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.
Actually, states taking away the rights of citizens (who happen to be sinners per Biblical teachings) is the more intrusive of the two. Nobody forces you or anyone else to attend these clubs. But you along with many others would gladly use force to march these folks to jail by the simple fact that you have a majority and they are a tiny minority.
With that said, I have a some questions for you. Why do you demand that un-saved (or "lost" if you prefer) people live as if they are saved? Aren't Christians nothing but sinners saved by grace? Why would any Christian expect any un-saved person to live as if they were saved? Is it fair to expect that? Is Christianity's role in the world to see that sinners are jailed? Or is its role to pray for sinners, witness to them, and refrain from sinning themselves, all in an effort to lead sinners to Christ?
G-d certainly expects his followers to live by his teachings, but it seems to me that the Bible also teaches that the lost will live like the lost do, in sin. He wants all to follow his moral abosolutes, but he wants us to do so by choice, not by force.
Donning my flame retardant suit now. LOL
One moral of the story - don't let your 14 yr. old go to Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She has indeed shown her remarkable aptitude in erecting impenetrable walls. ;)
ROTFL!
It continues to amaze that the very strong advocates for getting government out of our business conduct is all-too-willing to create law that mandates government oversee our sexual proclivities and punish that conduct of which the ''blue noses'' and ''church ladies'' say are not acceptable (unless engaged in by them in private. Hey, stay the hell out of my bedroom or the bedroom(s) of those who invite others to come in.
You have a serious misunderstanding regarding my viewpoints. I am not a sectarianist, and do not hold the views you think I do. I will reply later, have to go to town shortly.
Edmund Burke as the measurment of our private conduct??? You've got to be kidding or exceedingly uninformed on the nature of public policy.
Before the advent of schooling, when children were allowed to grow up, I could (barely) see 14 years of age as a minimum age for marital sex. But non-marital sexual activity? Insane.
Will reply more later.
Since this pro-orgy club decision was not voted on directly by people, or by elected officials, but was merely a judicial decision (and not unanimous), which side is forcing what on people?
Liberaltarians love to talk about over arching government, but they're the ones depending on Nazgul judges enforcing their immorality on people. Let communities decide their own standards. How about that one?
Why? Do you think we have a civil right to group sex?
Of course you do. Do you believe that government has a right to monitor your bedroom practices?
Too bad that wall wasn't built before our culture was polluted with Hollywood
liberal political thought, sex and violence not to mention all that Yankee produced porn.
Kinda late to shut the barn door.
No problem, looking forward to your responses. BTW, if I don't respond to you over the next few days, it's because I'm away for the holiday. 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.