Hi - just read this blog by Dangermouse and wondered that if Cathy Smith is so bad, then why did 7 other aldermen vote the same way? She wasn’t the only vote so it can’t be all her fault. Sounds to me like Dangermouse is ticked off at Cathy when really it’s the whole Council who made this decision!

Ahh yes. Once again this issue rears its ugly head. You knew when they passed the other bylaws against adult stores and Stilletos it was just the thin end of the wedge, didn’t you?

Well, first of all - kudos to anyone on city council who is willing to stand up to these loonies.

I for one, am tired of people in this city trying to ‘protect’ me from driving 60km/h up Scholten Hill, trying to ‘protect’ me from second hand smoke in bars, and trying to ‘protect’ me from Maxim (or playboy for that matter).

This should be it, people. A line in the sand. If we restrict the sale of ‘Stuff Magazine’ (a gateway to porn apparently), we are going to be the laughing stock of Canada.

Theocracy
the‧oc‧ra‧cy  /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-ok-ruh-see]
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

Do you religious groups ever read the paper???
I was just wondering, because from what I have been reading, the backlash against these crazy religious zealots has begun. Take note local religious groups, because it is becoming quite apparent that the average Joe on the street is sick and tired of groups such as the CAPCS trying to adopt their own theocracy.
The tide has turned and it has started in the US…..
1. The hero of the right who was always bashing gay marriage and gays in general (Rev (eeewww that makes me ill even to write that term before this hypocrites name!) Haggard) has admitted to being gay himself…
2. South Dakota defeated the anti-abortion bill which was passed by their legislature by an overwhelming majority.
3. Arizona defeated a bill to ban same sex marriage.
4. Missouri voted to allow stem cell research.
Actually I want to say thank-you to the nut ball groups such as the CAPCS who have fools like Cathy Smith representing them. I thank these groups because they are finally pissing off enough ordinary people off such as myself to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!! These loony groups represent far less than 5% of the population but they act like they represent society as a whole, and I for one am ready to stay STOP!!!! You do not represent me nor do you represent a significant majority…..keep it up CAPCS because you are making the average man very angry, and the average people in society (who overwhelmingly are opposed to your attempts to legislate morality) far outnumber you, and when we start to move together (trust me) you will think the rapture is here because THE GROUND WILL SHAKE from our many many feet moving in unison….just ask ole GW Bush if he thinks these right wing groups represent the majority of Americans….LOL….because he just felt the ground shake himself!!!!!!

dangermouse,

i wept openly when i read this, as you are so on the mark! i bow down to your intelligence! ever thought of running for council . . . oh wait they will jade you!

i too have a huge problem with groups that feel they should redefine words to suit their cause. if they feel that cosmo, and maxim are the downfall our children they should maybe turn their bible thumping beliefs to the internet where the REAL smut is. do these church ladies (dragging their spineless husbands along) really think kids are scanning convenience stores for “pornography”?! hell no! they have the internet. those that purchase “pornogrpahic” (alderman smiths definition) material are consenting adults! wake up alderman smith and your capcs geriatric team, it is not 1950 and kids don’t lurk in corner stores waiting for a glimpse at the girlie magazines!

what will be her next move, to come into my home and tell me not to have cosmo around because it might damage my kids??! crap! i read cosmo growing up and i am not a sexual deviant nor was i damaged by the “pornography” (insert smith definition)

i wonder, is this move directed at women on the front of magazines ONLY or does it include men that (oh my gosh) bare their chests and wear tightie whities on the cover of magazines. Hmm, could alderman smith be a bit one sided here? i wonder what skeltons are lurking in the closets of the smiths? do her daughters read cosmo? will she punish them with 50 hail mary’s for reading that “pronography” (again smiths definition, not the criminal code or oxford dictionary)

i say keep your politics and relgion separate! if she is trying to garner votes for the upcoming election, it is not working. majority of the people i have spoken too (lets clarify this, UNDER 60) vehemently disagree with her bullying tactics to get her religious point across. and their are a few which i have spoken to that have not voted before in a municipal election, but will now so they can vote AGAINST alderman smith. i for one will NOT be putting my x next to her name.

Your long rant against the new Medicine Hat bylaw put forward by alderman Cathy Smith, claiming that Mrs. Smith and Citizens of Alberta for Positive Community Standards are deceiving the public and have acted wrongly simply because most Med Hatters (the blogsite claims) do not agree with them, is twisted.

What the majority of Med Hatters think is irrelevant; morality isn’t determined by majority opinion. If the majority decide that stealing is O.K., does that make it O.K.? No. There is an objective moral law written on the heart of every person and knowable by human reason alone which exists irrespective of human opinion or business enterprises. It is the responsibility of the public authorities to implement those parts of this law (the natural law) that concern the common good.

The flaunting of those parts of the human body that should remain covered and the explicit language used on the covers of Maxim and Cosmos, etc. contradict the moral law by treating people like sexual objects to be exploited and stripping the sexual act of its intrinsic meaning as an act of love open to life reserved for spouses in marriage. It is therefore clearly pornography, which one dictionary defines as “obscene literature or art”; that is an objective truth and not just CAPCS’s opinion. The publication of such material in magazines (like Cosmo and Maxim) or other media undermines the natural right of every person to be treated as a person, not an object, and not to be exposed to immorality; it is akin to sexual abuse and attacks young people and children. Have you noticed these magazines are always at the eye level of children? The promotion of sexual immorality subverts the family, the foundation of society, and is always one of the key factors in the decay of any civilization (e.g. the Roman Empire). It undermines the common good. The public authorities are obliged to prevent the production and distribution of such material.

Mrs. Smith and CAPCS should be thanked for their courageous defence of the common good and public morality. Other towns and cities should implement similar legislation.

The publication of such material in magazines (like Cosmo and Maxim) or other media undermines the natural right of every person to be treated as a person, not an object, and not to be exposed to immorality; it is akin to sexual abuse and attacks young people and children

You know many thoughtfull and moral Med Hatters might not think that the image above is akin to sexual abuse and attacking young people and children. Do you have any actual evidence that it is? By Evidence I mean independant, measurable proof, not just an appeal to the notion that the opinion of CAPCS supporters is of higher moral quality than one who disagrees with them.

Cosmo has been publishing in its current format since 1965 (Credit Biography Channel - Helen Gurly Brown, the real life author that inspired the show “Sex in the City”) - so there should be ample quantitative (not anecdotal) evidence of the harm done in our community if this harm exists.

Just note that my objection to this whole process is in the deceptive use of language and misleading statistics to couch this topic with city hall.  CAPCS is certainly entitled to their opinion on the issue, I just feel that you need more than an opinion to start interfering with how law abiding citizens can make a living in retail - and that open and honest debate would be more appropriate than deception.

So pornography is defined as any magazine a random group of citizens finds objectionable?

Retailers, advertising standards council DO differentiate based on the degree of sexual content – so the CAPCS definition flies in the face of the accepted industry definition of pornography. The CAPCS group not explaining to City Hall or media outlets that their definition of adult material differs from the accepted use of the term is deceptive.

Generally the Publishing industry uses this definition:
Pornography

The explicit depiction or exhibition

of sexual activity in literature, films

or photography that is intended to

stimulate erotic, rather than aesthetic

or emotional feelings.

So writing an article about sexual relationships as Cosmo does is not considered pornographic by the publishing and advertising industry. Being sexy or edgy is not pornographic.

The Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with CAPCS as well, ruling in 1992 that enforcement of obscenity laws based on morality or community standards was a clear violation of freedom of speech. Meaning you would have to demonstrate harm to the community in making a case against a particular publication – not just object on abstract moral principle. (credit helpful e-mailer)

The group women against pornography is an Anti pornography group in the States that has tried to argue that pornography can be a civil rights issue where people are harmed. Interesting that an organization who in principle agrees with CAPCS clearly does not include magazines like Cosmo and Maxim in their definition of pornography.

“Pornography” means the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the following:

a. women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or

b. women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or

c. women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest, or other sexual assault; or

d. women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or

e. women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or

f. women’s body parts-including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks-are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or

g. women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or

h. women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.

Neither Cosmo or Maxim meet this definition of pornographic – in short other than the members of CAPCS nobody considers a woman in a bathing suit to be pornography. but the burden of proof isn’t on me anyways it on CAPCS. Before they can insist the city draft illegal legislation that is contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms they have to establish the clear harm that Cosmo magazine is perpetuating. Few if any credible groups – even in the anti pornographic movement accepts the overly broad CAPCS definition so yes In my opinion, its deceptive in that they use the phrase “pornographic” in a way that is not an accepted use of the word in any legal or industry related context.

CAPCS members have the right to think that Oxygen magazine needs to be kept behind the counter (because it displays women in clothes that cover sensitive areas?) They are absolutly entitled to an opinion.  However I object to using a misleading and unscientific survey using terms not the way they are accepted either legally or in industry or in casual conversation.  Its deceptive.  If CAPCS wants to campaign agasint broadly defined magazines like the Swim Suit edition or Cosmo they have the right to do that - just be upfront about it.  Its deceptive to group those magazines with Hustler or Penthouse.  If they want to have an honest debate with the community they are free to do so…just be upfront with the citizens about what specifically they are calling for.

The survey finding only 2 businesses in Medicine Hat taking “reasonable” steps to control the display of magazine is deceptive.

What is reasonable?  I find it reasonable for Macs to keep Penthouse behind the counter but leave health and fitness on the magazine rack…I think many other Med Hatters would agree.  The retailer has the final say in how they display their completly legal publications for sale - CAPCS has an obligation to PROVE that children are harmed - and be open and honest that their campaign includes the control of magazines that arent considered “adult content” by anyone other than CAPCS. Frankly all they have proven so far is that they will wildly exagerate their claims and make misleading statements.

Here’s the problem RDR - you are starting from an incorrect assertion and then building your entire argument around that assertion. Namely…

What the majority of Med Hatters think is irrelevant; morality isn’t determined by majority opinion. If the majority decide that stealing is O.K., does that make it O.K.? No. There is an objective moral law written on the heart of every person and knowable by human reason alone which exists irrespective of human opinion or business enterprises. It is the responsibility of the public authorities to implement those parts of this law (the natural law) that concern the common good.

Now, I would agree with you that there is to some extent a natural human moral code for certain things (Murder and cannabalism being #1 and 2 most likely), but moral codes on sexuality are far from universal. In many (most?) societies, both contemporary and historical, ‘pornography’ is/was accepted into the mainstream culture far more then it is in North America today. And I’m talking about actual pornography by the way. Near as I can tell - *very* few societies have ever considered items like Cosmo / Maxim pornographic (congratulations to CAPCS to being in the same group as the Taliban and Puritans, by the way..).

Here’s another example:
The promotion of sexual immorality subverts the family, the foundation of society, and is always one of the key factors in the decay of any civilization

Wrong again. In fact Europe right now (where pornography has been widely available for decades, and they are much more liberal on sexual matters) has FAR lower rates then North America in the following:
-STD’s
-Sexual Assualt
-Teen pregnancy (and abortion by the way).

Incidentally, the Romans were extremely ‘liberal’ (or whatever you want to call it), for pretty much the entire empire. If you want to really look at what changed very shortly before the fall there are 2 big things in my mind:
a) Constantine adopting Christianity - ouch.
b) The rise of the barbarian tribes (particularly the huns and goths) who destroyed the western empire.

RDR, with all due respect - the CAPCS arguments are built on a house of cards.

Sorry Dangermouse, I think you’re mistaken.
The 1992 Supreme Court decision you are referring to is “R v Butler” which ESTABLISHED the whole community standard idea in the first place! Check your facts.
So….even if the Supreme Court had ruled in 1992 that you must prove harm (which it didn’t), what makes you think it’s in reference to adult material? Isn’t it about strip clubs and lap dancing and all that? There never has been nor is there now ANY federal or provincial law that states where store owners have to place their adult materials. All of that is left up to individual city councils to decide - which they do! That is part of their job, like it or not.
You didn’t answer my question about where the word ‘pornography’ is used in law - you mentioned the ‘generally accepted’ publishing version, but that is also subject to opinion.
Face it, Dangermouse, you are not living up to your own standards of being honest here - there is absolutely NO LAW that mentions the word ‘pornography’! There is no ‘legal’ definition of that word at all, so don’t say that there is!

The 1992 Supreme Court decision you are referring to is “R v Butler” which ESTABLISHED the whole community standard idea in the first place! Check your facts.

Wrong and the most misleading statement of all. It did not establish the community standard of tolerance test (which already existed) – it amended it (or added to it) to include HARM – exactly as I posted, but we don’t have to debate it we can just read from the actual Supreme Court ruling thanks to the power of the Internet. (http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1992/1992rcs1-452/1992rcs1-452.html)

I bolded the best part for you.

The courts must determine as best they can what the community would tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that may flow from such exposure. Harm in this context means that it predisposes persons to act in an anti social manner, in other words, a manner which society formally recognizes as incompatible with its proper functioning. The stronger the inference of a risk of harm, the lesser the likelihood of tolerance. The portrayal of sex coupled with violence will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex. Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial. Explicit sex that is not violent and neither degrading nor dehumanizing is generally tolerated in our society and will not qualify as the undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its production. If material is not obscene under this framework, it does not become so by reason of the person to whom it is or may be shown or by reason of the place or manner in which it is shown.

That last part clarifies the rules regarding its display in retail stores…

It should be noted that Oxygen, Cosmo, Maxim et all have NEVER been considered obscene or “adult” or “pornographic” by any group outside of CAPCS and perhaps the Taliban

CAPCS has not demonstrated that Cosmo causes harm. My statement was entirely accurate, perhaps it is you Brahms who needs to check your facts.

I agree with Brahms!
Keep the adult stuff for adults.
As you might be able to tell from my name, i like candy. And when i go into a store to buy the candy i dont want to see a raunchy magazine sitting by the counter where i have to pay. I came for candy, not junk like the magazines displayed all over Medicine Hat at a child’s eyelevel. I stand at 5 foot 3 and every magazine is within my eyelevel or lower in most cases. Seeing the cover of these magazines is bad enough but it is possible that some child might actually flip through the magazine and see even more disturbing images. Those images are imprinted in a child’s mind and will stay there like just like a song will play over and over in your head. Like i said, keep adult stuff for the adults.

Nicely stated.

I own several bikinis, and enjoy wearing them when I swim. Am I a pornstar?

Keep the adult stuff for adults.

That sounds reasonable at first blush doesn’t it? - but when you read CAPCS definition of “adult” others might thoughtfully disagree. Usually in casual conversation the phrase “adult material” refers to pornography. – But you and the CAPCS group like to play with that phrase to mean “emphasis on sensitive body parts” – while what is emphasis? Its not exposed, not nudity, just emphasized? Maxim Magazine is not for children – but nor is it an explicit sex magazine as CAPCS claims. Their vague definition can be applied to virtually all fashion, fitness and women’s magazines – Unless you mean “adult” as in not intended for children..

Lots of things are “adult” (as in not aimed at children) Banking information is pretty adult. News information is awfully adult - should TIME magazine be kept behind the counter? – Isn’t it odd that CAPCS doesn’t object to graphic news violence clearly that’s not for kids, and flipping through there you might find some really graphic and disturbingly violent images - what if a child saw that!) I guess CAPCS is only worried about women in bathing suits. Maybe we should sanitize the whole world of products and services that are aimed at adults and keep them hidden behind the counter.

It’s not a benign request – the CAPCS demand interferes with the selling and profitability of local retailers. Why should they give up earning completely legal and moral profits to placate a small group of Med Hatters with arguably the most extreme sensitivity? If you don’t like the candy store’s selection of legal and non pornographic magazines – DON’T SHOP THERE – apparently there are 2 great places to meet all your magazine needs according to CAPCS. Vote democratically with your wallet. Stores don’t have an obligation to only display publications you like.

As to this:

i like candy. And when i go into a store to buy the candy i dont want to see a raunchy magazine sitting by the counter where i have to pay. I came for candy, not junk like the magazines displayed all over Medicine Hat at a child’s eyelevel

What you find raunchy – most others find harmless. You can’t legislate taste. The retailers aren’t displaying material that harms anyone or is beneath the community standards (according to the Supreme Court of Canada) – Luckily for you though there are 2 great places to meet all of your magazine needs that you and CAPCS find acceptable. Strangely though, every place that I stroll into to buy candy keeps the raunchy magazines behind the counter – so I suspect there are even more than 2 locations for you to go.

Hey DangerMouse! Where do you go to get your candy?
I go to the convenience store down the street from where i live. In that particular store there are many magazines with inappropriate images on the front cover (and probably inside as well) that are right in the aisle that you go down to get to the pop and slushes at the back of the store. Obviously these magazines are not behind the counter! And im not just talking about magazines with women in bikinis cus thats not pornograhy. (unless of course the women are not wearing their bikinis) I’m talking about the magazines with women wearing much less than bikinis.

I have been to Macs before and i have never seen any magazines behind the counter. All i have seen behind the counter is cigarettes and lotto tickets. I go to the Mohawk which has all the magazines on a shelf in plain view of anyone. Now, I myself dont go looking at these magazines because i know they are there and that they are inappropriate for someone my age. But what if some other kid goes and looks at these magazines or reads through it. The kid might not know any better and there is nothing there to stop him/her. But the images they see are imprinted into their mind regardless.
By the way, Korner Konvenience store in the Flats has all of those really raunchy porn magazines at a kid’s eye level just in case you were wondering.
Also, how would putting mags like that behind the counter hurt sales? People can still buy them is they like (and if they are of age to do so) without having the problem of little kids looking at them.

It is not about Cosmo.(as said many times before)But Maxim can have some explicit covers. There are many worse magazines out there and that is what should go. As for putting mags behind counters hurting sales, i still don’t see the issue. If people are going into a store to buy those magazines anyhow, it wouldn’t matter whether it was behind the counter because they can still buy it. It was said by DangerMouse that the magazines are put behind the counter in Macs. So if the magazines are behind the counters and Macs hasn’t had to put them back out because sales are dropping, then i guess you can’t say that by putting pornographic magazines behind the counters all the sales will drop. People can still go in and buy those magazines from behind the counter and kids don’t have to see them.

Here’s the link re the ’specified body areas’ I referred to on the CAPCS website.
capcs.com/lethbridge.html
Scroll down to d) and e)

I am trying to picture a visit to Chapters with all of what has been deemed objectionable material by the wingnut loonie CAPCS members (Christians Against Public Choice & Sanity… we really should call it as it is right?) behind counters… Maybe we should just get the book burning over with now to satisfy those fundamentalist Anti freedom zealots. Or rather, because we don’t want to interfere with women’s rights by making them wear burqas to quell those savage animalistic wife beating child abusing demon impulses, fighting to get out from every man and boy out there from the sight of a Cosmo or Maxim magazine, why not just make eunuchs from them all and burn both their eyes from their sockets? After all, what they can’t see or can’t touch will save the world won’t it?

Written laws are like spiders’ webs; they will catch, it is true, the weak and the poor, but would be torn in pieces by the rich and the powerful.
~Anacharsis

My goodness. This has to be the first thread ever where DangerMouse, Anarchenisis, and me are all on the same side. I never thought I’d see the day…

“My goodness. This has to be the first thread ever where DangerMouse, Anarchenisis, and me are all on the same side…”

No kidding eh… someone check the temperature in hell!!!

ROTFL

I dont know how many times Brahms has explained it and how many times I have explained it but you, Dangermouse, still dont seem to get it. You seriously have a problem with your capability to understand the point that Brahms and myself are trying to make so i will try to make it nice and simple for you. I DON’T THINK COSMOPOLITAN OR COLLEGE GIRLS IN BIKINIS ARE PORNOGRAPHY! There! I hope that was easy enough for you to understand. I also hope you understand that it was never said that Cosmo or girls in bikinis were pornography. You made that up yourself. The stuff that should be behind the counters is the real pornography. The kind of stuff that turns kids into people like Ted Bundy.
So stop ranting on about Cosmo and college girls in bikinis being pornography because it isnt true.

. You seriously have a problem with your capability to understand the point that Brahms and myself are trying to make so i will try to make it nice and simple for you. I DON’T THINK COSMOPOLITAN OR COLLEGE GIRLS IN BIKINIS ARE PORNOGRAPHY! There! I hope that was easy enough for you to understand. I also hope you understand that it was never said that Cosmo or girls in bikinis were pornography.

Its almost frightening how you wilfully ignore the point. Great! We do agree on something ie) none of those magazines are pornographic – sadly though the CAPCS group supplies a definition for pornography that clearly does include Cosmo magazine. How can you say it doesn’t? Please explain how CAPCS is able to draft a bylaw differentiating between the two.  How is a woman in a bikini on the cover of Maxim any different than a woman in a bikini on Cosmo - or a woman on the beach at echo dale.
The stuff that should be behind the counters is the real pornography. The kind of stuff that turns kids into people like Ted Bundy.
You have evidence of Maxim magazine turning people into serial killers like Ted Bundy? There is greater evidence that people who support the CAPCS position are led to gross acts of exaggeration and deception.
So stop ranting on about Cosmo and college girls in bikinis being pornography because it isnt true.
Of course it’s not true! Nice to see you’re picking up on the point! It’s absurd and unnecessary to try and control non pornographic magazines and further its ridiculous to claim they are pornographic. It is also absurd to claim Maxim is pornographic and Cosmo is acceptable – how can you possibly differentiate the two? You can’t (which is a point I feel I have made rather clearly) – and the CAPCS definition makes no attempt to.

This always seems to be the case with groups such as the CAPCS. If someone does not agree with their beliefs and stands up against them, these groups attempt to demonize and marginalize that group or person.

I think they could fairly suggest that you’re attempting to demonize them for their beliefs. Kyle - This isn’t an issue of organized religion. CAPCS is a group of concerned citizens not a Church. There are many thoughtful citizens who worship faithfully who disagree with the CAPCS group – and probably there are some non Church goers who maybe agree with them.

The issue is about a public deception being presented to City Hall. Its about individual rights to operate a business without interference from a small extreme minority. While I appreciate it is upsetting and emotional we should treat them with the same respect you want them to extend to you. They are not bad people. Some of us object to their position on this issue we don’t attack the individuals themselves or their personal beliefs.

Being Anti CAPCS is not the same being anti Christian. Right Wing vs Left Wing …that’s a whole other discussion. You’re right though America is shifting closer to the middle politically …but that doesn’t much affect our local municipal politics.

DM,
I am thankful that these groups have the right to believe anything they like. I try to live by this statement, “Although I may not agree with your opinion, I will fight to my death for your right to express it freely.”. I believe Voltaire first said that, but I may be wrong.
My problem with the CAPCS is that they have moved from opinion to legislation, and now they are trying to impose their opinions upon me and force me to live by their “moral” codes. I for one agree that pornography has no place in any store within arms reach or eyesight of youth, but I do not believe that this is a problem with our local merchants. It is only the opinion of the CAPCS that it is. This is a slippery slope that CAPCS is going down, and you DM must recognize this. Just because I am passionate about a topic does not mean I am fanatical as you and Brahms, and Joyzil in another post have implied. I have simply been pushed too far and I am speaking up about it.
DM I agree that not all people who agree with the CAPCS are religious, but I challenge you to find 10 members of the CAPCS who do not officially belong to a church congregation, or at the very least attend a church strongly affiliated with the CAPCS.
As the old saying goes, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it is a duck.
DM if you do not see the danger to society in general from these minority interest groups becoming a problem for the average person to enjoy the freedoms they take for granted in society, then you have tunnel vision. Someone has to stand up against these groups sometime, and I believe that the pornography issue is the proverbial line in the sand.
If anyone thinks I am actually anti-Christian, you are wrong, but I definitely do not share all of Christianity’s teachings. Like I have said before, just because you say it is so does not mean that it is! And just because I do not agree with your opinion does not mean that I am a bad person.
DM, if you honestly think that organized religion is not responsible for fertilizing discrimination and true hatred amongst their supporters against others such as gays, stem-cell supporters, or people who agree that abortion should be a personal choice, then you must live in a bubble. From my observation, this is one of the main tenets of all organized religious groups, and they breed intolerance to others instead of love for your fellow man.

There are many branches of faith and many billions of Christians in the world. Just because you disagree with a few of them doesnt make it an issue of organized religion.

Dont make this an issue of Christians vs non Christians because its not. the CAPCS position happens to be some people who claim to be Christians - but believe me they do not speak for the billions of other Christians or members of organzied religion.

If you want to have a discussion about organized religion - we can do that (in fact we did that) but each thread should try and stay focused on one topic. This one is about CAPCS and their move to strike a new bylaw. I agree with you they are out of line…but direct your anger specifically at them instead of painting the whole world of billions of people (and THOUSANDS in Medicine Hat) who are not represented by CAPCS.

DM, if you honestly think that organized religion is not responsible for fertilizing discrimination and true hatred amongst their supporters against others such as gays, stem-cell supporters, or people who agree that abortion should be a personal choice, then you must live in a bubble. From my observation

Within the world of the Christian faith there are HUGE chasms of disagreement. There is no Christian consensus on issues of gay rights, stem cell research or even abortion rights. The Christian faith has many denominations with varied scientific and political leanings. If you are opposed to the message of a certain Christian group (ie CAPCS) be sure to direct your statements at them. Christianity is an awefully big net, organized religion even bigger. Since you will find Christians on either side of each issue I doubt that Christians as a whole are the danger to personal liberty that you suggest. In fact it was Christians who founded all those personal freedoms in the first place.

Feel free to disagree with the CAPCS position - I do. But just do so in a respectful manner. There is no need to bash their faith or be insulting just to emphasize that you disagree with them.  Its their position you disagree with not them personally.

Hey Sugarpowered - question for you.

Do you have any actual evidence that access to Maxim (or Hustler for that matter) is turning people into ‘Ted Bundy’? Everyone I’ve ever heard talk about this quickly moves into junk science and junk psychology.

Without any evidence, I’m afraid I’m going to have to see your Ted Bundy and raise you a Jim Jones…

Your long rant against the new Medicine Hat bylaw put forward by alderman Cathy Smith, claiming that Mrs. Smith and Citizens of Alberta for Positive Community Standards are deceiving the public and have acted wrongly simply because most Med Hatters (the blogsite claims) do not agree with them, is twisted.

What the majority of Med Hatters think is irrelevant; morality isn’t determined by majority opinion. If the majority decide that stealing is O.K., does that make it O.K.? No. There is an objective moral law written on the heart of every person and knowable by human reason alone which exists irrespective of human opinion or business enterprises. It is the responsibility of the public authorities to implement those parts of this law (the natural law) that concern the common good.

RDR, I cannot believe you submitted this low-brow comment of yours to the Medicine Hat Newspaper. I am glad to see that you wanted to increase your exposure. Now, instead of just the people of the medhatblog website thinking you are completely illogical and void of critical thinking and reasoning skills, everyone who reads the paper can now view your lack of education and understanding. I cannot believe you actually published your comment regarding your indifference to the opinion of the majority of Hatters.
I know you truly believe your fellow fools from CAPCS represent an overwhelming majority of society, but the fact is, you do not.
CAPCS is simply a group of religious zealots banded together by their common notion that they have been granted divine authority regarding morality in society and a return to theocracy.
How come none of you nuts supporting the CAPCS ever answered the question on the website regarding your support of a bylaw forcing women to wear full bodied muslim veils? If this CAPCS initiative is passed, then I think we really should pursue the muslim veils in the Hat. But, I know all the CAPCS members are far too arrogant to accept someone elses opinion of God and his teachings.
RDR, you are not even from Medicine Hat, why do you not stay in your own community and preach your craziness there? Too many from the LDS faith there who think you are a fool too?
I do not care what anyone thinks on this site regarding my comments either. If they are insensitive, good! They are meant to be, because I for one have had enough of these special interest groups trying to legislate their idea of morality. Just remember people, Cathy Smith almost lost the last election, so if she thinks she has been given a mandate from the public to spread her views, she is sadly mistaken.
RDR, as I said before, you have no idea regarding the tenets of democracy, and you are a truly warped individual. I really do believe most of the CAPCS are ignorant fools who paid no attention in school whatsoever!
Maybe, RDR, you should read Jim Ogston’s letter to the editor. This man has a son in Afghanistan right now fighting people such as yourself (the Taliban) who believe everyone should live by their morals. I for one value democracy and thank the men who fight for the right for others to practice free speech as well. If the CAPCS does not think this is a fair comparison (to the Taliban), then take a good look at yourself (objectively, after you look up the definition in the dictionary and juxtapose this with the definition of subjectivity, which you from the CAPCS are 100% full of).
Atlthough I may not agree with your opinion, I would fight to my death for your right to express it freely!
Too bad the CAPCS does not share my philosophy towards individual freedom!

What are the issues here? This isn’t about “pornography”. It’s about “adult materials” and where and how they should be displayed. “Pornography” vs. “Erotica” and “Titillation”. Where will magazine purveyors place the swim suit addition of Sports Illustrated, because it surely is as unacceptable to CAPS as Maxim and the calendars at the mall kiosk in December. And about the miriad of “fitness” magazines with their muscle-bound, nearly naked bodies on the cover? Exactly how insulated do people want their children’s lives to be? Like the common cold, you can’t develop resistance without exposure.

DangerMouse: nice name.

Gee this post starts with all the condesending tone of the CAPCS position.
I’m a little surprised at the fuss you’re kicking up. Assuming you’re a “mature” adult, and one with no interest in pornography, how does the issue impact you?

Ahhh there you go - (rolls eyes) - start with a personal attack. not an opinion or introducing a reasonable argument. and by all means avoid giving any evidence to support your position…just smear - as though anyone who thoughtfully objects to the sleaze ball tactics of CAPCS must be a porn addicted child molestor. You guys are unreal.

The issue impacts all of us - its about the rights of businesses to earn an honest and legal living without the interference of the most extreme religious zealots. Of course thats already been stated numerous times, but why let that get in the way of the usual bullying tactics of the CAPCS supporters.
Not to mention the obvious free speech implications - that a zealot group of an extreme minority can dictate how publications can be distriputed and sold in our society - They alone can determine what is and is not acceptable material to be displayes in a store? pretty slippery slope.

Our laws already protect us from all the insidious “dangers” of pornography (or obscene) material that you talk about - but lets be perfectly clear. Maxim and Cosmo ARE NOT PORNOGRAPHY. As such I can be a mature adult with no interest in pornography who still disagrees with Cathy Smith and her husband, and their club. This issues is NOT ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY any attempt to discuss these magazines using the phrase pornography is outright deception.

does anyone lose if pornographic magazines are behind the counter?

Generally speaking pornographic magazines are already behind the counter - so you must be referering to “any random magazine Cathy Smith and her club dont approve of” - and to your question using the imaginary (CAPCS) definition of “pornography” YES - as stated the local businesses have MONEY AND PROFITS to lose if the CAPCS bylaw gets implemented. Why should Local businesses lose profits because an extremem minority wants to quell how they conduct their completly legal business? CAPCS has an obligation to prove these businesses are causing harm and they have failed to do that.
If it’s so important to the shopkeepers to keep sales up, they can post a big “WE SELL PORN!” sign in their window so everyone knows it’s there.

NEWSFLASH - a woman in a bikini IS NOT PORN. Thats exactly the strawman argument that is absurd. You cant call it pornographic when it isnt - and then defend your position by discussion pornography. Its deceptive, its a LIE! A store can be completly PORN FREE and still sell Cosmo magazine. The WE SELL PORN Sign wont sell Cosmo - because its not porn.

If you object to the way a local retailer does business - DONT SHOP THERE.
Pornography affects the mind. Humans of sound mind have enough problems in life; there’s no reason to make the world any more complicated.

It seems you have completly missed the point since the magazines in question are not pornographic - Please provide evidence that Cosmo magazine or Maxim is affecting the mind in any negative way…you know proof…quantifiable , measurable evidence…something your position seems devoid of in every way - I know that it makes it more complicated…

speaking of that - wouldnt it be less complicated if we just let businesses decide how to sell their legal and non harming products - and the consumers just decided based on their purchasing which venders to support?  That seems less complicated to me.

Insider, the issue is not about pornograghy vs adult material. The issue is a tiny minority trying to force their wills upon the majority. The answer is simple, if there was a store that had things I found offensive, I would not go there. If the mall has things I don’t think are appropriate for my son to see, he will not be going there. Very simple. I know for a fact I don’t need anybody else telling me what is right and wrong. I already have one person doing this, I call her Mom and even her I chose not to listen too.

“if Cathy Smith is so bad, then why did 7 other aldermen vote the same way?”

VERY misleading statement. What if anything did 7 other alderman support? A non binding goodwill letter that businesses were free to throw in the garbage and ignore? Certainly 7 other Alderpersons DID NOT vote for a bylaw - because there has been no vote on the issue - but mark our words…this blog will keep very close tabs on who votes for this.

I apologize if you took offence at my first comment. The name DangerMouse creates a funny image in my mind; sort of like Mighty Mouse’s alter ego or something.

I don’t think people who don’t agree with CAPCS are child molesters or porn addicts. I can understand why you are involving yourself with this issue because of its majority/minority controversy. Just because you don’t agree with CAPCS doesn’t make you wrong, but it doesn’t make you right either. Because this is an issue of morality, there really isn’t a right or wrong answer. However, people are going to continue fighting until they feel they have made their point and established their belief as right.

Are you one hundred percent sure that CAPCS and its supporters are a minority group? It seems to me that a lot of people are in support of a bylaw. And if CAPCS and its supporters are the minority, they still have the majority of Council support.

I am not a bully and I do not appreciate your accusations.

I am fully aware that a woman in a bikini is not porn. It’s legal, isn’t it? You seem to be convinced that Cosmo is porn, when no CAPCS member has ever said it is. And I don’t shop where I object to the material. Kids, however, don’t know ahead of time what they’re going to be seeing. Images stay with your mind; they’re not easily forgotten. Any image, pornography or not, impacts you. Pornography happens to be a negatively impacting image.

It’s obvious no one in support of CAPCS has your respect. Regardless of what happens with the bylaw, not everyone is going to be happy. If you want proof that pornography affects the mind, read Ted Bundy’s final interview with Dr. Dobson. You can find it at this link:

http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/intimacy/understanding/a0000082.cfm

You know who Ted Bundy is and what he did. This is proof. Undeniable proof. And as an intelligent person, you ought to be able to understand why CAPCS is doing what it does.

Letting businesses do what they want would be a good idea, but it still doesn’t protect kids. They won’t know if porn is there until it’s too late. Adults are smarter than kids; they have more life experience. They can make those decisions. Children aren’t going to walk any farther than they have to to get their candy.

You are very set in your opinions, DangerMouse, and CAPCS is not out to change your mind. You don’t have to support what they do or even like it. Just try to understand why they are doing what they do.

Ted Bundy was a sociopath which had nothing to do with any exposure to pornography. You and everybody else is entitled to your opinion but I really must question your motives and intellegence when you make such statements sugarpowered and sphinx.

and to Mr Sphinx

I am fully aware that a woman in a bikini is not porn. It’s legal, isn’t it? You seem to be convinced that Cosmo is porn, when no CAPCS member has ever said it is.

Prove how the CAPCS definition of pornography can include Maxim but exclude Cosmo. Yes a few of you have said this definition is somehow only Maxim and Stuff, , but the CAPCS definition has no way of differentiating.  So yes the CAPCS definition SAYS Cosmo is porn.
Cosmo is every bit as edgy and sexy as Maxim - and thats the point, once you start trying to include non pornographic publications under your overly inclusive definition of “adult” there is no way to objectivly classify the magazines. (currently the nudity vs non nudity standard is pretty easy to apply) What it boils down to is that you dont like the masoginistic tones of Maxim and Stuff magazine - but you cant legislate against taste - you can only make clear cut definitions - and by every reasonable definition Cosmo and Maxim should and are classified in exactly the same way.

The CAPCS definition can apply to near every publication in the market place. Forgive me and all the other people of Medicine Hat for not trusting Cathy Smith and her pals with deciding what should and should not be for sale here in the hat.

Are you one hundred percent sure that CAPCS and its supporters are a minority group? It seems to me that a lot of people are in support of a bylaw. And if CAPCS and its supporters are the minority, they still have the majority of Council support.

I would bet that in any given month more Medicine Hatters purchase magazines that would be considered “adult” under the CAPCS definition than there are supporters of CAPCS in the first place. I guess the million dollar question is…of the 1000’s of people who purchase those magazines in Medicine Hat each month - how many of them feel they are buying filth that damages minds and sends you down the garden path to murder…

I would guess that the people who purchase the magazines are probably in the camp of people who see no harm in them.

but according the Supreme Court of Canada - thats not the question that needs to be answered. That question is - Prove how Maxim and magazines that “emphasize body parts” - whatever that means, actually HARMS people in the community.

Because this is an issue of morality, there really isn’t a right or wrong answer.

and based on that you think it reasonable to interfere with honest merchants earning a legal living?�

When I was a child in Sunday School,I remember seeing pictures of Adam and Eve. With just fig leafs to cover up the naughty bits. Does this mean the Church is guilty of dispalying Porn? Of couse not, but the church would be guilty if we all used CAPCS definition of pornography.

CAPCS if you feel that the current laws do not protect children. Please feel free to take this up with the Govement. Hyjacking local Cousil meetings, to make your point through intimidation, make you look like a bunch of want to be Nazi’s. Or the degenerate morality police of some other countries. Every time I see CAPCS in the news, I have visions of a bunch of wierdo fanatics, burning teenagers at the stake in Echo Dale.

RDR, please define what is natural law, what natural laws there are, and who decided what would be natural law.

To Old McDonald:
If you are looking for proof of the affect pornography had on Ted Bundy, please refer to his final interview. He explains it himself. You can find the information at this link:

http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/intimacy/understanding/a0000082.cfm

To Spider:

“CAPCS if you feel that the current laws do not protect children. Please feel free to take this up with the Govement.”

CAPCS is doing exactly that. Making a presentation to City Council is taking it up with the government.

To DangerMouse:
The difference between Maxim and Cosmo are the mood of the pictures. On the covers you yourself posted Cosmo shows a flirty looking woman in a pastel bathing suit with a bright, colorful background. Maxim shows a sultry, seductive woman in a dark background; this cover seems to be trying to evoke something almost primal in the viewer. So it’s not so much a matter of what is on the cover, it’s how it’s being displayed. You could have identical twins in the same bikini but in different poses and settings, and one would appear sexier. Perhaps you’re reading too much into the CAPCS definition and finding fault that isn’t intended. Is it the definition of pornography that bothers you? Maybe CAPCS is open to suggestions.

Of course there were serial killers prior to pornography! Pornography is not the cause of serial killing; serial killers have a specific type of mind. Pornography helps to shape this mind.

I don’t know how many Hatters purchase these magazines and see nothing wrong with them, and that’s their perogative. There is probably an equal amount of people who do not purchase these magazines because they don’t like the covers or the articles inside. CAPCS is not trying to take away anything from Medicine Hat; they are trying to give the city something. Adults are free to buy what they want; that’s not the issue. Children need protection. CAPCS is fighting for their protection. There are many other bylaws that could protect children: giving them a curfew, for example. This would presumably not affect adults; would you fight this issue?

Many local merchants have no say in what is in their store. Some do. How could a merchant lose money if the product is still in their store? It’s just been relocated. Does having cigarettes behind the counter stop people from buying them? If people are interested in these magazines they will continue to buy them, regardless of their location.

Sphinx>> “Many local merchants have no say in what is in their store. Some do. How could a merchant lose money if the product is still in their store? It’s just been relocated.”

I’m curious what you or your spouse do for a living Sphinx? Mind if me and my friends come over and re-organize your business if we happen to be opposed to something? How about your home? What if me and my friends want to come over and remove your TV, radio and stereo? After all, all of these things have been ‘proven’ in one form or another to ’shape the mind’ negatively..

If you are looking for proof of the affect pornography had on Ted Bundy, please refer to his final interview. He explains it himself. You can find the information at this link:http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/intimacy/understanding/a0000082.cfm

First of all - this isnt proof. Where is the evidence, you know peer reviewed scientific analysis that supports your claim that Maxim magazine in plain view is harmfull to citizens of Medicine Hat. Something measurable, not conjecture.

As noted Ted Bundy was diagnosed with Anti Social Personality Disorder. He was a peeping Tom as a teenager and a compulsive law breaker. ASPD suffers do not experiance empathy - He was incapable of understanding sympathy or empathy - It didnt bother him that others suffer, its a mental defect. You cant catch it from viewing the cover of Maxim magazine or frankly seeing any other material. Sociopathology is ITSELF the cause of the violence.
But - aside from that obvious point.Where in that interview did even Ted Bundy claim that Maxim magazine (or anything remotly similar) contribute to his sickness? From your article…

When Ted Bundy was thirteen years old, he discovered “dirty magazines” in a dump near his home. He was instantly captivated by them. In time, Bundy became more and more addicted to violent images in magazines and videos. He got his kicks from seeing women being tortured and murdered. When he tired of that, there was only one place his addiction could go - from fantasy to reality.
Even if you could somehow prove Bundy’s claims accurate (the word of a deceptive liar / killer?) his story calls for “dirty magazines” that depict violent images of women being tortured and murdered - which coincidently is the same description the Supreme Court of Canada uses when determining if material should be classified as obscene under the danger to the community argument.

Ted Bundy clearly defines the magazines that disturbed him: (from your article)
“…and I want to emphasize this. The most damaging kind of pornography - and I’m talking from hard, real, personal experience - is that that involves violence and sexual violence. The wedding of those two forces - as I know only too well - brings about behavior that is too terrible to describe. - Ted Bundy”

Please show how Maxim magazine meets this definition. This is a strawman argument. You talk about the “dangers” of certain publications that are in NO WAY SIMILAR to Maxim, Stuff, Cosmo, etc. as though it makes a clear argument against them. For the record the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with Ted Bundy - that certain material though not explicit could be deemed obcene if it includes violent or degrading images.
From the Supreme Court’s Ruling:

“The stronger the inference of a risk of harm, the lesser the likelihood of tolerance. The portrayal of sex coupled with violence will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex. Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial”

So yes according to the Supreme court we already have legislation protecting us from material that Ted Bundy classifies as “soft core” which could certainly be deemed a danger to the community - however the CAPCS definition CLEARY includes publications that do not meet this standard - including Maxim…Please demonstrate how Maxim magazine is harmfull using the clear standard layed out by our courts. Please explain how Maxim marrys violence with sex? Your problem is that NOBODY classifies seeing a Tennis star in a bikini (Maxim cover earlier in this thread) as being pornographic, dirty or adult.
The difference between Maxim and Cosmo are the mood of the pictures. On the covers you yourself posted Cosmo shows a flirty looking woman in a pastel bathing suit with a bright, colorful background. Maxim shows a sultry, seductive woman in a dark background; this cover seems to be trying to evoke something almost primal in the viewer. So it’s not so much a matter of what is on the cover, it’s how it’s being displayed. You could have identical twins in the same bikini but in different poses and settings, and one would appear sexier

The Mood of the pictures? The mood of a picture is entirely subjective - you cant write a clear bylaw based only on the subjective opinion of a small minority. Should we draft legislation against certain lighting or colour choice? Cant the same be said of this magazine cover?

Isnt this also sultry, seductive - women on a dark background - and a women’s magazine.
I dont see any difference between the mood of Women’s magazine covers and Maxim. The clear difference is that one caters to women and the other to men - thats about where the differences stop.

The challenge would be - even if we did agree to restrict Maxim sales (which we dont) how could you write a definition that would include Maxim but would exclude Vanity Fair or Cosmo? I dont think it could be done without specifically naming the publication - and by what criteria could you exclude them? The CAPCS definition clearly INCLUDES all the womens magazines I have mentioned and frankly there is no quantatative difference between them.
Unfortunatly in society you have to accept that there will be things said, and published and displayed that you wont like - Local businesses can decide what to sell in their store and the consumer is free to vote with their wallet. Apparently there are 2 great locations in Medicine Hat who are in full compliance with CAPCS wishes.

the world is made of scapegoats, holy and sacrificial.

BAH HAH HAH HAH
ROFL

The only thing I am ashamed of is the self righteous, closed minded intolerant ignorance that is displayed by some down people down here…

You just have to keep telling others that it’s a decent place except for a few wingnut zealots and fanatics… The thing to keep in mind for any of you outside of The Hat is that they are the “exception” not the rule.

I am female RDR. When my children were younger, I monitored what they watched on TV. When they grew older, I monitored what they were doing on the computer. There were certain CD’s that were not allowed in this house.

If there was a store selling goods I did not want my children to see, I didn’t take them into that store!

We as parents should be taking responsibility for our own kids. We don’t need you or anyone else telling us what is right or what is wrong, what we can view and what we cannot view, where we can go and where we can’t go.

It’s not up to you! I know you religious types feel you have the right to monitor the rest of us and tell us what is best for us but, respectfully — mind your own business!

My children didn’t learn the f*ck word at home. They learned it at school. You can’t stick them in a little bubble and expect that they will never be subjected to materials that you may find objectionable. Fact is, that material is everywhere and kids will find it anyway.

The human body is not anything to be ashamed of. In parts of Ontario women are allowed to walk around topless. What?

Do you want to ban all travel to Ontario also?

There is no limit to how far this could go if it is allowed to proceed.

Keep your nose out of our business.

I would also mention, as a snarky, possibly petty aside that RDR, Brahms, and probably many others on this blog are guilty of posting language “what stupid people think smart people talk like”.

Dear Joyzil,
I know who you are [Edited by MHB]* and I know you are a manipulative, domineering, and ill-minded person.

Your absence Joyzil from participating in this blog after accusing me of being a pedophile/sexual predator in the waiting for standing up against the CAPCS on this site has been quite conspicuous. You likely know that after your tirade against me on the blog I posted, that people would surmise who you actually are, so you recruited some other low-brows such as RDR and Brahms who you could use as your pawns. You should try to find people of greater intellect because their arguments are hollow and so easy to refute it is pathetic. The only reason I respond to you fools is not to kick your weak-minded butts, but because I see how important this issue is. This is the proverbial line in the sand. I was against banning adult entertainment in the community but I too was indifferent about standing up against the group then. I am just thankful for this site so people can respond anonymously without fear of reprisal from the nut-bags who belong to the CAPCS. The CAPCS are the people who society should fear, not the one’s who oppose their attempt to restore theocracy to our society! THE CAPCS IS LIKE THE TALIBAN, AND I STAND BY THIS COMMENT!

Joyzil, you have sunk to new lows. To have your teenage daughter publish a letter to the editor shows just how warped you and your group actually are.

Do you realize Joyzil, that it is you in fact who are exploiting the youth of this community through your fundamentalist dogma? To have your daughter chastise Mr Ogston in the paper for standing up against you has demonstrated the true perversion of your mind and your group, the CAPCS.

Joyzil, SHAME ON YOU!!!!!! You are the one who is acting in a shameful manner recruiting your adolescent daughter to carry on “your work”. I know exactly what will be next. You will use your daughter as a martyr to say that even the youth of the city are speaking out against pornography! I cannot believe that other people would actually attend a church where your husband is the patriarch.

As I said before this is not about pornography, it is about community bullying and this has to stop! There will be another election, and I hope the CAPCS persists in their wing-nut endeavours, because you are aggravating many apathetic individuals in the community who assume our elected officials are benevolent and will govern with the majority’s best interest in mind regardless of whether a person votes for that official or not. What is happening is that many of these indifferent people will come out in the next election and actually vote. These people of apathy (and I have been guilty of being apathetic in the past too) will come to the polls not to vote for the supporters of the CAPCS (ie Cathy Smith), but instead to vote against them. So, please CAPCS keep up the good work, because I for one am tired of groups such as yours Joyzil, and I am sure an overwhelming majority of society in general is as well! The winds of change are blowing through, and they will sweep up the CAPCS and carry them away.

*We respect people’s anoniminty on this blog….we cant possibly know who posts what.

Spider:
CAPCS did not try to intimidate Council. Supporters of CAPCS wanted to show Council that they felt this issue important. If no one came, then Council would feel the issue wasn’t worth their time.

PopeBenedict_XVI:
I’m not quite sure why you brought re-organizing my home into the discussion. A person’s house is much more personal than a business. If the law told me to re-organize my business for the benefit of the public, I would comply. I might even redecorate the whole joint while I’m at it.

DangerMouse:
I don’t know why you don’t consider Ted Bundy’s interview as proof. Maxim can be classified as soft porn, and that is what leads to an addiction. You say that Sociopathology is the cause of the violence. Pornography helps fuel this disorder. Pornography helps to create people who think this way. Ted Bundy did not feel sympathy or empathy for his victims because in his mind they were objects. In the pornography he viewed women were treated as objects.

As I mentioned before, I can’t speak for CAPCS or say that their definition is the way it is because of something. I’m sure they would be willing to discuss it and maybe even negotiate it with you if you asked.

Maxim does not contain violence because it is soft core. Soft core leads to hard core and so on. When something doesn’t satisfy you any longer, you move on. Maxim is just the beginning.

There is nothing wrong with having a mood in a picture; that’s what attracts the eye. Certain moods are inappropriate for children is all. The mood of the Vanity Fair magazine is very similar to the Maxim, and yes it is targeted at women. However, do video game manufacturers stop girls from buying their product just because their biggest audience is boys? While Vanity Fair might be intended for women, I’m sure a man would buy it if it looked interesting enough.

ni hao ma:
I do not appreciate your implications that I am any less intelligent than those who I oppose. Just because we disagree doesn’t make anyone any smarter. It’s all opinion. I realize the purpose of this site is to allow people to rant and rave to their heart’s content, but can we at least be respectful? We are all people, and in Canada we are all equal.

Spider: If you feel this debate is a waste of your time, feel free to let it continue on without you. There are more important issues out there, but this issue seems to be pretty popular. I think everyone just enjoys a good arguement.

In regards to the letter posted by DangerMouse, it’s difficult to tell what the author is saying because the entire post is in bold. After a little digging, however, I was able to understand what they were saying. In what I believe was one of your comments, DangerMouse, you said that as long as the parts that would normally be covered by a bikini are covered, it’s not pornography. While those parts are being somewhat covered, there is a reason the model is not in a bikini. The less fabric that is there, the longer people are going to stare. Once again it comes down to mood. If the model is covering her breasts with her hands or hair, she looks a lot easier than a model in a bikini.

To everyone out there reading these comments, CAPCS is not trying to change your minds. It is very difficult to change someone’s mind when it is made up. But please try to understand why CAPCS is doing what they are doing. They have good intentions; instead of trying to shut their ideas down altogether, maybe make some suggestions to them or respectfully tell them what you find offensive and why. There is no need to slander anyone.

ni hao ma:
I do not appreciate your implications that I am any less intelligent than those who I oppose. Just because we disagree doesn’t make anyone any smarter. It’s all opinion. I realize the purpose of this site is to allow people to rant and rave to their heart’s content, but can we at least be respectful? We are all people, and in Canada we are all equal

Thats Ok, people who oppose CAPCS dont appreciate the implication that we are dulled in the intellect and weak willed, sexual predators in the making etc - because we dont submit to the superior yet unproven claims of a very small minority.

But I agree discussion can occur with respect, but it ought come from both sides no?  They dont respect or listen to anyone who objects to them.  Smear, intimidate, lie and move on.  Its disgusting.

In regards to the letter posted by DangerMouse, it’s difficult to tell what the author is saying because the entire post is in bold

It was only like that for about an hour…but fixed now…stupid html tags!

Once again it comes down to mood. If the model is covering her breasts with her hands or hair, she looks a lot easier than a model in a bikini.

You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of any artistic expression – However your opinion should not be the basis for forming a restrictive bylaw that interferes with local businesses. In my interpretation your statement is illusion - I don’t see a model covering her breasts with her hands as any more or less sexualized than a woman covering her nipples with blue fabric. You have to realize that you are stating a subjective opinion not an objective fact.

I think Anna looks respectable on the cover of Maxim - you disagree - Que Sara Sara, We don’t have to agree, but you don’t have the right to impose your opinion on the retailer and interfere with how he/she conducts his/her business- and neither do the self righteous posters who claim to have superior moral compasses to the rest of us.

But please try to understand why CAPCS is doing what they are doing. They have good intentions; instead of trying to shut their ideas down altogether, maybe make some suggestions to them or respectfully tell them what you find offensive and why. There is no need to slander anyone.

It is a matter of opinion whether or not you find their intentions good. I don’t - I personally feel that line of thinking is mortally dangerous to any free society.

I agree that people can tell them respectfully what they find offensive, but the CAPCS response is to call most any detractor a shameful person, pedophile in wait, obvious porn addict, mentally defective, weak willed etc. (letter to the editor, Joyzil in the forum, numerous posts here etc)

It is the tactic of bullies. Rather then defend their position they smear and attack any one who stands up to them. They reclassify publications without telling their audience  - in a public discussion where the stake holders were not invited to present their side of the issue, grossly exaggerate surveys and intimidate citizens and politicians. That’s not a very moral way of behaving and the tactics, much more so than their position - is very deserving of the criticism they are recieving.

First off, I think we’d all be fools to deny the connection between the erotic and war, love and death, however instinctual or abstract. The two have been inextricably linked in art and literature since the beginning of recorded history. A subtle implication has been made here in various posts, mainly those regarding Ted Bundy, that fantasy and reality are only a will’s whim apart. And the dividing line is porous and tempting. True escapists refuse permanency in the realm of fantasy, and if the realms combine they lose meaning. What I mean to say is that violence and pornography do not work in tandem. While they may share elements and instincts it would be naïve to claim they operate under the same motivations. Even in Bundy’s case we can only assume pornography acted as an inkblot motive and nothing more.
Sphinx, and to the rest of you CAPCS supports, have you ever considered the results of your crusade? The obstruction, in any manifestation, only serves to enhance passion. It has famously been so, transforming from myth to cliché. Tell a child or teenager not to do something and I’ll bet bottom dollar they do it. As a fan of the prurient I wish CAPCS all the best in their endeavors, if only to rekindle the lust of the forbidden in us all. Ha, and some idiot made a poor psychoanalysis about our true desires.

Sphinx, you stated you would be willing to re-organize your business and may even want to re-decorate.

Fair enough - I’ll make you a deal: you give a time and a place that I can come by and move things that are offensive to me, and I will *publicly* come out and support you. Heck, I’ll even make a speech to council in support of you. I’m not going to post my email address here, but I did setup a 72 hour forwarder. Email me at pope_benedict@spamhole.com (This email will work until Saturday night).

You also stated in your email that CAPCS might be willing to negotiate. Also good. I have a proposal for you. How about a way that we get drivers to slow down in school zones (which since CAPCS seems to be all about protecting children they should be all for). At the same time, we could satisfy the pro-maxim, pro-pornography lobby in Medicine Hat? I’m talking about a solution invented by our friends the Dutch to reduce speeding.

There are details here: (warning link not safe for work, unless you work in Holland..) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQnYaOhFfic&eurl=

Best of all, if we did this only in school zones during school hours, there would never be a (in your words) “dark background” as this might “to evoke something almost primal in the viewer”. I definitely would -not- want this to happen…

Before I begin, I would first like to add this summary from CAPCS, which includes their list of “offenders” to the letter. This summary is verbatim as submitted to city council and does not include my words including the notes towards the end. The notes are theirs not mine. I also would like to state that at no time nor will I ever state that I am in favor of children obtaining “porn” (Playboy, Penthouse variety) and that my past and present voice of opposition to any past and future bylaw on adult material was to insure good governance accorded to all stakeholders in this issue whether they are CAPCS, the public, and most certainly the affected businesses. Having challenged city hall on this very issue for over 4 years I have witnessed that this has not been the case with the later two stakeholders where as CAPCS (Citizens of Albert for Positive Community Standards) have had exclusive say in all matters past and present. This is not my imagination and is available for public access at city hall it’s self. Our civically elected members have publicly acknowledged they screwed up yet have never taken steps to right their inaction and subsequently the very businesses that would and are being affected are being hung out to dry. If this is good governance then Medicine Hat is in a world of hurt. In addition, council have continually stated that it has been the public, and business owners, that have caused the spread of misinformation to the public at large and not themselves but facts are that it has been them and CAPCS that have done the deed. Again, I reiterate, this information is out in the council minutes that they themselves maintain and hold (available to the public).

**** start of front page****

Summary of Detailed Listing

Directives of the Goodwill Letter
1. Place porn behind counter, behind an opaque barrier
2. Take reasonable steps to control display of Entry Level magazines for sake of children.

Business where Porn is directly Accessible (out of 16 businesses carry porn)

1. Food Plus (SE Hill)
2. Hat News and Tobacco (SE Hill)
3. Husky Station (Hwy)
4. Korner Konvenience (Flats)
5. Mac’s Cigar Store (Downtown)
6. McKenzie Drugs (N Rlwy)
7. Shell Food Store (TransCanada Way)
8. Shell Station (Dunmore Rd)
9. Gas King (Riverside)
10. Comic Readers (Dunmore Rd)
11. Shell Food Store (TransCanada Way)
12. San Francisco (MeHat Mall)
13. Calendar Club Kiosk (MedHat Mall)

Businesses where Adult Materials are Extremely Accessible (out of 40 businesses carrying Adult Material)

1. San Francisco
2. Co-op Gas Station
3. Mac’s (Southridge)
4. Mac’s (12th St)
5. Mac’s (20th St)
6. 7-11 (RossGlen)
7. PetroCan (by MHat Mall)
8. Co-op Gas Station (13th)
9. M.Arts Clinic Pharmasave
10. Calendar Club Kiosk (3 months/year)
11. Mac’s (Dunmore Rd)

Overview of Businesses Surveyed where Porn/Adult Materials are carried:

Porn is Directly Accessible to children -81% (13/16)
Porn is behind counter as requested in GoodWill Letter -19% (3/16)
Adult Materials Extremely Accessible to children -28 (11/40)
Adult Materials Easily Accessible to children -80% (32/40)
Adult Material not visible/accessible to children -3% (1/40)
*notes some materials and businesses overlap into more than one category*

*Note: For the purposes of this survey, “Extremely Accessible” means adult waist level or lower, “Easily Accessible,” means top shelf level, “Directly Accessible” means without physical barrier.

***** End of front page*****

Included on the back of the form was an itemized bullet listing of the history of their issues which interestingly enough excludes their participation (and lack of others including the affected businesses) in the whole Materials Issue (which included the other 3 Issues in their agenda i.e. Licensing, Videos, and Zoning) to which I will address later in my postings here.
*****Start of back page*****

History of Adult Materials Issue

• 2001, CAPCS submitted over 400 letter to Council re-adult materials
• 2001-2003, CAPCS met with Internal Project Team
• 2003 (Spring), CAPCS presented issue to Council: agreement to go forward with GoodWill Letter Initiative
• 2003 (April), Zane’s report of compliance to Letter presented to Council
• June 25, 2004, CAPCS wrote letter to every Council member expressing concerns
• April, 2005-Sept2005, CAPCS conducted a survey of 68 businesses carrying adult materials
• Nov. 2005 – Ken Roset & Joyce met with Mayor to present GoodWill Letter again as a reminder, to send out personal letter to all businesses not in compliance, and to re-evaluate in 6 months time.
• Dec. 12, 2005 – 12 year old boy purchased calendar acknowledged by vendor as being inappropriate, but materials not removed by children’s access: Mall manager did nothing to change accessibility, communications with both Mayor and Ald. Kelly not acknowledged
• March 22, 2006 – second meeting with Mayor, GoodWill Letter had been re-sent, personal letter to non-compliant businesses had not. Presentation of “Random Sampling” results given to Mayor, demonstrating even further deterioration of compliance since CAPCS survey completed. Mayor asked for more time to send out personal letter.
• March 2006 – CAPCS executive mandated by membership to wait no longer but move forward with a request for a bylaw
• March 31, 2006 – letter sent to Mayor indicating desire to move forward with bylaw
• April, 2006 – CAPCS met with John Komanchuk, Al Guscott
• May, 2006 – second meeting with John and Al
• June, 2006- field trip to 4 businesses to assess CAPCS concerns
• June, 2006 – summary of concerns given to John, Al and forwarded to Mayor.

****End of back page****

As an individual with over 20 years experience in the research field at an international level I would like to say first and foremost that the “survey” conducted by CAPCS is not only totally flawed but it is only reflective of their agenda. The numbers do not reflect ALL of the businesses that carry similar magazines and to pick a small handful (and not produce a standard to reflect their grievances) and issue the survey along with public statements to the contrary is not only irresponsible but also slanderous. Any researcher would lose any credibility in the science world pure and simple. The CAPCS group has publicly stated that 50 of the 53 businesses (there are more than 53 out there) yet as you can see their “Study Survey” does not even come close to matching those numbers. Any elementary school research project would be better conceived and conducted than this “Study”. What is equally troubling in their “analysis” is that they do not list a standard to which they differentiate between Porn, adult material and acceptable materials. Simply put…how can you enforce a directive when you refuse to provide the guidelines required for that directive. Everyone has a different perspective of what is inappropriate and to say businesses are not following the CAPCS train of thought is incomprehensive. CAPCS have demanded city official/council follow their guidelines yet refuse to provide those guidelines, subsequently these guideline are further exasperated further down the “food chain” and leaves the business proprietors incapable of following “a CAPCS” guideline. For CAPCS to thereby make a statement that over 90% of city operations are not conforming to the GoodWill Letter and there for demand that council pass a bylaw forcing compliance or be closed/fined is preposterous and open to litigations at public expense.
I myself have taken a peruse of a few stores most notably the Mac’s stores and they are in full compliance to the GoodWill Letter. Any magazines of the “Penthouse, Playboy etc are behind the counter and covered as well. Magazines like Maxuim, Stuff, and Cosmopolitan etc are on racks at different levels away from but within viewing of the service counter. As mentioned CAPCS and city hall have not produced a list of what magazines, meet the ambiguous portion of the GoodWill Letter and therefore by rights can be displayed as is. CAPCS call these magazines (and what others?) porn and then use this description to sound the alarm (civic moral panic) that porn is available to our children. CAPCS continue to use the issue of protecting children as a human shield to advance their morality and views on the public and do so by smoke and mirrors and deceitful tactics. This “survey, if anyone has followed this whole “Adult Material Review” back to 2001 has been a mire trickle of the tactics CAPCS has used to impose their will on City Council, their supporters, the media, the affected businesses, and the public.
To see some of my views and what has transpired go to Google then type in a search of “Jim Ogston”, then click on Wikipedia and again click on “discussion”. The person responding is certainly biased and this is what I have had to deal with for the past 5 years.

The CAPCS supporters will constantly use the ludicrous reference to “majorities and minorities” with stealing and poison yet fail to back those points up. Some how they feel it is their place and right to determine morality and immorality and that the majority are incapable of original thought.

Minorities are not always right. Case in point: The communists like Lenin and Stalin, the Nazi ‘s under Hitler and Himmler, the Fascists under Mussolini and the Taliban, were not elected by the majority of their people and in fact had only about 10% of the public support yet ruled as if the majority. This was done by deception, deceit, and fear. The evils/horrors they perpetuated are well documented but because they were the minority did that make them the rightful leaders of “morality” No it did not.

Despite CAPCS acronym standing for ‘Citizens of Alberta for Positive Community Standards” the CAPCS have been neither anything but Positive for any standard in this province nor any other. Bully tactics has been their modus operand and one tactic is to permit condone supporters to harass businesses and individuals on a daily schedule.
From placing shuffleboard wax on the flood in front of the “porn” section of a Calendar Kiosk causing customers to slip and fall, to calling individuals (like myself) perverts. I have always I was not for porn but that all parties in this process be given the right to be heard, whether they are for or against the issues and that city hall conduct themselves (as sworn to) in accordance to the municipal government act. From instigation of this adult material issue (by CAPCS) in 2001, the very people other than the public (which they were not) that would (and later did) suffer were the business owners and they were never invited. Why is that? Why despite the group I represented during the initial review presenting a large multi page submission along with over 400 signatures supporting our cause was this rejected by council?

If CAPCS was serious about working together with the city, the public and most importantly the very affected businesses, why did they insist on all participants being present when they knew they (all participants) were not present? They reason I firmly believe is that they would then have to swallow a watered down version of what they and them alone wanted/demanded. They did not nor wanted to compromise.
Brow beating is their tactic and my family and friends have had to endure this at a level less than that of a “Positive Community Standard”. Apparently it is perverse to oppose their agenda and perverse to demand good governance from our locally elected officials.

I find the tactics of a CAPCS executive member to promote their agenda of entrapment using children slimy and reprehensible.
This member used an under aged child to slink into a Calendar Kiosk,, prompt this child to retrieve a calendar of her choosing and then again prompt him to purchase this item while hiding behind a stand. Then this CAPCS member returned back to the Kiosk 10 days later, demand to see the owner and then rail on him as to how dare they sell this child “Porn” and demanding money back. Then have the gall to ask for the money back.
The item was returned unopened. Despite this members claim that it was the most explicit one available it was in fact not (just a swimsuit edition) as the sales clerk would not of sold it. The clerk had witnessed the antics of this member and knew something was amiss and sold a calendar that was not adult in nature. Here we have a “responsible parent” forcing a young child to commit a crime. They say that this adult material is causing youth to be “traumatized” yet use these children as human shields to make their point. If kids under 18 are incapable of making or understand decisions and that this can cause trauma then why use a child they deem as incapable as a pawn. Would not this action of a scared unknowing child being forced to purchase an item the parent has told him is bad/evil be more likely to cause trauma than to simply pass the “offending” item in an store? An item he may otherwise have chosen to ignore?

Back in 2001 CAPCS demanded a review on “Adult Material” and a letter was sent out to some 62 businesses asking for their participation in a review of this nature. Only problem is that while there were 4 points or issues to be discussed and input from 3 stakeholders required, the city letter only went to those businesses that sold magazines and no notice went to the public soliciting their involvement as they themselves stipulated in the mandate they passed in council ( their first of many “ooops”).

CAPCS were involved in all four topics because they were the demanders of this whole review and because a newly elected councilmember was on the very committee designated to conduct the review. To top it off as family member was also allowed in on the review panel representing CAPCS. Many of the public states to me that this is a conflict of interest and that should not have been permitted. CAPCS knew the gray area on this and used it to their advantage because while it would be highly questionable and illegal under the conflict of interest guidelines at the Provincial and Federal level, it is permitted under the Municipal Government Act, PROVIDING there is no monetary gain by the members involved. This is considered morally and ethically wrong by the mentioned governments but acceptable municipally. The extent CAPCS lowered themselves to is hardly conducive to ‘Positive Community Standards”.

Although CAPCS demanded participation in the four topics, they demanded for review they would later claim that the review was only for “Magazines” in particular “The GoodWill Letter”. Yet then the results and recommendations on the demands in the proposed “Adult material Bylaw” went to final reading and then voting for implementation that very night, council would pass a bylaw not only determining what “Adult Material” businesses but where they would be placed in the city (Light industrial) (read Bier Park area). Interesting enough even they claim this was strictly to deal strictly with magazines they inundated the pubic gallery with supporters (not hard to do with a capacity of only 300+-) carrying and then holding up on queue from Joyce Stigter, signs that read “250” . The 250 was in reference to the zoning issue about to be voted into law that very night whereby all businesses deemed as “Adult Material Proprietors were to be located in only the light industrial Zones and are themselves to be further required to be 250meters in radius away from any and all churches, parks, schools, playgrounds and yadayada yada. All the recommendations proposed and insisted on in the bylaw and the review where those submitted and insisted on by CAPCS.
Odd isn’t this. Even odder is that the businesses directly affected by this and the public who may have included any future operations, were not even permitted a say in the very bylaw that was passed restricting future operations. However, the CAPCS were. It is in the minutes of these “meetings” and CAPCS continue to this day deny they did. Ask them and they will never admit to it and have the audacity to say we are passing miss-information. Incredibly city hall and in particular council themselves convinced themselves that the review in 2001 was only to do with the “Good Will Letter” and not the other 3 points (Zoning being the major point) and also state that we are spreading misinformation. It is in their own council packages and in the committee minutes that their appointed committee submits for council approval at each meeting, they held. Not only must they be illiterate but they must be stupid, blind, or all of the three.

The four topics the Public Services Committee was mandated by City Council to review and then return with recommendation for council approval and follow up bylaws if recommended are as follows.

1. The Good Will Letter
2. Business Licenses
3. Videos.
4. Zoning.

#1 The Good Will Letter was deriving with no input from the public and the affected businesses as mentioned. This letter was demanded by CAPCS and CAPCS recommendations were implemented in said letter.
The “behind the counter “requirement was inserted on CAPCS demands.
The ambiguous paragraph requiring as all magazines considered inappropriate was also included on the demands from CAPC yet no guidelines were given as to what constitutes inappropriate. You cannot demand action without these guidelines and then threaten these businesses with possible bylaws and legal action if they are called into conflict. I would like to see this come before a court, at public expense.
You cannot enforce what is unenforceable period.
This was the loophole that CAPCS slyly insisted on so they can later come back to council (as they have done) and make slanderous claims without their knowledge that they (the businesses) are wantonly violating the “GoodWill” letter. Such Positive Community Standards my foot!

Without going into the other 3 points, it is safe to say to you that CAPCS had a say/demand in these areas as well and that the public and the businesses were never invited to have a say in the very operations they provide. Is this good governance?
No.
Is it perverted to voice a concern and demand good governance from our elected officials even we do not support “Porn”? Yes, but only according to CAPCS and their supporters.

CAPCS have not nor will they likely provide a publication list, nor a guideline as to what is “Porn” less they find out that the majority becomes educated to their deceit and demand their rights to be heard as well.

CAPCS (plus supporters) and city hall have constantly stated/asked us that if this was such an important issue then where are all of our supporters? Then draw the preposterous conclusion that if there are no supporters against any of their bylaws then the public and the businesses are happy with their recommendations and bylaws.
The fact they use browbeating, intimidation and false information to subdue any opposition does not feed into their narrow mindness as to why the throng of crowds are not there.

Rather than display a willingness to work with the businesses and the general public in coming to forming a review study workable to all, CAPCS have chosen to use confrontation and deceit to achieve their goals. Again hardly worthy of their name title.

Great Post Jim, and not just because it agrees with everything I wrote.

The track record of CAPCS is very transparent. All who oppose them are branded moral degenerates and perverts. They cant offer any evidence of harm, they lie to our elected officials - and they waste tax payer money.

They use ambigious definitions, (read this blog thread to see how) They alone define what is and is not acceptable. ( a pretty significant point in this discussion I would think)also they do this on the sly without telling the businesses directly.

They invite no participation or dicussion with the actual people affected by the bylaw, they bully, and then they slander - claiming the business is exposing children to “pornography” - when that is clearly not the case.
I always thought the Goodwill letter was the ultimate in bad government. Actually far worse than the proposed bylaw. If you want to pass a bylaw thats *Ok* with me, because then affected businesses will have a chance to voice their objection AND if it passes to take the bylaw to the courts. But the goodwill letter was sheer intimidation. You cant object to it because its not binding. There was no debate on it because CAPCS alone wrote it. They (CAPCS) are in point of fact trying to enforce or govern a phantom law that is illegal and unenforcable.

CAPCS is unelected, yet they are participating in committees (and demand to do so) trying to draft a bylaw. They are not arms length from officals or the process - but the businesses affected are kept at arms length. I guess both points of view are presented to City Hall - Cathy Smith’s point of view and her husbands?

I think the push for the bylaw awoke the slumbering masses though. Its pretty clear the target is not “pornography” - There is no longer worry of a slippery slope - they are down that wall and have kept running. Oddly if they had stuck to the sleezy corridors of just threatening, they would have been more effective. This at least has the chance to derail them completly.

They must think Joyce, Cathy, and Daniel are the only ones moral enough to tell Medicine Hatters what they can and cant sell.

To DangerMouse:

It’s true that I and my beliefs have shaped my character and that I am biased when addressing this issue, but I think everyone else is too. Could you please clarify (and specify) what you mean when you say that I blur phrases to suit you? I don’t think I understand exactly what you’re saying.

Again with the classifying issue, it all comes down to your own set of beliefs and values. The more I discuss this issue the more I am learning about why people are opposed to it. I’m now able to understand the opposite point of view, and I appreciate that people feel that way. I agree that it’s unfair for people to try to conform others to their own beliefs, but they do have a right to make their beliefs known. No one is forcing Council to side with them, and if Council passes a bylaw we have to accept that, because they were elected to represent Medicine Hat, they are acting on behalf and in behalf of the city. It’s difficult to define something as pornography because of your own beliefs, which will cause a biased view. I’ve mentioned this many times, and I’m quite serious; why can’t this be discussed and compromised? Maybe certain issues of Maxim shouldn’t be classified as porn while other issues should be. Nothing will be accomplished if we all just keep complaining about it.

In response to your comments about feeling degraded by CAPCS and it’s supporters, I honestly don’t think most people are going to feel that just because you don’t support CAPCS there’s something wrong with you. This is an issue of morality but it also is dealing with human rights. Personally I respect your (all of you) opinions and appreciate you standing up for your cause. I don’t think you are any less intelligent or that you’re a sexual predator just because we disagree. I realize that some supporters of CAPCS on this site are being very disrespectful, and I would like to apologize on behalf of the group. If you ever feel I am being disrespectful, please let me know. I believe conversation is more meaningful when people are civilized.

To Kyle:
How is a civilized discussion related to butt-kissing? When there is a problem anywhere, people end up having to compromise. Some people may feel that they are submitting to CAPCS because they are even discussing the idea of a bylaw, but it’s just a talk. Complaining won’t get anything done, but discussion will help people understand and might even make things a little more fair.

DangerMouse: (again)
As previously mentioned, the longer we discuss, the more I am learning. I realize people have different points of view and now I am understanding why. We are shaped by the environment we are surrounded by; I grew up in a conservative home, therefore my beliefs have been affected by the rules of my house. We have different views on what pornography is; again, this will get nothing done. Unless something can be agreed upon there is no evidence for either argument and no reason to continue arguing. We have to have something to build on before we can move again, either forwards or backwards.

I think CAPCS does mean well; maybe they just aren’t going about it the right way. Part of the issue is that the majority of their data was collected by them, and people feel it may be biased. So again, before we can continue with the issue, let’s get the facts straight. Would those opposed to CAPCS be reluctant to conduct their own survey and compare data? Maybe a neutral group could do so, using the mutually agreed upon definiton of porn as their guideline. Regarding what you said about CAPCS deserving critisism, that is inevitable. Anything anyone does that goes against someone’s beliefs is going to be critisized, but CAPCS does not deserve to be slandered.

Spider:
If a citizen of Medicine Hat has any type of issue, they are allowed to bring it to City Council’s attention. If a minority of people in Medicine Hat (say 5 families who live on the same street) have a problem with the alley behind their house and want pavement instead of gravel, they have a right to ask City Council to do something. They would be a minority when compared to the rest of the city. We can’t judge the importance of an issue by how many people are in support of it or not in support of it. Everyone has a right to be heard.

adam:
I spend a lot of time with teenagers, and while some may resist authority, there are those who have respect for it. Please do not treat what CAPCS is doing as a joke. They are passionate in their work and have done a lot of research to support their cause. Perhaps at times they have leapt forward a little blindly, but most people do at one point or another. Everyone makes mistakes, and it’s not fair to expect CAPCS to be perfect all the time.

PopeBenedict_XVI:
I’m sorry that you went to the trouble of setting up such an account because I do not own a business. I was speaking as if I would own a business, I would comply with the law in the best interest of the public. And if perhaps I do own my own business someday, I will be sure to let you know so that you can give it your seal of approval, providing it is supported by the law. I do not appreciate you twisting my words to prove your point. I think you understand what point I was trying to make, regardless of whether or not you accepted it. As for the link, it has been removed by YouTube. You don’t have to agree with me, and I’m not trying to change your mind, but please respect my beliefs and what I have to say.

DangerMouse:
When I talked about the Vanity Fair magazine possibly interesting men in comparison to video games and girls, I didn’t mean to say that it was ok for Vanity Fair to do something Maxim shouldn’t do. I don’t see a difference between the two magazines. They might be targeted at different audiences, but retailers aren’t going to stop someone from buying the magazine because of their sex.

I had something else to say, but I forgot it. Maybe it will come to me later. I realize this site isn’t intended to be the happiest place in the world, but we don’t all have to hate each other and be so serious all the time! I realize it’s a serious issue, and the mood of the thread reflects it.

In case you got bored reading such a long (and entertaining XD) post, I would just like to remind people that this issue won’t be resolved until a compromise can be reached. And a compromise won’t be reached until some guidelines can be agreed upon. So maybe it’s time to take action instead of just writing about it. I am nowhere close to being a spokesperson for CAPCS, but I am sure they are open to discussion. Give it a shot.

Sphinx, the moral assumptions being made here are a joke all together. Sure, I think CAPCS is the biggest of all, but there are punchlines everywhere I look. You can’t ask someone not to laugh at how petty this all is, can you? Comparing this to a hadith or Hitler is absurd. Then again so is CAPCS.

I would just like to remind people that this issue won’t be resolved until a compromise can be reached. And a compromise won’t be reached until some guidelines can be agreed upon

The problem is one of ambiguity. It is impossible to legislate interpretation and taste. There are already many thoughtfull merchants who moved any and all pornography behind their counters - who were then slandered by CAPCS claiming that adult material is out in plain view. (again not reported in the Newspaper is how the CAPCS definition of “adult” differs from the rest of society)

Its a proposition that has no solution. How can you possibly draft a guidline that monitors the “mood” or “intent” of a photograph? Its subjective. Laws cant be subjective - it has to but crystal clear (nipple vs no nipple)not “primal” vs “flirty” - Courts wont accept a law that has no clear boundary - and inspite of the bug a boo in the hat…this issue has already been meaded out by our courts at the highest level - and the courts (using much more explicit sexual material than Maxim) already ruled against CAPCS. Its allowed. Its free speech, its protected.

Its also as Mr Ogston points out - a matter of enforcement. if a bylaw says pornography has to be kept behind the counter and a merchant chooses to move Hustler behind the counter but leave Maxim on the rack (Macs) - on what grounds can CAPCS object? You cant write a bylaw or guidline that limits Maxim magazine - without limiting virtually all of the other magazines published today. You cant legislate against the “mood” or “message” of a photograph without a clear non subjective guidline

CAPCS members and supporters have to recognize that they dont get to dictate the rules to the rest of the community. We live in a free and democratic society - that freedom means we all agree to the live and let live philosophy. Freedom is the default state of every issue. The burden is on CAPCS, not the businesses to do all the proving.

In order to restrict freedom or limit the freedom of local businesses our society demands that those campaigning for change prove harm. It is the lynch pin of all of our laws.

The smoking bylaw is built on the premise that people are harmed by smoking - even those choosing not to smoke. Whether or not people agree with that bylaw the supporters have presented proof of harm. Based on that proof our elected officials can chose to limit restrictions (if they feel the proof of harm compelling) or not.

CAPCS has not and can not demonstrate anybody is harmed by Maxim and Vanity Fair. Without harm there is no premise to restrict freedoms. They can phillibuster, they can raise signs in City Hall meetings they can slander local businesses, they can bully….(can does not equal should btw …) but they cant PROVE their claim. Which is precisely why as a community we cannot accept them imposing their will on local business.

CAPCS is well aware of this burden of proving harm - hence the farce of a survey meant to prove that children everywhere are exposed to explicit porn.  I think any group that goes to those lengths to mislead our local politicians and slander local businesses has lost any credibility our community might grant a concerned group -  to add insult to injury they demand that they be included in any comittee on the issue while excluding the businesses affected by the bylaw - outright scandelous.
You say:

I agree that it’s unfair for people to try to conform others to their own beliefs

Yet other than your beliefs you havent presented any case at all that justifies the interference with local retailers and their right to do business in the manner that best serves their customers.

If CAPCS wanted to actually pass a bylaw - they might try sticking to just restricting magazines that show actual nudity. (of course most retailers already limit exposure to those magazines or chose not to sell them) But I get the sense CAPCS wont be satisfied with that , because their clear target is NOT pornographic magazines - but Maxim magazine…and unfortunatly for them there is no objective standard that Maxim is breaking that isnt broken by everybody else.

CAPCS with this issue, has moved into the realm of PURE opinion. Their clear goal is to limit exposure to near any publication or image they object to. Swimsuit calenders, LaSenza advertisments, Magazines, - its no longer hyperbole to joke about book burnings and other symbols of oppression - They are seeking to impose their moral beliefs on the rest of the community and that is no standard for the governing of a free democracy.

The CAPCS position is already down the slippery slope. If you accept their position you must be willing to allow the subjective morality argument in all of our laws. People seem to be really sensitive about comments comparing CAPCS to the Taliban - but how would it be different if I formed a group and demanded women over the age of 9 all wear Burkas.

Its easy to dismiss that comment as hyperbole as the letter to the editor this morning did - but whatever arguments you make against the Burka bylaw would apply equally to the CAPCS position. Morality alone is not a premise for making laws and guidlines, because “right and wrong” are as you noted, too subjective.

This is the concession that free people have to make to participate in a democracy. The line CAPCS is wanting to cross is what seperates us from the philosophy of the Taliban. (religious extremism)

It has to be clear cut, harm or no harm. Freedom or no freedom. As a nation and a community we already chose freedom.

Sphinx and others, you have asked a couple of times about why some of us, and others, don’t talk to the members of CAPCS to see about a compromise, negotiation, etc.

I will try and answer this question as honestly as possible below. I’ll even try to do it with a relatively small amount of drama.

Speaking for myself, I would be personally unwilling to negotiate with CAPCS. I don’t own a business, but if I did I would be equally unlikely. Why? Principal.

CAPCS members can complain about ‘the children’ accessing ‘entry-level’ (their definition) pornography, but what it really comes down to is this: restricting peoples freedom of speech, and restricting the sale of a legal product. Yes, that is correct: Maxim can legally be purchased and read by children. You and I may not like that. But that is the fact and that is the law. In order for them to not be able to sell it to children, it would have to be considered legally to be pornographic. And our courts are quite clear on that definition. This isn’t - if you wish to make it so, you will have to take that fight to the federal courts and legislature.

More importantly, however, I wouldn`t negotiate with CAPCS because they are trying to take away people’s rights. Rights like:
1) Freedom of expression.
2) The freedom to buy any legal product, even if you consider it to be in bad taste.
3) The freedom to sell you that same legal product.

You can try to slide what CAPCS is trying to do in under zoning rules, except that they know they can’t. We’ve seen here that CAPCS cannot produce any meaningful definition and standard of acceptable versus unacceptable that would pass even the simplest of litmus tests. Therefore, they have to try and restrict everyone’s rights to buy/sell/read and consume what they want. And once again, I want to point out that if a 15 year old boy wants to purchase ’stuff’ magazine, this is his *right*. And that 15 year old (who should follow his own parents rules on this material), likely does not want your protection, and cares little that you personally find his selection in magazines distateful.

What I think this comes down to with many CAPCS members is that you want to protect your own children and have them learn your values. Fair enough - I completely understand that. However, your restrictions on things in general, and sexuality in particular, are not shared by most of the members of our community or our country. In light of that, however, you ask that everyone else (both me and the 15 year old in my example) sacrafice our rights to protect your values. I have news for you - my values are equally valid to yours. Your right to swing your arm stops at my nose, in other words.

Asking me, or anyone else to ‘compromise’ and loose only some rights is not only silly, it is insulting. Just as insulting, Sphinx, as someone asking to come into your home and tell you how to arrange your cupboards. Just as insulting, Brahms, as someone asking to restrict your religous freedoms, and then saying ‘we should compromise, and only restrict some of your freedoms’.

You can make cynical replies, if you choose, mocking peoples rights (be they 9 or 109) to sell, purchase, and freely read legal magazines that you consider distateful. You can claim that this right should be taken away. It is *your* right to say this, and I will defend that. I will continue to disagree with you, but at least your position will be honestly presented.

Having read some of the comments above I continue to be amazed how the CAPCS president and supporters continually accuse those that oppose them as biased yet they are the epitome of that definition.

CAPCS claim that Maxium is porn and Cosmo is not yet they are identical in content. Maxium does not contain nude women and the topless models have their arms crossing their chest. Cosmo models are also depicted as such. What is interesting, CAPCS supporters state that kids are riffling through these magazines with impunity yet offer no proof yet are capable in defining Maxium as porn and Cosmo is not?. Get real.

I have purchase a Maxium Magazine (to send to son in Afghanistan) and purchased a Cosmo to do a comparison and low and behold surprise surprise, there was no difference.
CAPCS have placed a lot of emphasis on magazine covers implying these “explicit” covers are detrimental to the well being of our children. Funny how a cover of 3 women with their top open revealing big lacy bras (In issue purchased) with no suggestive expletive text is far more offensive than a clad woman on the Cosmo Magazine with text of “Naughty Sex” and commenting on 8 new sex positions inside. If I was a demented child, I would be more interested in the Cosmo magazine. but then CAPCS have claimed Cosmo is okay so that would not make me demented. Strangely biased.
They continue to be silent as to how putting such offensive magazines behind a counter (thereby in direct view of children) is better than off to the side away from the till?

Why is that? Is it because it would defy logic to which they appear to be incapable of following never mine promote?

On the Issue of Ted Bundy, The CAPCS have hedged their beliefs that Porn will make the public (mainly men) into mass murders. First of all this is rubbish and anyone willing to follow the Bundy case would know that in order to justify his murderous trail he simply passed his warped mind off as that affected by porn. He used porn as an excuse to deflect his inabilities to function as a human being. It is very easy to use the Bundy case out of context to meet the cause that porn was the reason behind his rampage. He wanted to leave his mark on society long after his execution, clearly adding to his desire to shock us from the grave.
I have asked a Doctor who councils sexually violent accused people, as ordered by the courts prior to any legal cases, if porn had anything to do with their cases, His remark “NO”. Moreover, this is from a person that deals with this locally every week.

To further update my postings earlier I have continued to conduct a survey of my own of the “Accused Good Will Violators” and have come upon more businesses that knew nothing of the CAPCS list and are to say the least rather upset that they have been accused of such blatant violations without their knowledge. I have only scratched the surface and there is nothing to suggest the contrary.
Interesting enough the “List” includes “San Francisco” as a double violator yet this business does not even come into the “Good Will” aspects of the Adult material bylaw and for that matter, never received a “Goodwill” letter to start with. They do not sell magazines so therefore they are immune to any CAPCS pursuits. Clearly further proof that CAPCS is incapable of conducting a legitimate survey. They have so warped their agenda that they do not even check their background material. Yet they openly slander with reckless disregard to common courtesy.

I find it interesting that the President is incapable of supervising a child on the internet and then defends it by saying the child was entitled to her opinion yet we are not…Interesting.
Interesting also that CAPCS continues to not provide a list of offending magazines and as in the past will not challenge me in their involvement in the Adult Material Review 4-5 years ago that started this whole mess. Had they cooperated and asked the other two stakeholders a say in this matter, which include the Goodwill letter, then we would not be where we are today. Yes, the Goodwill letter was designed to fail so that CAPCS could push their real agenda through…only now they are not finding a very receptive audience. So now, they once again resort to smoke and mirrors, and try to rally their troops by deception. To the unsuspecting population they resort to the tactic of mass hysterias, be it fabricated at that.

Good post, Ogston. You ought to ask CAPCS why they take the word of Bundy over normal citizens. I don’t quite understand why CAPCS supporters trust Bundy more than me, and that is something that has confused me more than anything. The “facts” they’ve gleaned from that interview of Bundy were based on his own words. Might want to ask why CAPCS trusts a serial killer’s words instead of the citizens of their community.

Get Paid Money to fill out Simple Paid Surveys Online by giving your Opinion

Get Paid Money to fill out Simple Paid Surveys Online by giving your Opinion

rocket french direct buy

rocket french direct buy