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.

[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.

[mlc9852]

Why is cooking meth any of the government's business any more than sex is?

[mlc9852]

You think STDs, broken marriages, screwed up kids means someone is having a good time? Sex is not the be all and end all, at least not to responsible adults.

[M203M4]

LOL

Correct answer (I think...)

[wallcrawlr]

oh man...lol

[IranIsNext]

"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?"

Oh, I see where this is going. If it is not constitutionally protected, we should ban it! Then maybe I should start a ballot drive in my state to ban cars, since there is no right to "bear vehicles" Anyone live in NC, I could really use your signature!

[aliquando]

Jees, now I'm having Geddy Lee and McKenzie brother flashbacks. Thanks fer nuttin. I need more beers.

[Fair Go]

Seems there are quite a few swingers in Canada as the following quote from the Australian press shows:

"It's a big victory," said Denis Chesnel, co-owner with his two daughters of Montreal's biggest swingers' club, dubbed 1082.

"We no longer have to hide our dirty little secret," said defence lawyer and former club owner Bernard Corbeil, predicting such businesses would now operate out in the open.

He told reporters some five to seven per cent of Canadians were swingers, based on a poll presented to the court, and several dozen clubs were now quietly operating in this country, including four or five in Montreal.

Mr Corbeil also said he expected charges against scores of club-goers arrested in recent years would be dropped as a result of the superior court decision.

The ruling is not likely to lead to a proliferation of sex clubs, however, according to Jean Hamel, the president of the Swingers' Association of Quebec, since enough already exist to meet swingers' needs."

[JTN]

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

It's in the Ninth amendment.

Commonly, we hear people say things like, "Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to smoke a cigarette?" Or, "Where in the Constitution does it say you're allowed to look at pornography?"

James Madison worried about questions like these. He feared that if we included a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, people would eventually come to assume the rights it listed would be the only rights we have. Others felt some rights — speech, arms, etc. — were so vital as to merit explicit mention.

As a compromise, they included the Ninth Amendment, which says that the enumeration of some rights should not be construed to exclude rights not enumerated. So to answer the questions above, your rights to smoke a cigarette or consume pornography are both in the Ninth Amendment.

[Antoninus]

Heh. Well my interpretation sure isn't a 60s thing - a bit too young for that.

Not surprising. You have been nursed and brainwashed with their soul-destroying philosophy, however. That much is very clear.

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.

No? Is the next generation to be generated in some way other than procreation, then? Was the rate of fatal STDs in those days anything like what it is today? Are more people attending marriage and family therapists or in jail for sex crimes today than in the 18th & 19th centuries? It's comforting to the self-absorbed deviant to believe that how he lives his life has no impact on society. However, just the opposite is true--particularly when one takes into account the cumulative effect of millions of such people.

In either case, I find it uacceptable for anyone to legislate morality for me.

No you don't. Tell me--should there be a legal age of consent for sexual activities? If so, what should that age be?

And that goes with the fact I don't buy that society is being hurt what consenting adults do behind closed door.

That's a nice plattitude. It is also 100% false. Activities that are contrary to the Natural Law are incredibly harmful to society on a variety of levels. All you have to do is look at the divorce rate in this country and the number of children being brought up in broken homes. It doesn't take a genius to connect the super-abundance of self-absorbed individuals and the concurrent absence of basi sexual morality as contributing factors to all of these trends.

Government, and other people's ideas of morality have no place in people's bedrooms.

Be honest. Did you steal that line from The People versus Larry Flynt?

[Antoninus]

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

No, shame on you for trying to impose your relativist immorality on the whole of society.

If you can get it passed in the legislature, then fine. If you have to force it through the deviant-riddled courts then you are nothing but a tyrant.