In all seriousness, this is an example of how successful the anti-smoking propaganda campaign has been.
It's enough to make even MADD jealous.
Posted on 12/23/2005 12:09:26 PM PST by Rethgryn
"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." ____________________________________________________
This is in high contrast to a news story a while ago:
"http://tinyurl.com/cgqfo"
'Butt buses' ignite Edmonton furor
From Friday's Globe and Mail
"Edmonton — It's happy hour at T. B.'s Pub, but the place is almost empty. The real party is happening just steps away on a smoke-filled red school bus parked beside the bar in a gritty, working-class part of northwest Edmonton.
This is the "butt bus," a place for bar patrons to light up between pints of Molson Canadian and Bud.
It's also Edmonton City Hall's newest legal nightmare.
City officials have been working feverishly to figure out a way to shut down the buses that have sprung up outside at least two bars since the city's strict smoking bylaw came into effect July 1. A decision could come as early as today.
"This city is becoming so . . . communist. You'd think we lived in freaking Toronto or something," Kevin Schotts, a 31-year-old T. B. Pub regular, complained as he took a drag on his cigarette. "This is redneck Alberta. We should be able to have a smoke wherever we want to."
The bus belongs to the bar's owner, Tony Burke. He said there is nothing the city can do because it is his private vehicle and is registered under his name -- not the bar's.
"I can let people smoke on it if I want," said Mr. Burke, who is a non-smoker. "The city doesn't have control over what people do in their own vehicles. I did my research."
Mr. Burke bought the GMC bus for $1,500 and spent months, and about $1,000, renovating it, including moving the seats to line its walls and installing insulation and carpeting. Patrons aren't allowed to drink on the bus, and a lime-green sign has been posted, warning: "No beverages beyond this point at all!"
Mr. Burke said he had to open the special bus or risk losing his business all together, especially as winter approached and smokers would have to brave frigid conditions if they wanted a hit of nicotine.
Since the start of the smoking ban, which covers all public places, Mr. Burke estimates he has lost at least $10,000 a month.
"About 90 per cent of my customers smoke," he said. "I have to save my business. The city sure won't."
David Aitken, director of the city's bylaw-enforcement section, acknowledged that the butt buses have been an unexpected but "certainly creative" wrinkle in Edmonton's plan to go smoke free this year.
Mr. Aitken said city officials have been sifting through several bylaws, including the new smoking ban, to come up with a way to get rid of them, and he's confident there is a solution.
In the meantime, since the "butt buses" began to receive local media attention in recent days, variations on it are already starting to spring up, including a "butt van" that has opened outside a bar down the street from T. B.'s Pub.
Mr. Aitken said he is only aware of one other jurisdiction -- Winnipeg -- that was confronted with a similar problem. In December, 2003, a hotel owner was charged after patrons were caught smoking in a refurbished school bus that was decorated with tables, chairs and Christmas lights.
But Mr. Aitken said Winnipeg officials had more flexibility to lay charges in that situation because the smoking bylaw banned lighting up in all indoor public places; public places were defined as "where the public has access to."
Edmonton's bylaw isn't as broad, and only prohibits people from smoking in public buildings and/or structures, he added.
Despite the loophole, Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel has told reporters that bars should comply with the spirit of the law.
Back at T. B.'s Pub, there is already talk that some of the regulars may form a barricade around their beloved bus if city officials eventually try to take it away.
"We are not going to go down without a fight," warned Jarred Foran, a 29-year-old regular at the bar. "This is my home No. 2."
Mr. Schotts nodded in agreement. "I'm not one to care about civil liberties and all that, but this is getting out of hand," he said. "What's next? Arresting people who are smoking in their own cars?"" ___________________________
But they have free drugs am i rite?
What is good is sexaul deviance if you can't smoke afterwards?
What I want to know is can all these consenting adults SMOKE after said group sex as long as it is in a private room behind locked doors?
It all gets curiouser and curiouser!!!!!
It's just that cameltoe thing.
Any doubt that US courts would find the same?
"This city is becoming so . . . communist. You'd think we lived in freaking Toronto or something," Kevin Schotts, a 31-year-old T. B. Pub regular, complained as he took a drag on his cigarette. "This is redneck Alberta. We should be able to have a smoke wherever we want to."
I've been saying it for years: When it comes to those who will try to define society, for them I've been sucking on the wrong kind of butts.
"can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society." So the search goes on...an elusive something is surely jeopardizing Canadian society, and the Court keeps looking for it. Smoking? I have a feeling it is more noxious than that.
STDs will take care of the problem.....
LOL!
If you smoke after sexual deviance, you're not doing it right.
Most likely, it's a private room. The Canadian courts, full of perverted judges, don't want to restrict perversion in any way. Ontario is the SF of the north.
But deviant behavior is ok? Boy, what a world.
Do you have any evidence that allowing swingers clubs "increases the likelihood of the spread of disease," or are you just making an unfounded assumption consistent with your dislike of swingers. Swingers also meet in private homes, the action mostly likely would just move, not go away. From what I've read swingers tend to be pretty middle class and use protection. Also they are heteros; there's going to be relatively little of the high-risk anal-sex associated with the "gay" lifestyle. From WebMd:
There is strong evidence that smoking causes a variety of diseases; from a public health persecutive there is no reason to only measure the harm from second-hand smoke. Thus from a pure (socialistic) public health persecutive, harassing smokers makes more sense than harassing swingers.
Of course those of us who would actually like to live in a "Free Republic" choose to harass neither group.
This whole case is not a matter of morality; it is a matter of public health. Can we all be assured that those participating in secret, diviant group sex will not mix with the rest of the population? Until we can be so assured, some health controls here are definitely in order! Geeze!!!
1. The judge suggests that Canadians have some sort of superior ability and are unlike other human beings (on the average) when it comes to performing sex acts in front of an audience. Obviously the judge is full of cr*p since Canadians are no more capable of this than anybody else.
2. The judge suggested that Canada's social and political environment is so mature and so far in advance of the rest of the world, that this sort of thing should not be regulated, restricted, or even thought about much by anyone, and certainly not the law. Again, the judge's arrogance is extraordinary ~ but you hear the same kind of stuff from your hardcore Moslems about whatever it is they are doing.
Frankly, this Canadian judge should be taken down a notch or two and sent back to the S&M lounge he came from. Further, given all the ills that unrestrained sexual license creates in the social condition of so many millions of people, any claim that government was not instituted to look into the subject is specious and without rational foundation.
Did you read my post #16? There is no evidence that swingers' activities are harmful to themselves, or to the public health.
There are viruses that can change things beyond HIV. They already need a visa to come to the U.S. because Canada is a threat to our national security based upon what their elected leaders say.
It's scary.
People protest when the Courts intervene in a case about public school curriculum saying that's none of the Court's business, but they want to make intimate, private contact between consenting adults of sound mind a legal matter for the Courts to decide.
The link you put up, while seeming to be legitimate, just shows an opinion written on Web MD. Logically those that swap partners will have much more STDs. Anyone actually claiming that is not true is not telling the truth. Never been a swinger with AIDS? That shows that the CDC is skewing statistics to promote a cause is all.
This is gross beyond words..........
"Of course those of us who would actually like to live in a "Free Republic" choose to harass neither group."
Repeating for emphasis. Well spoken, my friend.
Face the fact that there are too many "chiefs" promoting dictate and not enough "Injuns" disagreeing with the idiocy of the elite.
This rings a bell- unfortunately. It was in 1999 that a same sex couple tried to interfere in the curriculam of British Columbia schools. Their application was turned down by a smaller court, they wanted same sex brought into the teaching area.
The higher court on appeal reversed the decision. Ah yes, this woman Beverley Mclachlin presided and quoth
Parental views,however important cannot overide the imperative placed on the British Columbia Public schools
She continued on regarding Tolerance and diversity, ad nauseum. I know her game. Maybe she thinks she is smart in her bright red robes- Mrs Claus she ain't. What she is this.
A deviant personality who has cleverly disguised her secret little world of a "Garden of Earthly Delights" no less . For my own carefully considered judgement -LOL, I have used "Authority and Delinquency" by Alex Comfort. First published 1950.
In all seriousness, this is an example of how successful the anti-smoking propaganda campaign has been.
It's enough to make even MADD jealous.
Watch for that to be fixed, and soon.
There is no role or place for reason on this subject.
"Wasn't I just on another thread where some Canuck was complaining that we think they are retarded?"
If you're not sure you came here from another thread then you must be retarded. LOL
No review of the topic of swinging has been done in the last 20 years. This review is intended to update the literature. Studies estimating the incidence of swinging, the demographic and personality characteristics of swingers, along with how swingers are perceived by nonswingers are reviewed. Numerous theories explaining this behavior have been presented with a social psychological model being the primary focus here. Major reasons for getting involved in swinging, initiation into the lifestyle, effects on marriage, and dropping out of swinging are also covered. Finally, the literature dealing with some of the major problems with swinging, focusing on AIDS, are also discussed, along with the current state of swinging and suggestions for future research.
With those collectivist glasses on any government intervention can be justified. For example, you write:
In the case of the "butt buses" -- no harm is being done to innocent third-parties. Only willing smokers enter the buses. The harm from second-hand smoke has been grossly exaggerated, to support prohibitions against smoking in bars and other public places. However, most people have been made to believe that second-hand smoke is a very serious public health issue; therefore, the prohibitions are justified. There are no unwilling non-smokers on the butt buses; therefore, there is no warrant for government prohibition.
As to the bars, etc. a more principled stand would be that anyone who goes to a bar that allows smoking, whether they smoke or not, is a willing participant. But that's really an aside.
When you say: "No harm was done to third parties," the collectivists will always find a thrid-party "harm." On the Drug War threads, the drug warriors always claim third-party harm, or even harm to themselves, by the consumers of illicit drugs, including marijuania. Even a major US anti-drug movement agency claims that it smoking tobacco that is by far the most costly substance to health and the US economy.
By smoking, a cigarette smoker provides a bad example for youth will take it up, the health problems of smokers affect employers, the serious illnesses that affect smokers can devastate families, as will their premature deaths; and can financially ruin those families. Those smokers impose excess costs on the health care system, insurers, the government and taxpayers who subsidize the medical care of smokers. And so forth. Therefore a policy of progressive prohibition, which banning smoking in bars and the attempt to close the "butt buses," is (by this collectivist logic) entirely appropriate.
Likewise keeping a handgun in your house for your own protection puts at risk the public, since it could be stolen and used in a crime; the state should confiscate all prive handguns.
Likewise writing that "sodomites" are "wicked" or "perverts," will cause a third party to be "offended" and thus harmed.
Likewise claiming that alcohol is the cause of many social evils, so it must be heavily taxed, and any drinking and driving, ("even one drink") must be banned; (even though it is the repeat raging drunks with BACs > 0.15 who really cause the carnage.
You see, to the collective socialist, whether he thinks of himself as a right-winger, a leftist, or a centrist, there are few if any private acts that don't at least potentially affect third-parties, or "society;" and are thus not off-limits to intrusive state regulation.
If your statistics about the safety of swinging are correct -- then that alone would justify making the clubs legal. However, if group sex does spread STD's; then proscription might be in order.
Just as on the Butt Buses, everyone in the swingers' club is a consenting adult. If someone did pick up a STD, that was something that was a known (but as I pointed out, actually unlikely) possibility. If someone was infected by having sex with a swinger they in turn knew that possibility.
Of course most STDs are transmitted between non-swingers, in part because swingers tend to be a low-risk part of the population (white, middle-class) but mostly because it is a very small part of the population. If we were to look at the risk of STD infection rather than the preservation of liberty as our guide to government policy, we would immediately imprison all homosexuals, and re-criminalize "fornication," non-marital sex; and impose harsh penalties.
These are public clubs, after all -- not private homes, where the guests are known and screened.
I believe the clubs require membership, so aren't actually "public." I'm not sure how much "screening" goes on even in parties that take place in private homes; part of the attraction of the swinging lifestyle is in meeting new people. VH1 recently broadcast a documentary on some swingers; couples definitely spent some time checking each other out in the sense, "are we compatible," "are they like us," etc. but I didn't see anything like running a background check, or demanding to see a medical history.
I did not catch that thread, but I wonder if it was in regard to Tucker Carlson?. Mr Carlson, of whom I wonder if he really is a conservative, did call Canada,America's retarded cousin.
This is painting Canada with a broad brush though. Still, being retarded is one thing. The condition is without blame. I will leave it to the talking heads to be somewhat rude myself.
What with Canadian MP's- elected representatives calling Americans bastards, I hope WE do not get caught up in this stuff on FR. LOL
"-------By smoking, a cigarette smoker provides a bad example for youth will take it up, the health problems of smokers affect employers, the serious illnesses that affect smokers can devastate families, as will their premature deaths; and can financially ruin those families"
Look, I'm just "making the case," like a good little collectivist busybody. But there is evidence that smoking does increase morbidity and mortality rates at all ages; and the potenial years lost is only measured until age 65.
Still, you are right, smoking will tend to prune the geezers, because that's where the mortality and morbidity rates are already high.
The evidence for the health and economic impact is real, (if not entirely what it seems) but there is no evidence that swinging has any significant health impact. Yet many posters would prohibit a swinging club and defend a smoking bus, in the name of health.
My only real point is that we should consistently defend liberty.
Aids in Swinging (there isn't any)
The reason is that heterosexual transmission of AIDS (at least in Western societies) is difficult, especially female to male; and especially for those without other risk factors. (such as bisexuality, IV drug abuse, members of certain ethnic immigrant groups).
Swingers tend to be white, middle class, and often middle-aged. See Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 3, Oct. 10, 2000
Today's Alternative Marriage Styles:
The Case of Swingers
Authors: Dr. Curtis Bergstrand, Associate Professor of Sociology, Bellarmine University
Ms. Jennifer Blevins Williams, Department of Sociology, Bellarmine University .
I've seen those charts many times and they mean nothing.
If a person dies at age 60 of a heart attack it makes the charts as a "smoking related death"
If a person who doesn't smoke dies at age 60 of a heart attack should it be called a "nonsmoking related death"?
No matter how old a smoker is when they die it is called a smoking related death. The silliest thing I have ever heard of.
Which leads me to remark on the local conditions in bitter cold Northern Ontario. Proprietors have put out a "smoke deck" outside their establishments. The local Canadian Legion has a "smoke tent". It is obvious that a deal of discomfort is endured by smokers.
Now the zealots, for that's what they are, are calling for a ban on this practice. There is a problem though. They cannot drum up any good reason.
My post #28. I would like to say also that I got a little too het up, over Chief Justice Mclachlin. I used Google and was surprised at her defence of free speech previously. Wrong I was to say she had a deviant personality. The damage she has caused though, makes it very regrettable. Surely this business of legalising these clubs is a "foot in the door".
Time will tell if monies will change hands and poor young women will be enlisted. How will the unfortunate authorities be able to prove it?.
More exploitation. (Sigh)
So.....let's see... if I've got this straight....if consenting adults are choosing to engage in any sort of perversion...behind closed doors...it's considered 'private property'...therefore legal, and beyond the reach of the state. On the other hand....if consenting adults are choosing to smoke behind closed doors.....it's considered 'a public place'.... and falls under the grip of the state. There-think I've got it right now.
Ah, the deviance of Canadian law.
LOL :-D
Yes, it was a thread about someone complaining about what Tucker Carlson said.
Having worked in a nursing home for a few years and now at a hospital, I truly would rather die younger from cigarettes than end up incontinent, unable to walk or dress or feed myself, totally dependent on a staff stretched thin and having a bed next to an alzheimer patient who screams all night.
And, by the way, the majority of residents I cared for never smoked.
Yeah, but who did you and your friends vote for last round, Kevin? Could it have been the Liberal Party candidates? If so, you got what you deserved.
Re your post 45, there is something to be said for dying of a heart attack. Well, assuming it doesn't happen at age 45 or any other early age.
The way they interpret "private property" boggles the mind,doesn't it?
I didn't want to make you waste money for old data. My point was there's no recent data.
Thanks for the other references, but I have less respect for sociological references and sociology as science than a federal judge in PA had for intelligent design.
IMHO, as far as the social sciences, economics and psychology have more reliable hypotheses with predictable outcomes than sociology and its various troublesome spawns, e.g. Black Studies, Feminism, etc. that attribute all the evil in the world to white devils, capitalism and sundry bogeymen.
Regardless, Merry Christmas!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.