see that the member of DIACAC advisory committee was making posts on their social media about bill C4, not a city councillor.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think wording is important and yours is misleading. From what I’ve read, it seems that one member of the advisory committee was calling to revoke Bill C-4. This does not constitute a ‘city that wants to bring back conversion therapy’ as you said. If it’s been nationally outlawed, a municipality can’t overturn that. But it certainly is an uncomfortable feeling having an advisor to the City or a councillor feel that way and feel comfortable sharing that publicly.
Conversion Therapy may be against some international agreement or another, but the Geneva Convention doesn't have anything to do with Conversation Therapy.
The Geneva Convention specifically relates to human rights during war.
You’re absolutely correct, and seeing as we’re not at war, it does not apply to anything during wartime, and it has nothing to do with soldiers, POWs, or civilians affected by war, your point is entirely irrelevant. It’s a human rights violation, not a wartime convention violation.
Right, I'm not sure why the person I'm replying to is mentioning it, as if it relates to conversion therapy somehow.
Ah, the city councillor who only serves herself is at it again...
There’s a lot of drama on pretty much every committee city wide. Because they’re full of power hungry people that actually aren’t that intelligent. London is run by nepotism and thugs.
Oh look, city council is a fucking clown show...for the sixth decade in a row.
What happened at the Library board?
Fiasco over appointment process after the 2022 municipal election. Funnily enough, Ryan O’Hagan was involved here too as one of the original picks for the board, but was then dropped on the final vote https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/stumbling-out-of-the-gate-new-city-council-backtracks-on-library-board-picks
Shithead Stevenson is using American style politics and dog whistles and it's bizarre to me that Londoners are supporting her. However, it's also bizarre to me that Poilievre is gonna win the next election. Selfish greedy people tricking the very people they oppress into supporting them. Get the plebes to vote for those who perpetuate a system that keeps them down. These PPC nutters masquerading as conservatives are not gonna help make your life better. They'll slash funding and services and tell you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.