Canadian court lifts ban on ‘swingers’ clubs (Group Sex OK in Canada!)

MSNBC & Reuters ^ | December 21, 2005

[Recovering_Democrat]

OTTAWA - 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.

[Recovering_Democrat]

See, next is the government paying for treatment of your STDs contracted while engaging in government-sanctioned group sex.

[Yo-Yo]

Take off!
To the Great White North!
Take off!
It's a beauty way to go!

Eh?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Also from the article...

"[The Supreme court] also dismissed the idea... that group sex was dangerous because it could result in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

“Sex that is not indecent can transmit disease while indecent sex might not,” they ruled.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Is this for real? A question for myself: Why does this surprise me?

[hoosierboy]

Can we send all our sex freaks and pedophiles up to canada, since they tolerate this sort of behaviour.

[Sociopathocracy]

I think that Slick Willie will be increasing the number os speaking engagements he books north of the border.

[byteback]

Is that where Seagrams got the name seven and seven?

[wildbill]

A trip to the Great North is NOT necessary. It's legal in the US as well as long as its consenting adults.

[hattend]

Maybe Willy Clinton will finally move to Canada, now.

[jdm]

"It's legal in the US as well as long as its consenting adults."

Glad someone here is on the up..... and up.

[wallcrawlr]

This is a legitimate "Breaking News" story!!!!!

[Pimpmygop]

You mean Canada is like San Francisco now?

[Sax]

I thought the Islamics had the market cornered on trying to legislate morality.

Deviant and disgusting, but what consenting adults want to do in a private setting is their business.

I would say social pressures are more appropriate here than trying to create laws to deal with private behavior.

[Almondjoy]

It already does that for smoking. What do you think happens to people who don't have health insurance that smoke?

[angkor]

“Sex that is not indecent can transmit disease while indecent sex might not,” they ruled.

Que sera sera.

[Pessimist]

I've seen this posted several times here today in one form or another.

Its dissapointing how few people here cheer the ruling rather than attacking it.

Do you really believe the court should have dictated behavior between consenting adults behind closed doors?

How conservative is that?

[WideGlide]

Now we know why the first 4 words of their National Anthem are "OH, OH, OH, CANADA"

[M203M4]

We had it illegal longer than you - nananananana.

:p

[The_Republican]

Canada offcially made legal what is already legal in US.

Those who live in Glass Houses....

[calljack]

i agree. Not the business of government in the first place.

[Physicist]

Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time. -- H.L. Mencken.

[Rutles4Ever]

This should pave the way for Canada to legalize polygamy as well.

[atomicpossum]

Yep, darn it, the government should be regulating who should have sex with whom. That's bedrock conservatism. [/sarcasm]

[TheGhostOfTomPaine]

This is bad news? I don't think either their government or ours has any business making behind-closed-doors-between-consenting-adults sexual practices illegal. (Nor, of course, do I think the government has any business "paying for treatment of your STDs contracted while engaging" in those practices, but this ruling doesn't say it should.)

[andy58-in-nh]

Fine with me: I always said they can go f*** themselves.

[Antoninus]

See, next is the government paying for treatment of your STDs contracted while engaging in government-sanctioned group sex.

Both liberals and liberal-tarians would no doubt agree with this decision. The big difference is who gets to pay for treating the STDs and other society-destroying consequences of such activities.

Liberals say, "the government will foot the bill."

Libertarians say, "no one. These people chose this path, let them pay for their own treatments. And no one is ultimately responsible for the damaged individuals, ruptured marriages, dysfunctional children, and general cultural malaise that spin-off from activities like this and wreak havoc across society."

Court decisions like this do not serve the general good of society. Indeed, quite the opposite.

I shudder when I think of what this world is going to be like for my children if we don't put a stop to this cr@p somehow.

[voletti]

Keep govt out of the private lives of adult citizens. As long the perps aren't breaking the law (like cooking meth for e.g.), its none of the Govt's business.

[Antoninus]

“Sex that is not indecent can transmit disease while indecent sex might not,” they ruled.

Clearly these judges have not taken a basic anatomy & physiology course.

[MagnoliaB]

Are 'swingers clubs' and 'swinging' illegal in the US? I am only asking because while watching the local channels recently due to weather news I had it on (puke) Okra's show and she had all these 'swingers' on. They were telling their stories about it and I am almost certain they were all Americans and doing it here.

According to Okra's show, there is no ban on it here in the USA.

[traviskicks]

Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday
----


Uh... Well, of course, it is the government of Canada which is the threat to society, not the activities of a free people. Why is this ruling so earthshattering? Seems to me it is just common sense.





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Antoninus]

Deviant and disgusting, but what consenting adults want to do in a private setting is their business.

How very "liberal-tarian" of you. So society has no interest in outlawing orgies? Where does it say in the Constitution that you have a civil right to have group sex?

[Antoninus]

Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time. -- H.L. Mencken.

So an orgy is your idea of a good time? I wonder if ol' H.L. would have approved of your use of his quote in this context....

[Antoninus]

Keep govt out of the private lives of adult citizens. As long the perps aren't breaking the law (like cooking meth for e.g.), its none of the Govt's business.

So you think that American citizens have a constitutional right to prostitutes, group sex, and sodomy, then?

[Sax]

Don't label me thank you.

Immoral does not equal illegal. Want that, move to the Middle East.

People are allowed to make bad choices, it's called free will.

Your line of think has no end and you could extrapolate that thought process out to see government types that will force you to exercise, make fast food illegal, limit how much time you can watch tv, or force you into a church or synagogue.

If you personally want to live a moral life, good. If someone else wants to lead an immoral life, that's their choice. I like having a choice.

[Salo]

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Where in the Constitution does it say the government has the right to regulate who you have sex with?

[farlander]

It doesn't say in the constitution that anyone has the right to stop people for having group sex either. So it's a morality argument, and while I'm certainly not a moral relativist, I won't judge people on their sexual preferences among consenting adults.

[fanfan]

Well, of course, it is the government of Canada which is the threat to society

You're right.

On January 23rd. we will have a new government.

:-)

[traviskicks]

Where does it say in the Constitution that you have a civil right to have group sex?
---

Well, where in the Constitution does it say you do NOT have a right to group sex? Where in there does it give government power to regulate the private lives of consenting individuals?

Some quotes from some founders:

Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, & a very unexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.
- Thomas Jefferson


If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. <.> Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.
- James Madison

Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
- George Washington

[proud_yank]

Can we send all our sex freaks and pedophiles up to canada, since they tolerate this sort of behaviour.

LOL! The land of Tolerance, until you say that you oppose such behavior!

[Gone GF]

"How very "liberal-tarian" of you. So society has no interest in outlawing orgies? Where does it say in the Constitution that you have a civil right to have group sex?"

I live in a state that still says I can go to jail for having oral sex with my wife. Do you really believe the state has any business making laws like that?

[farlander]

Government has no bussines legislating people's sexual preferences. As long as its in private, and consensual, I could care less what they do. It's a free country.

Prostitution is another matter.

[Antoninus]

If you personally want to live a moral life, good. If someone else wants to lead an immoral life, that's their choice. I like having a choice.

You are perfectly welcome to choose to live an immoral life. However, you are not welcome to dictate what laws my community should live under. If you want to live in a community that sanctions orgies, prostitution, legalized crack, child porn, or any other deviant activity, then by all means, elect officials who will make such things legal.

But if I live in a community where such things are illegal, what right do you have to come in and impose your immorality on us via the Federal judiciary?

I asked a question: Do you think you have a civil right to solicit a prostitute or engage in sodomy?

[M203M4]

I asked a question: Do you think you have a civil right to solicit a prostitute or engage in sodomy?

What should my punishment be if I sodomize my wife?

[Antoninus]

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So you're saying that Amendment 10 gives you the right to have an orgy? Funny, for the first 200 years of our Republic, no one else ventured to make that assumption. That is a very modern interpretation, usually only offered by individuals with license-addled brains.

I say if a local community choses to outlaw orgies, or sodomy, or prostitution, what right does the federal judiciary have to come along and declare such laws unconstitutional? Isn't that the very essence of big government imposing its immorality on local government?

[Antoninus]

It doesn't say in the constitution that anyone has the right to stop people for having group sex either. So it's a morality argument, and while I'm certainly not a moral relativist, I won't judge people on their sexual preferences among consenting adults.

That's utter nonsense. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson (that most 'libertarian' of all the Founding Fathers), while governor of Virginia, signed a law that made sodomy a crime punishable by castration.

What does that tell you about the Founders' view of morality and the law? A bit different from your 1960s interpretation, ain't it?

[E Rocc]

What should my punishment be if I sodomize my wife?

I suspect it would involve jewelry. :o

-Eric

[mlc9852]

How would anyone know what was going on behind closed doors anyway?

[farlander]

Heh. Well my interpretation sure isn't a 60s thing - a bit too young for that. Problem is that sex and all that goes along with it is just not as big of deal these days as it may have been in 1700s and 1800s. In either case, I find it uacceptable for anyone to legislate morality for me. It's no different from the socialists/communists baloney, in the end it's saying "we know better what's good for you than you do". And that goes with the fact I don't buy that society is being hurt what consenting adults do behind closed door. Government, and other people's ideas of morality have no place in people's bedrooms.

[Antoninus]

Well, where in the Constitution does it say you do NOT have a right to group sex?

Do you understand what the Constitution is? It is an instrument describing the limits and role of the Federal government underwhich all the states were to exist. The states and local governments are explicitly allowed to make laws as they saw fit to their particular circumstances. When community statutes in place for decades (e.g., Lawernce v. Texas) are overruled by an intrusive federal judiciary which imposes its immorality on everyone, how can you call that anything but tyranny? If the people in a district vote to outlaw sodomy, prostitution, drugs, group sex, etc., what right to YOU have to tell them they can't?

- Thomas Jefferson

This same Thomas Jefferson signed a law making castration the penalty for sodomy. Somehow, I don't think he'd take your side in this debate.

[Sax]

You seem hellbent on trying to frame myself and others here as less than moral because we support individual free choice. Shame on you.

I am not dictating any laws to you. I am saying that the type of laws that you appear to support have no business being made.

I do not chose to lead an immoral life, but I believe that others should be allowed to. It is the choices that you make that define you, so you should be free to make them.

Simply not making orgies illegal does not sanction them. You seem to want to rely on our government into forcing everyone to be moral. Where is the beauty in that? That strips away the value from those chosing to be moral of their own free will.

If you consider yourself moral, as you appear to, you should consider being less ugly to those who disagree with you.