Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canada Legalizes "Sex Clubs" - "14-year-olds will be exploited"
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | December 21, 2005 | Gudrun Schultz

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.


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 14yearsold; canada; groupsex; intotheabyss; itsovernow; moralabsolutes; sexclubs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 last
To: little jeremiah
You and I are just fools, apparently, not worth his valuable smart time.

Fair enough. I love it when they concede defeat.

Well done as usual, LJ.
81 posted on 12/23/2005 9:40:16 PM PST by Antoninus (Hillary smiles every time a Freeper trashes Santorum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Your dishonor and lack of integrity is exceeded by---well, your total lack of honor and integrity. A private message is just that, private.


82 posted on 12/23/2005 11:25:47 PM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
to you jeremiah, aint that the truth!!

//And no one who disagrees with little jeremiah ever, ever addresses any of the arguments jeremiah articulates. Ever. Sloganeering, sneering, name calling and the like are their only methods//

Wolf
83 posted on 12/24/2005 12:32:17 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

(also to the namless one who I mustn't ever post to again)

I am sobbing in the corner.


84 posted on 12/24/2005 7:36:38 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Wouldn't it be interesting and fun if they would address our actual points of argument some time?

Ah well, one can dream.


85 posted on 12/24/2005 7:37:42 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Pundit

Duh - my comment should have said THIS:

The Founding Fathers understood this very well, and considered that government promotion or acceptance of egregious sexual immorality was entirely INconsistent with the Constitutional protections of individual liberty.

Instead of THIS:

The Founding Fathers understood this very well, and considered that government promotion or acceptance of egregious sexual immorality was entirely consistent with the Constitutional protections of individual liberty.

Proofread, lj, proofread.


86 posted on 12/24/2005 9:37:03 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Bogolyubski
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.


Sadly, I think you are right. I know we need to fight radical Islam tooth and nail but when any Islamist comes up with the criticism of how Western society has become decadent, I can't really dispute that when I see things like this. I try my best to keep God and Jesus in my heart all the time but if I didn't know any better, when I see the decline of morals in society and was looking for a system that would help restore that, Islam would look good to me.
87 posted on 12/25/2005 12:32:05 PM PST by Nowhere Man ("Nationalist Retard" and proud of it! Michael Savage for President in 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
So now we can expect a wave of kidnapped American girls for a trade across the Northern border.

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.


Crap, even an A-4 Skyhawk could do it. B-)
88 posted on 12/25/2005 12:35:19 PM PST by Nowhere Man ("Nationalist Retard" and proud of it! Michael Savage for President in 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson