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.
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.