Canadian Court Lifts Ban on ‘Swingers’ clubs (Group sex not a threat to society, it says - Right!)

Reuters/MSNBC ^ | 12/21/2005 | Reuters

[TCats]

Group sex among consenting adults not a threat to society, it says. Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday as it lifted a ban on so-called “swingers” clubs.

In a ruling that radically changes the way courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the top 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.

[TCats]

The Libs are most certainly excited about this ratification of 'Free Speech' I'm sure.

[Old Sarge]

Pics?

{ /sarc}

[gondramB]

I'm surprised that Canada had that kind of restriction personal private behavior to start with.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

What's wrong with this?

[BenLurkin]

"No threat to society."

[conserv13]

If by 'Libs' you mean Libertarians, then yes. This is in Canada anyway.

[BenLurkin]

I realize this is not in Canada but still seems timely:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544857/posts

[TCats]

I personnaly don't agree with it but, if individuals want it, I guess it's OK. What I do object to is licensing it as a business and the transmission of ST's that is likely. BTW, I do not approve of gay bathhouses as well and for the same reasons.

[brwnsuga]

I would say let them have at it and eventually they will die out from disease, however, there are some innocent spouses that will suffer and children will suffer eventually, too.

[GSlob]

Well, as long as they do not spread disease or frighten the horses in the street [they were behind closed doors, right?], then one could let them be, as there's no threat to the society.

[inquest]

Next stop along the road to judicially mandated recognition of polygamy.

[proxy_user]

Libertarianism is a political philosophy.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea to actually do it. Lack of legal restriction implies self-restraint among the general public. The opposite is true as well.

[Grut]

Heck, why not? It's their morality and health. And their 'other' sex partners', of course... who may catch something unwittingly, but then it's their job not to be unwitting.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I personnaly don't agree with it but, if individuals want it, I guess it's OK. What I do object to is licensing it as a business and the transmission of ST's that is likely. BTW, I do not approve of gay bathhouses as well and for the same reasons.

I'm sure such businesses would be subject to Canada's undoubtedly strict health regulations/requirements, no? In any case, you puts in your quarter, you takes your chances . . .

[doctorhugo]

I find it most interesting that I read the entire artickle and did not see the term 'public health' even once mentioned. The fact and very real mathematical reality that if you get one person with a sexually transmitted disease in a free or group sex environment that person will wreak exponentially devastating havoc.

The liberal/libertarian view is conceived in irresponsibility by definition. Is it not ironic that those followeing that lifestyle, legal or not, will be the ones to scream the loudest for the "g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t" to take care of them when AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea or some other sexually transmitted disease pays them a visit.

"Oh Canada....,Glorious and Free...."

[Mr. Brightside]

Group sex not a threat

Probably depends on which group we're talking about.

[American in Singapore]

After somebody else suggested it (sorry that I can't give credit where credit is due), Canada will always be "our retarded cousin from the North".

I can't add to that assessment.

[lady lawyer]

This is something that should be decided by the community, not some judge forcing his standard, or lack thereof, on everyone else.

[Unknown Pundit]

This is something that should be decided by the community, not some judge forcing his standard, or lack thereof, on everyone else.

I see. So it's okay with you if people band together and criminalize behaviors that don't violate others rights, but does violate their sensibilities. Got it. Are you familiar with the term "tyranny of the majority"? Just asking.

[Dumb_Ox]

Public health can't be defended once one commits to abandoning any conception of public morality. The former's dependent upon the latter.