Canadian Clubs > U.S. Clubs lol

[Lyion]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsartic ... xml&rpc=22

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Group sex between consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday, dismissing arguments that the sometimes raucous activities of so-called "swingers" clubs were dangerous.

In a ruling that radically changes the way Canadian courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the court threw out the conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have group sex in a private room behind locked doors.

"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.

The decision does not affect existing laws against prostitution because no money changed hands between the adults having sex.

The court was reviewing an appeal by Jean-Paul Labaye, who ran the L'Orage (Thunderstorm) club. He had been convicted of running a "bawdy house" -- defined as a place where prostitution or acts of public indecency could take place.

Lawyers for Labaye and James Kouri, the owner of another swingers' club in Montreal, had argued that consensual sex between groups of adults behind closed doors was neither indecent or a risk to society.

The Supreme Court judges agreed.

"Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society. The Crown failed to establish this essential element of the offence. The Crown's case must therefore fail," wrote McLachlin.

In indecency cases, Canadian courts have traditionally probed whether the acts in question "breached the rules of conduct necessary for the proper functioning of society". The Supreme Court ruled that from now on, judges should pay more attention to whether society would be harmed.

The judges said that just because most Canadians might disapprove of swingers' clubs, this did not necessarily mean the establishments were socially dangerous.

"Attitudes in themselves are not crimes, however deviant they may be or disgusting they may appear," the judges said, noting that no one had been pressured to have sex or had paid for sex in either of the cases.

"The autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with the sexual activity in question only those already disposed to this sort of sexual activity were allowed to participate and watch," they said.

[Zanchief]

I'm counting the seconds before Harper uses the words moral fabric.

[Lyion]

I think he's too busy trying to delcare war on Quebec.

[Eziekial]

Road trip to Canada, who's with me?

[alezrik]

so thats how court decisions are made in a country that isn't controlled by relgious 'decency'.

[Zanchief]

so thats how court decisions are made in a country that isn't controlled by relgious 'decency'.

We're having an election in january, Al. Things could change.

[alezrik]

Well at least there is hope, I am pretty clueless about Canada, but by and large when I see things like that happening, it makes me wonder why the US as the 'pinacle of freedom' is much more restrictive when it comes to peoples personal lives.

Closest thing I've seen is here in Seattle they passed I75 making weed possession be the lowest law enforcement priority in the city. That was in 2003, and here 2 years later believe it or not, there isnt panadomium in the streets or 8 year old junkies living in all the parks. Thats at least a step forward for giving the people some power with choices.

Here they wont even let Howard Stern talk about sex/group sex without fineing him, where in reasonable countries like Canada seems like they are saying if you dont like group sex dont go to swingers clubs...

[Adivina]

Not to even start getting into the marijuanna argument, but Alz post brought something to mind. I honestly think that the goverment should just legalize and regulate it, set an age limit much like alcohol, etc. So many people use marijuanna recreationally and it seems in most cases the police really do not care all that much at all. I think it would make everyone's lives easier and cost less money and time for police officers and tax payers than to arrest someone over $10 worth of a drug.

I'm not saying this as a smoker or because I "think weedz is so cool 420 dudez". I'm really not into it at all and I think people who smoke every day are retarded and do not show an ounce of self control, just as I do with chronic drinkers. So please don't think my statement above is made off of some childish bias or need to be on the "cool drug train."

[alezrik]

yep I completely agree, anything in excess is stupid, BUT I do think that its a personal choice to be stupid or not.

http://www.kcba.org/druglaw/

IMO is a great thing to read the seattle bar assoc. put it together through a ton of research, etc, its a great read, especially the history of drug laws, and real alternatives to incarceration.

In general tho it astonishes me how our country really doesnt like personal freedom, because we constantly want to be the 'decent' country. imo its impossible to have a country defineing what 'decency' is and at the same time proclaiming that personal freedoms are important, they always seem to cancel each other out.

[Eziekial]

I disagree. We had a "decent" country prior to these laws becuase our grandparents and great grandparents didn't put up with "undecent" behavior. They were much less tolerant of socially reprehensible behavior than we ever will be. By that, I mean they took matters into their own hands not run to court and ask a judge/lawyer/politician to do the dirty work for them. There was a time confrontation in this nation was swift and simple and usually non-violent. Today we see people reacting to something they dislike with a lawsuit, a gun or just ignoring it altogether.