Posted on 12/22/2005 8:47:04 PM PST by Founding Father
Canada Legalizes "Sex Clubs" - "14-year-olds will be exploited"
By Gudrun Schultz
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 21, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that group sex in publicly accessible venues is legal.
In a ruling handed down this morning, Canada's Supreme Court has declared it is legal for clubs to provide opportunities for group sex. As long as consent is given, the area is somewhat private, and no payment is directly involved, partner exchanging or "swinging" and group participation in sexual acts is not considered illegal.
"The decision is certainly in line with the tendency of this court to throw out any restrictions to behavior," said Gwen Landolt, vice president of Real Women of Canada. "The courts are gradually reducing public concern about morality and behavior that is offensive. Judges don't have legitimacy."
"There is a real trend to break down moral principles in Canadian society. Those principles have been built based on human experience about what is in the best interest of society."
With sex clubs now protected by Canada's supreme court, the potential social repercussions are staggering. The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14. Canadian teenagers can now legally participate in group sex offered by clubs (so long as alcohol is not sold on the premises).
"The implications are horrendous," said Landolt. "It's an exploitation of human sexuality. 14-year-olds will be exploited."
The Supreme Court ruling addressed two Quebec Court of Appeal decisions that had arrived at opposite conclusions. The owners of two Montreal 'swingers' clubs were charged with operating bawdy houses, in both cases involving group sex. One was convicted, the other acquitted. The owner who was convicted appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The Crown appealed the acquittal of the other owner.
The Supreme Court's decision was based upon the definition of what constitutes a public place and an 'indecent act'. (Prostitution was not a factor in either case, even though payment was required at both locations before entry.)
One club was for members only, and the sexual activity took place in designated rooms, sometimes with on-lookers. The other club, which had a cursory doorman in place, used a moveable, transparent curtain to block off the dance floor at regular intervals, and the activity took place behind the curtain. In both clubs, according to the owners, entry was granted to adult patrons after a fee was paid and the person was notified about the nature of the club.
In general, case law has defined an indecent act as that behavior which either offends the community or has the potential to cause harm to the community in some way.
According to Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, group sex neither offends nor harms the Canadian public.
Supreme Court Justices Major, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron agreed with McLachlin's ruling. Justice Michel Bastarache and Justice Louis LeBel disagreed.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Those would be called "libertarians". They believe any vice should be legal as long as it is self-inflicted.
In a related news story, the Minnesota Vikings have announced that next year's training camp has been moved to Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Whew. That's a whole different alien world up there. I have no clue what it means for the Canadian Supreme Court to rule that something is "legal". I never studied Canadian government in school, so the place may as well be Mars. The highest court in Canada declared something "legal" - - wow. Does what the judges say trump what the legislative bodies say about what is legal or illegal? Is there any "balance" of powers in Canada?
Okay...confession time.
When I was younger and lived close to the Canadian border...
Right on!! I'm not interested (but, of course I'm 73 years old), what another sovereign nation declares as its law governing conduct that poses no threat to our national security or is not detrimental to our vital national interests is not a subject appropriate for our condemnation.
"Does what the judges say trump what the legislative bodies say about what is legal or illegal? Is there any "balance" of powers in Canada?"
Yes -> Notwithstanding clause (veto the SCC)
And it's also the only reason why the charter of "rights and freedom" passed.
Oddly, at this juncture, Muslim rule would be preferable in Canada. The political system there is not reformable. Total gun control, no free speech, no freedom of religion for the few members of the tradtional majority population who still believe, no freedom of association, etc. Tyrranical rule by judges with no accountability whatsoever. Canada is a totalitarian regime now completely in the hands of an utterly corrupt leftist rulng elite - irrespective of what party label they wear - apparently elected by a clueless majority of welfare-dependent fools able to pull a lever. One could hadly think of a nation more deserving of Sharia.
The one real benefit of Sharia law would be the sight of degenerate leftists like the judges who made this ruling standing in line awaiting the executioner's sword. They'd be among the first to be put to death and have completely earned every single tender mercy that Sharia has to offer them.
Funny how "liberaltarians" want their so-called freedom imposed on people who don't see it as freedom and don't want it. License and freedom are not the same thing.
I really like what Edmund Burke had to say in this regard:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke
The only problem is it's coming to a theater near you.
Read my comment above. Also, there was an article on FR not long ago about another group grope sex orgy club in (darn memory... one of those northern states) was in upper NY state? Same exact situation, only with a lawyer ready to force the small town into bankruptcy in order to force the town to legalize the "club".
So unless you like the idea of sex orgy clubs dotted about our fair landscape, you should take note. Of course, if you think such things benign, then we can argue about that.
It's 16, like most states.
With the exception of a few states in the southwest and the southeast (where it's 18) and maybe one or two midwest states, age of consent is 16 or 17.
It's digusting enough to contemplate group orgies in every town across Canada, but the implications of kids down to 14 years of age being integral to this is abysmal.
The incidence of STDs will skyrocket and there won't be a 14 year old and up kid in Canada that will be able to avoid dealing with other kids their age who have participated in such clubs with adults, very sick ones at that.
I seriously doubt any 14 year olds will be partaking of this.
Besides it's no threat to our sovereignty or national security so I don't really give a rip.
L
Gorelick should be hired as a consultant in setting up those walls.
Not at all.
Thailand is not nearly as perverted as you seem to think or imply.
That new F22 has strategic bombing capability. The Canadian parliment and supreme court might be a good starter.
And then, yes, by all means build a wall and offer asylum to the Western populace.
Fourteen year olds can engage in protected group sex now and can't have a beer and cigarette afterwards. LOL
"FOURTEEN YEAR OLDS. Canada is off the cliff already, obviously."
In three US states, the age of consent is 14.
In many US states, it is 15.
In most, it is 16.
I would have figured that it's 18, but it's not.
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.