Canadian Supreme Court OK's Group Sex in Clubs!

why is allowing sex in swinger clubs ass backwards?

i for one think i need to relocate.

 

These sorts of clubs exist, albeit illegally, in most American cities too I would imagine, so get off the moral high horse. I'm sure swinging is no more a trend in Canada as it is the US.

We've simply taken the extra step of saying it's not a criminal offence, and it certainly isn't when you look at our definition of criminal offence. Our laws arn't intended to controll moral behaviour, they're intended to prevent people from becoming victims of crime. We're not talking about government aproved orgies in public, we're talking about the law having no place, behind the closed, and private doors of a bussiness establishment for consenting adults.

There's nothing really precident setting about this decision, it's inline with our societies view of what does and does not constitue criminal offense. I think the only reason it took so long for this to reach the supreme court was it was considered a non-issue. These places are discreet, those participating likely wish it to remain that way, it's not in the public eye, it's not a public issue.

As former Prime-Minister Pierre Elliot Turdeau put it:

"The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation"

 

Well said, yovo.

 

Seconded. =)

 

If only our political leaders thought the same way. In the US controlling people with 'morals' is the norm, and thanks to the religious zealots that run the place the majority of the population is ok with it

 

jesus, and to think that was done with the liberals in power. Rah for my Canada! (for you non-Canucks, Liberals are only a smidgen away from dead centre, NDP is a lot more liberal than the Liberals, and the Green party even more so in most ways)

hmmm... wonder if that means sex at fetish nights is ok. Dammit, now I need a partner to go find out!

 

wow, cool, nice find Skip. Yovo, just because i think you may be underestimating the presicent setting nature of a supreme court decision. Just because it may be inline with what we as a societty feels should reflect in our laws, doesnt mean our laws reflect what we feel. This was deffinatley a step in the right direction and deffinatley precident setting as it was a broad statement about not what constitues prostitution or a bawdy house but rather what constitutes harm to our societty as a whole.
skip also never said that canada should feel proud because these estashments exist merely that the laws surrounding their legality do.

 

erm, yeah, here too. Maybe a few less zealots, but laws are encoded moral rules for society. sometimes good, sometimes bad. The law is unfortunately a very slow creature to move or create change in, and most judges don't want to, they -WANT- to follow precedent. This is sort of a unique case, and I likes it

 

I don't feel it was precident setting simply because it was the reaction I expected from the supreme court. This may be the first rulling on "swingers' but it certainly isn't the first time they've rulled on issues pertaining to sexual and moral behaviour. If they had of ruled against then that in my mind WOULD be precident settting, as it would mean a shift in the status quo, or in other words it would be setting a precident

That's the whole reason I quoted Trudeau, because it signifies the original precident. He made that comment following his decision to abolish laws relating to the illegality of homosexuality and though this was a legislative and not judicial act it still got the wheels in motion. More important would be his creation of the charter of of rights and freedoms which is the most important document for such cases in the court.

You are right our laws don't always reflect the views of Canadians, we're using a rag-tag, slowly revised form of english common-law which has it's origins in another country altogether. But since the inception of the charter it would seem the Supreme Court DOES tend to represent the view of Canadians.

As per your second point, not sure to whom you're refferring or even which point you're refuting, I quoted the ignoranus who said "Canada is back asswards", not skip

 

I think the ruling is great, in that it gives people more freedom. That being said, I don't think it is going to effect most people in my neck of the woods... just don't see many Group Sex Clubs opening in Tisdale, Saskatchewan, for example.

Think this is a ruling that only really effects the more "cosmopolitan" of areas in Canada. There are cosmopolitan people to be found in all parts of the country... its just no fun having "group sex" with your cousin, your ex, and your high school English teacher, IMO.

Basically, great on paper, great precident. And great for the Canadians to whom it applies.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada is indipendent of the PMO and parliment, so partisan politics arn't really an issue here

but anyways, good luck finding a partner

 

more a comment on teh culture. I mean, the party in power does tend to influence howa cceptable the more... interesting policies and all that jazz are.

wheee election time!

 

*gigggles and blushes*

they most certainly do!

“Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society,” said the opinion of the seven-to-two majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

right on, my fair northern neighbors!

i could hardly believe that there was a ban in the first place.

 

YAYAYAYAYA

 

I need to take a trip to the great north!!!!!!!!

 

Me too!!!

 

perhaps you'd care to explain?

 

holy crap People! Ignore the guy, he is just trying to start shit! Like a 5 yr old who is bad so that someone will pay attention to him... ignore him and he goes away! Look at his sig pic if you need further evidence of his twisted need for to be antagonistic.