babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Sex clubs legal, says Supreme Court

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Sex clubs legal, says Supreme Court
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 21 December 2005 01:21 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://tinyurl.com/am5wo

quote:
Swingers clubs which feature consenting adults engaging in group sex are legal, the Supreme Court of Canada said Wednesday.
In a major decision, the court re-wrote the definition of indecency to use harm, rather than community standards, as the key yardstick.

The 7-2 majority ruling, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, said indecent acts must be shown to be harmful to the point where they “interfere with the proper functioning of society.”

Public sex would meet the test of indecency, but orgies and partner swapping among like-minded adults in private don’t, McLachlin wrote.

Defining indecency has always been difficult, McLachlin wrote.

“Over time, courts increasingly came to recognize that morals and taste were subjective, arbitrary and unworkable in the criminal context and that a diverse society would function only with a generous measure of tolerance for minority mores and practices.”

The courts have gradually moved from subjective considerations to objective standards, focused on the harm caused by the acts.

“The threshold is high,” McLachlin wrote. “It proclaims that, as members of a diverse society, we must be prepared to tolerate conduct of which we disapprove, short of conduct that can be objectively shown beyond a reasonable doubt to interfere with the proper functioning of society.”

Bad taste, violation of religious or moral standards or even public disgust aren’t by themselves enough to make something indecent.

Reached for comment, BWAGA treasurer skdadl said, "But what about the MUNEE?"


Dream on, Stevie, if you think a court that upheld the right to group sex is going to trample over the right to marry.

Full judgement at http://tinyurl.com/d728v

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 21 December 2005 01:32 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The downside being that the socons will point to this as the continuing erosion of 'family values'.*

* such values only to be defined by intolerant bigots


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 21 December 2005 01:44 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would consider listening to socons whine and moan about this sweeping decision as just a bonus.


quote:
“Over time, courts increasingly came to recognize that morals and taste were subjective, arbitrary and unworkable in the criminal context and that a diverse society would function only with a generous measure of tolerance for minority mores and practices . . . The threshold is high. It proclaims that, as members of a diverse society, we must be prepared to tolerate conduct of which we disapprove, short of conduct that can be objectively shown beyond a reasonable doubt to interfere with the proper functioning of society.”

I would read this as total defeat for the socons.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 December 2005 02:08 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think this is great. The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation!!!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 21 December 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd love to see some enterprising reporter ask Steve and Paulie what they think of this.

Yesterday Stevie promised "To strengthen the family and those institutions that promote strong families."

SOmeone should ask him if his definition of families includes single-parent, gay & lesbian and common-law families - because the party he once led, the Canadian Alliance, specifically excluded all these from their definition of family.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 21 December 2005 03:35 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with the Supreme Court because it is nobody's business what consenting adults do together.

However, there are zoning issues. L'Orage is located on Saint-Laurent (the Main) at the corner of Mont-Royal. Not necessarily the most savoury company for shoppers waiting for the bus (as I do often at that corner).

Can't cities enact codes on where "sex-related" businesses can be?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jay Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11367

posted 21 December 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for Jay Williams        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Check out the photo Canada.com is using to illustrate the SCOC decision. WOW, that's pretty hot for a family website...

Canada.com

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Jay Williams ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 21 December 2005 04:08 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Can't cities enact codes on where "sex-related" businesses can be?

I would imagine so... but I'm not sure if a place like that would qualify. They aren't selling sex toys or porn, nor are they providing adult entertainment. They're just (I assume) a bar where people engage in a legal activity like playing chess or cribbage.

Is there much activity there during shopping hours? I just assumed they operated at night. There are several gay saunas in my neighbourhood and their function is more-or-less invisible if your aren't looking for one.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 21 December 2005 04:15 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
L'Orage is much more in-your-face than the gay saunas in my neighbourhood, and I do think they get a fair amount of business during shopping hours.

There are of course highly-visible gay saunas in the Gay Village, but that is utterly normal in the context of the environment.

If L'Orage were farther south in the old Red Light area of the Main, I don't think it would bother anybody.

The guy who runs l'Orage comes across as an utter creep - but then, there are a lot of utter creeps whose constitutional rights warrant protection.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 21 December 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually I was surprised at how visible the saunas are in Montreal. Quite different than the ones here. They don't advertise their rates on the front door here.

Is the "red-light" district in Montreal a matter of zoning or "evolution?" Cities often develop areas where lots of a particular type of business are found through natural selection, without any coercion from government.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 21 December 2005 05:03 PM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I will defend your right to the death... to get funky!
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 21 December 2005 07:03 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But they are legal in the states, right?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 21 December 2005 07:09 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
L'Orage

Is it a brothel?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hatamoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11188

posted 21 December 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for Hatamoto   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been joking with some american friends that if we ever can get the marijuana decriminalization bill passed that Canada will become the all time undisputed party capital of the world.

I personally believe that this is a correct decision, and that what consenting adults do amongst themselves should absolutely be given every freedom short of doing harm (harm in the case of unwanted infringement of others rights... some people are quite into some pretty freaky stuff, after all. Just tune into Showcase some evening and watch KinK, you'll get an education). The putative libertarian in me is feeling pretty happy at the moment.

What really stands out about this is that a basic touchstone in our society (that of 'obscenity', as maleable as it has been) is now essentially removed, and the new touchstone is set at the point of 'do no harm', where the burden of proving harm will likely be set relatively high. Will there be unintended consequences of this? Can groups more interested in spreading hate and intolerance sitting around with grim smiles, waiting to use this new legal tool?

Interesting Times™ indeed...

(edit - fixing atrocious grammar)

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Hatamoto ]


From: Halifax | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 21 December 2005 11:40 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
But they are legal in the states, right?

Generally, in many states, apparently not. They offend public morals, don't ya know. Community standards and all that.

From google answers on NY and NJ

Back to the subject:

Well, first sex toys at Wal-Mart and now this. Yessir, Canada is really one swinging country.

You can be down in the states, Dr. Dobson is gnashing his teeth at this. First ssm, now legal swinging. He's probably asking God to smite Canada right now for its wickedness.

Yet, strangly, God leaves Canada alone and visits all kinds of grief on the USA. Hmmm.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
nuclearfreezone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9059

posted 21 December 2005 11:51 PM      Profile for nuclearfreezone     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Personally, I find this disgusting.
From: B.C. | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 22 December 2005 12:00 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The whole point of the ruling is that disgusting is not the proper basis for unlawful.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 22 December 2005 12:01 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nuclearfreezone:

Personally, I find this disgusting.


Well, as with those who find gay sex repellant, or equal marriage not to be their "cup of tea"... I suggest that you don't partake. (And thank goodness that you're not a Canadian Supreme Court Justice. )

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
m0nkyman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5027

posted 22 December 2005 12:04 AM      Profile for m0nkyman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
L'orage sounds like a swingers club from the more, how shall I say it, promiscuous end of the spectrum:
http://english.montrealplus.ca/portal/profile.do?&profileID=668523

From: Go Left. Further. Bit Further. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
nuclearfreezone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9059

posted 22 December 2005 12:17 AM      Profile for nuclearfreezone     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The article says that sex is not paid for yet there is a membership fee and an admission price. So, what's the difference? Money changes hands and you can do what you want. Isn't that like a brothel?

And, what about disease? What about psychological damage? What about people who are forced by their partners, husbands, wives, or whoever, to partake, or else?

No, I won't be taking part. Not my cup of tea. But it's not something I'd want my son or daughter doing either, because at 18 are they old enough and mature enough to handle this? I don't think all 18 year olds are yet if it's there and available to them, they might be tempted.

Ok. Sorry for sounding so old-fashioned but I think it's a bad move, on par with lowering the age of censent to 14.


From: B.C. | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 22 December 2005 12:31 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's nothing like a brothel. If you pay a whore, they have to have sex with you. That's their job. Whereas you can pay your fee to get into a sex club and still not get laid theoretically (though the chances are probably slim). It's more like pick-up joint. You just don't have to take them home.

As for your eighteen year old child, do you really think we should outlaw everything you don't want them to do, because if its legal they might be tempted? Who the fuck do you think you are? What if I decide I don't want my kids to be Christian? Should we outlaw that so that they won't be tempted to slip the bonds of my absolute control over their lives? An eighteen year old is an adult and they can do whatever they want, and your likes and dislikes are only relevent to the extent that they care what you think. And if they do care what you think, then there's no problem, is there?

Stop trying to control everyone. You are not the sole arbitrator of what is correct in this world. Live and let live.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hatamoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11188

posted 22 December 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for Hatamoto   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nuclearfreezone:
The article says that sex is not paid for yet there is a membership fee and an admission price. So, what's the difference? Money changes hands and you can do what you want. Isn't that like a brothel?

You're paying for use of the facilities, not for use of the people in the facilities. Noone is under any obligation to have sex with you for what money changes hands.

quote:
And, what about disease?

If you ride bareback, you're a) really fucking dumb and b) someone who does it with the consent of the other person.

quote:
What about psychological damage?

Sex does psychological damage? What kinda sex are you having???

quote:
What about people who are forced by their partners, husbands, wives, or whoever, to partake, or else?

That's rape. Decency standards play no part determining if an action results in the forced sexual exploitation of another.

quote:
No, I won't be taking part. Not my cup of tea.

Probably for the best for anyone else who'd otherwise come in contact with you.

quote:
But it's not something I'd want my son or daughter doing either, because at 18 are they old enough and mature enough to handle this?

Are you kidding me? You're telling me your 18 year old son hasn't thought about getting down with 2 hot women in a hot tub somewhere? If so, then you're living in a fantasy world, or he's gay (in which case, substitute for '2 hot guys'), or really really unimaginative.

quote:
I don't think all 18 year olds are yet if it's there and available to them, they might be tempted.

Tempted to... what? Have sex? You don't think they are now?

See above re: fantasy world.

quote:
Ok. Sorry for sounding so old-fashioned but I think it's a bad move, on par with lowering the age of censent to 14.

Hey, your opinions are yours and you're welcome to them. Fortunately for Canada, those opinions no longer have any legal weight.

As the inimitable Eric Schwarz once so eloquently put it: Keep your Jesus off my penis, I'll keep my penis off of you.

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: Hatamoto ]


From: Halifax | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 22 December 2005 12:43 AM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The age is already 14, and if somebody coerces their spouse to bungee jumping, that's hardly moral either, but it's certainly no basis for denying people the right to go bungee jumping.

You can get diseases, or suffer psychological damage from having consensual sex in your own apartment, none of those are reasons to make this illegal.

It isn't a brothel because you aren't paying them to provide you sexual services. Is a hotel a brothel because money exchanges hands and you do what you want in their facilities?

As far as your son or daughter doing this, that would be their choice to make. I wouldn't want a hypothetical child of mine doing lots of things that I still think is their choice to make.


From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Merrick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10855

posted 22 December 2005 01:06 AM      Profile for Merrick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Imagine the uproar in one of these clubs when a few heteros run into a few gay people and disagree with one of the groups being in the club.

Does the club make rules saying gays only? Hetero's only? Only people who are ok with both activities being allowed? If they ban one, is it a human rights violation? If a group then desides to open a gay only club, or a hetero only club... would that be an issue?

quote:
The whole point of the ruling is that disgusting is not the proper basis for unlawful.

Aye, but that's a touchy subject. Some people like getting dirty in all sorts of things considered not acceptable, and determined illegal. Yet to them, they don't find what they do disgusting. Should those things be illegal because they are considered to be "disgusting" to the majority? If they aren't hurting anybody?

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: Merrick ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hatamoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11188

posted 22 December 2005 01:11 AM      Profile for Hatamoto   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
You can be down in the states, Dr. Dobson is gnashing his teeth at this. First ssm, now legal swinging. He's probably asking God to smite Canada right now for its wickedness.

Yet, strangly, God leaves Canada alone and visits all kinds of grief on the USA. Hmmm.


God just gives us the cold shoulder every year.


From: Halifax | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 22 December 2005 01:11 AM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The interesting bit is that all of this is about "indecency". Decency has no necessary connection to harm. Decency IS about what's "disgusting"...the Court has defined that out of this law.

As surely most Canadians would approve -- not because they think this place isn't indecent, but because they think decency shouldn't be compelled by law. The law shouldn't have been on the books in the first place. It's another case (like universal marriage) where we let the judges do the leading.

Part of me does, I admit, have a little trouble with that.

(I could even distinguish the marriage issue, as almost the archetype of basic rights denied a minority, plus the government is necessarily implicated in deining marriage, unlike whether you arrange bungee-jumping or bummy-jumping at your local.)


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hatamoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11188

posted 22 December 2005 01:22 AM      Profile for Hatamoto   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merrick:
Imagine the uproar in one of these clubs when a few heteros run into a few gay people and disagree with one of the groups being in the club.

Does the club make rules saying gays only? Hetero's only? Only people who are ok with both activities being allowed? If they ban one, is it a human rights violation? If a group then desides to open a gay only club, or a hetero only club... would that be an issue?

Aye, but that's a touchy subject. Some people like getting dirty in all sorts of things considered not acceptable, and determined illegal. Yet to them, they don't find what they do disgusting. Should those things be illegal because they are considered to be "disgusting" to the majority? If they aren't hurting anybody?


There's no doubt that there's going to be points of contention that still need to be worked out... the underlying point here though is that what one particular group considers 'indecent' is no longer a valid measure of what's considered 'illegal'. The bar has been raise substantially now to 'harm', with what will likely be fairly rigorous requirements for proof of harm.

As for the gay vs. straight @ swing club scenario, it seems pretty likely that anyone open minded enough to be engaged in a place like that is going to be open minded to homosexuality or bisexuality, and will either ignore or remove self from an uncomfortable scenario. I suspect the club managers, if they were smart, would arrange for gay days, straight days, bi days and such, or make for clearly defined areas of what people could expect to see should they wander in there. Sounds more a logistical issue than a legal one.

As for the 'what was disgusting may now be legal' thing, that touches on what I was saying before... there may be unintended consequences that we'll have to deal with as a society. Things that our new, slightly more permissive environment may have to accomodate.


From: Halifax | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 22 December 2005 04:55 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A NEW MEASURE OF DECENCY

quote:

Dec. 22, 2005. 02:19 AM
JESSICA LEEDER
STAFF REPORTER

The Supreme Court of Canada has changed the definition of acceptable behaviour.


It might not transform Canada into a top sex tourism destination, but a Supreme Court ruling yesterday to legalize swingers clubs ? including orgies and partner swapping ? has broad implications for sexual culture and rights, experts say.

In its 7-2 decision, dealing with two Montreal swingers club operators charged with keeping a bawdy house, the court rewrote the definition of indecency. Now harm, rather than community standards, is the key yardstick that will be used to measure the point at which constitutional freedoms can be limited.

Under the ruling, public sex would meet the test of indecency, but orgies and partner swapping among adults in private do not. Acts must be shown to be harmful to the point where they "interfere with the proper functioning of society" before they can be labelled indecent, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

Experts said the decision could lead to the decriminalization of prostitution in the future. It also sends a clear message to police to back down when enforcing law on public sex. If officers have to crash into a suburban home to break up a key-swapping party between consenting adults, or burst through a closed bathhouse door, they no longer have any business doing it, said Bruce Freeman, a cultural anthropologist at the University of Calgary.



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 22 December 2005 06:22 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 22 December 2005 09:18 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

Dream on, Stevie, if you think a court that upheld the right to group sex is going to trample over the right to marry.

So if I'm not getting any, then my rights are being violated?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 22 December 2005 10:54 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's the thing. Will those who oppose same sex marriage oppose funky swinger clubs? Two guys boinking next door is a threat to the institution of marriage, but a roman orgy of straight couples doing the white man's overbite next door is ok?

What is Mr. Harper's position on swinger clubs?


From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 22 December 2005 11:13 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Calgary Herald Editorial

What a bunch of bafflegab...


From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 December 2005 11:17 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stupendousgirlie:
Here's the thing. Will those who oppose same sex marriage oppose funky swinger clubs? Two guys boinking next door is a threat to the institution of marriage, but a roman orgy of straight couples doing the white man's overbite next door is ok?


I thought "Roman orgy" while first encountering this thread.

I'll go against the libertine grain here and throw in the association between "decadence" and "decline of a culture."

Carry on, I'll watch for the Visigoths.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 22 December 2005 11:20 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe our culture is in decline, who knows? What I do know is that I wait with bated breath for opponents of SSM to be as public to their opposition to the SCC ruling as they have been in opposition to SSM.
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 22 December 2005 11:25 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merrick:
[QB]Imagine the uproar in one of these clubs when a few heteros run into a few gay people and disagree with one of the groups being in the club.


This is a place where people have orgies ... usually an orgy implies more than two people engaging in sexual activity .... three people; one male, one female; and one ???? ... seems to me that homosexuality is something orgy goers have learned to deal with, by either participating in, or knowing how to properly decline; You're probably thinking of the "uproar" when Billy Bob got really drunk and tried to stick it in Bubba behind at their last gang rape.

You should pop down to your local pron store and pick up 'Orgies for Dummies', it has a whole chapter on the differences between gang rape and orgies.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 22 December 2005 11:28 AM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stupendousgirlie:
Here's the thing. Will those who oppose same sex marriage oppose funky swinger clubs?

Likely so, and for much the same reason.

Wait for it...


...

...

...wait for it...

...

...

..."It's icky."


From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 22 December 2005 11:30 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
I'll go against the libertine grain here and throw in the association between "decadence" and "decline of a culture."

It seems to me that hand-wringing over 'decadence' may be more symptomatic of the 'decline of culture' than anything else.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 22 December 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merrick:
Does the club make rules saying gays only? Hetero's only? Only people who are ok with both activities being allowed? If they ban one, is it a human rights violation? If a group then desides to open a gay only club, or a hetero only club... would that be an issue?

Um, you DO realize that places for gay men to have sex have existed way longer than ones for straight people?

These problems you envision don't arise in practice. Why would a gay man want to go to a place filled with women when there are better, cheaper and more places to go that don't have women? Why would a woman go to a place filled with men who have no interest in her?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sandy47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10648

posted 22 December 2005 12:02 PM      Profile for Sandy47     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Um, you DO realize that places for gay men to have sex have existed way longer than ones for straight people?

I don't think existence is what's being discussed here. The point is legality and I doubt that argument has ever applied to a place where gays; or anyone else, could have group sex. Otherwise, what's the SC goin' on about??

edited for sheeeesh! (preview. pretty please?)

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: Sandy47 ]


From: Southwest of Niagara - 43.0° N 81.2° W | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 22 December 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, it is a question of legality, founded on the very important principle of MYOB.

The owner of l'Orage is a disgusting sleaze and definitely not someone I'd want to associate with. But if his club's existence doesn't harm me in any way (and I do think there can be zoning issues with where it is located) it is absolutely none of my beeswax.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
oneiromancer
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11129

posted 22 December 2005 12:39 PM      Profile for oneiromancer        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I support this judgment requiring that to be illegal indecent acts must be shown to be harmful to the point that they interfere with the proper functioning of society.

We should consider requiring a demonstration of harm in other criminal prosecutions of consensual acts or speech, such as prostitution, drug possession, and hate crimes. While the statements of David Ahenakew were offensive by reasonable community standards, he was convicted without any requirement that his words be shown to be harmful. Canadians are convicted of drug possession every day even though much of the harm is due to criminalization, not due to the drugs themselves. Illegal drug use is much more common than drug abuse.

Government has improperly regulated consensual sexual behaviour. Criminalizing other consensual activities without a similar requirement that harm be shown is also unwise. Only specified groups are protected by hate laws. Hate may be expressed against unprotected people and groups with impunity even if it can be shown to be harmful. Without proof of harm, speech should not be criminal, though a case could be made for non-criminal civil penalties such as those levied by human rights tribunals.

Just because an activity or expression is disgusting, immoral, or offensive to the majority is insufficient to deem it criminal.


From: dreamworld | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 22 December 2005 01:15 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by oneiromancer:
Only specified groups are protected by hate laws. Hate may be expressed against unprotected people and groups with impunity even if it can be shown to be harmful. Without proof of harm, speech should not be criminal, though a case could be made for non-criminal civil penalties such as those levied by human rights tribunals.

While, as a Yanqui, I am something of a First Amendment purist, it seems to me that hate speech and hate crimes would be the 'controversial' transgressions about which it would be easiest to argue that they 'interfere with the proper functioning' of a civil society.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Red Raven
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8264

posted 22 December 2005 02:09 PM      Profile for Red Raven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Canadian Supreme Court has rewritten the definition of indecency. In its 7-2 decision, the court redefined indecency to use harm, rather than community standards, as the key yardstick.

The ruling, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, said acts must be shown to be harmful to the point where they "interfere with the proper functioning of society" before they can be labeled indecent. Public sex would meet the test of indecency, but orgies and partner swapping among adults in private don't.

Is this really an advance? What is this proper functioning of society which the Chief Justice is so concerned to protect from harm?

The Victorians covered the legs of their dining tables because they were convinced that the sight of them was improper. Moving from that to the point where sex between consenting adults in private is regarded, in enlightened circles, as not being harmful enough to require the attention of the police, seems precious little progress for more than a hundred years.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote. "As members of a diverse society, we must be prepared to tolerate conduct of which we disapprove.”

Unfortunately, she is right, we still seem to need preparation before achieving tolerance. The old concept of community standards, which suggested that if enough of your neighbors disapproved of your conduct they could call the police, is still acceptable to many people, as evidenced by the reaction to the ruling, but at least a majority of the Supreme Court no longer believes a raised eyebrow is enough to drag you off to jail.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that bad taste, violation of religious or moral standards or even public disgust aren't by themselves enough to make something illegal. However, McLachlin wrote that conduct that confronts the public, which predisposes others to anti-social behavior or actually harms those taking part, would meet the test.

Sanctioning behavior in public when there is a reasonable expectation that people are going to be offended and perhaps provoked to violence is sensible.

The difficulty of defining anti-social behaviour, let alone proving that something predisposes others towards it, seems insurmountable.

Using the police to prevent people from harming themselves in activities which would otherwise be legal is arrogant and tyrannical.


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 22 December 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merrick:
Imagine the uproar in one of these clubs when a few heteros run into a few gay people and disagree with one of the groups being in the club.

Does the club make rules saying gays only? Hetero's only? Only people who are ok with both activities being allowed? If they ban one, is it a human rights violation? If a group then desides to open a gay only club, or a hetero only club... would that be an issue?


The rules of the 'lifestyle' or swinging are pretty clear from what I understand. I know people who partake weekly/monthly and I even visited a Port Credit Club a few times with a girl friend back in the day.

Obviously trust is paramount for a couple going into the 'lifestyle'. No single guys allow. Girl on girl is enoucouraged but never guy on guy. Multiple guys in a group are acceptable as long as they are servicing each other.

Kind of a weird mix of open/closed mindedness going on.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
oneiromancer
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11129

posted 22 December 2005 02:40 PM      Profile for oneiromancer        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tape_342:

While, as a Yanqui, I am something of a First Amendment purist, it seems to me that hate speech and hate crimes would be the 'controversial' transgressions about which it would be easiest to argue that they 'interfere with the proper functioning' of a civil society.


In the case of David Ahenakew, most of the dissemination of his hateful views came from the media repeating them, not from his original statements. If the words were harmful, shouldn’t their repetition be prosecuted too? Ahenakew’s statements were not more offensive than those by fascists such as Hitler, yet their words can be found in libraries, bookstores, and online.

Since the Supreme Court has established this precedent, it’s reasonable to expect defence lawyers to demand proof of harm when defending other consensual acts.


From: dreamworld | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 22 December 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Paul Martin's reaction on the CBC National News last night (transcribed while re-watching it on-line for another item):
quote:
Paul Martin couldn't find the words to express his opinion. "Well, I, I've not seen . . . I, I, I, I've not really seen the decision . . . so I don't think I'm . . . This is a . . . I, I'm not . . . I . . . You've got . . . You've got . . . (Looks frantically for someone to rescue him)

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 22 December 2005 04:04 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The rules of the 'lifestyle' or swinging are pretty clear from what I understand. I know people who partake weekly/monthly and I even visited a Port Credit Club a few times with a girl friend back in the day.


The police didn't hassle you?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 22 December 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sandy47:

I don't think existence is what's being discussed here. The point is legality and I doubt that argument has ever applied to a place where gays; or anyone else, could have group sex. Otherwise, what's the SC goin' on about??


Actually, Merrick was not talking about legality, he was talking about potential for discrimination. And legal or not, these places for both gays and straights have been around for a long time - and there's no problem with gays trying to go to the straight ones or straights trying to go to the gay ones. That's not going to change now that their legal status is clear.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 22 December 2005 04:46 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Isn't that like a brothel? .....
And, what about disease? What about psychological damage? What about people who are forced by their partners, husbands, wives, or whoever, to partake, or else?

Obviously swinging, swapping, group sex, polyamoury, voyeurism, etc ... ain't for you. All I can say is "Yay for the Supreme Court!"

Swingers clubs are just a place to meet like minded people. Most do not obligate on site participation. Many people in a "swingers club" do more watching than 'doing'.

I joined a swingers club a few years back. I thought it was ok but not my cup of tea. I didn't enjoy the decor/ambiance, the hot tub was revolting and the sexist vibes were restricting. Not all clubs are the same, and theme nights can embrace a more diverse sexual culture, but the club I was briefly part of was pretty 'conventional'. Women are expected to dress sexy, doesn't matter what the men wear. The women are encouraged to be bisexual and play with one another - mostly for the titillation of the guys. But the guys never touched each other. Too bad for them!

I watched a few people having sex - real sex, not the staged, enhanced fiction you see in porn. There was stuff I saw that I liked and stuff I didn't. I always felt in control and safe. In fact, I was empowered enough to become the one who did all the initiating!

There was one huge upside - the sense of freedom I had on the dance floor. I never enjoyed dancing as much as I have on Hallowe'en at a swingers club. At regular bars I've been groped, hit-on, grinded from behind and felt up. When I protested I'd usually be patronized with "It's only dancing." or "I didn't mean anything by it" or "Relax". When I dance at a regular club it seems that most straight guys who sidle up to me just want to get laid, but they won't be up front about it. Instead, they play games and end up infringing on my dancing enjoyment by using the dance floor as an opportunity to touch me without consent.

At a sex/swingers club everything is open and honest. No means no. If you don't respect people's boundaries you will be quickly removed from the club. So dancing was what it was supposed to be - dancing. I enjoyed freedom of movement and danced alone. If anyone was interested they were up front and honest in their communication with me. I really appreciated that.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 22 December 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What about people who are forced by their partners, husbands, wives, or whoever, to partake, or else?

If "or else" means physical harm, we have laws already to deal with that.

If "or else" means a big snit, the cold shoulder, or a month of humping the pillow, well, c'est la vie. That ends up in the same bin as "What about people who are forced by their partners, husbands, wives or whoever to repaint and replace the furniture, or else?"


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 22 December 2005 05:11 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

The police didn't hassle you?


Not at all. This place was a regular little neighbourhood bar 28 days of the month, but every second Saturday, they would put tin foil over the windows and it was (pun intended) members only.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 December 2005 05:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nuclearfreezone:
And, what about disease? What about psychological damage? What about people who are forced by their partners, husbands, wives, or whoever, to partake, or else?

1) There's just as much chance of getting diseases at nightclubs if you go home with the people you dance with. Use condoms.

2) Psychological damage? You're kidding, right?

3) People who are forced? What about people who are forced to go to bars and drink? Shall we make alcohol illegal? In fact, why don't we just make all sex illegal since anyone COULD be forced to have sex "or else", too?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 22 December 2005 05:24 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wont someone please think of the children?

(I had too, especially from a bacchus)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 22 December 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can't say I've ever been interested in 'the lifestyle', as a monogamist by inclination. Can't say as I give a damn what anyone else does though, as long as they don't hurt anyone.

I wonder if there is an opportunity to build on this decision into other 'victimless crimes' that have little or no negative social impact in and of themselves. Marijuana possession is the most obvious, but I'm sure there are many others.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 22 December 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Paul Martin's reaction on the CBC National News last night . . .
He should have been aware of the ruling coming up and had more to say than he did, but I thought he responded pretty well to the guy who asked the question in Quebec City (something along the lines of): "well, this sounds like just the kind of thing you'd go for, so I certainly wouldn't want to come out against something like that"

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 22 December 2005 09:13 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
He should have been aware of the ruling coming up and had more to say than he did

Indeed. SCC rulings are announced in advance, so he knew they'd be announcing something.

I think this is frankly a ruling that lets both the Liberals and NDP breathe a sigh of relief. While some NDP MPs were in favour of getting rid of the bawdy house laws, it's not the kind of issue many would enjoy campaigning on or pushing in a balance-of-power situation.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 22 December 2005 09:39 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I always felt in control and safe. In fact, I was empowered enough to become the one who did all the initiating!

How could you feel in control in such a sexist club?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 23 December 2005 12:09 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nuclearfreezone:
Personally, I find this disgusting.

And that is the reason why you are free to not participate. But what you find disgusting should not be the basis for law or regulating others, if their 'disgusting' behaviour doesn't affect or harm you in any way.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
mayakovsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5171

posted 23 December 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for mayakovsky     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with lagatta's points. Unfortunately L'Orage is the poster boy for this issue. But I think its not the image that many friends and comrades have when they espouse sexual liberation/alternatives. It makes me think of Pasolini who as a communist/gay liberationist argued against the sexual revolution because he believed that the bourgoise would just turn sex into another commodity. And he was right. After food probably the easiest human desire to turn into an exploitable commodity. I believe it costs 10K a year to belong to L'Orage, in my circle we don't think about laying down that kind of coin to be liberated. Also I am tired of gaudy fronts ruining fine architecture.
From: New Bedford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 December 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The BDSM parties I have attended in a "public place" had strict rules about no genital contact, although I once saw that violated by a couple who didn't connect cock and ball torture to genital touching, in their minds. Funny how the mind catagorizes things.

No harm, no foul, I say.

I think it's a great ruling. The courts ruled that we're all growed up now.

The big danger to us pervs is that this may "normalize" our behavior to some extent, and I don't want to be considered normal in this regard.

.........maybe I will have to throw in with "Focus on the Family", and, um, whip up support against this rulling......


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 23 December 2005 12:21 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

So if I'm not getting any, then my rights are being violated?


No, but your right hand is charging you with sexual assault.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 23 December 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Good one Yukoner!


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 23 December 2005 05:09 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

How could you feel in control in such a sexist club?


After your post, I went back and re-read AAs post. How could you make a judgement about her feelings based on your own assumptions?


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 23 December 2005 05:19 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

How could you feel in control in such a sexist club?

After your post, I went back and re-read AAs post. How could you make a judgement about her feelings based on your own assumptions?


just wanted to say thanks arborman!


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 23 December 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

After your post, I went back and re-read AAs post. How could you make a judgement about her feelings based on your own assumptions?


Sorry.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sandy47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10648

posted 24 December 2005 01:20 PM      Profile for Sandy47     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Legal, schmegal. When are they going to make attendance mandatory?"
From: Southwest of Niagara - 43.0° N 81.2° W | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 24 December 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
posted by CMOT Dibbler: How could you feel in control in such a sexist club?
Okay, so you apologized. You thought that you saw a contradiction and jumped in. I read her post carefully, and it confirms the dynamic that I have experienced in lifestyle clubs. Other women that I have spoken to also describe it in this manner.

Not all clubs are the same. Some are operated by responsible, ethical individuals - often heterosexual couples - who screen members by interviewing them and asking them to complete a questionnaire, for legal purposes and for the protection and safety of other members. Individuals who show up on the own are rarely admitted the same night they apply, unless they are accompanied, and vouched for, by current members.

Consensual sex is very important, because a complaint of sexual assault can and will close the place down. Privacy and discretion is highly valued; a criminal investigation would cause members to leave.

[ 24 December 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 28 January 2006 10:54 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What exactly did the supreme court say in its decision regarding this subject? Shortly after it was made public that sex clubs were to be 100% legal, I heard Margret Mcmillian comment on it. She said that the ruling actually dosen't include the words "As long as no harm is done"

Couldn't the fact that this phrase is missing have appaling consequences?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 28 January 2006 11:09 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sexual assault is sexual assault, regardless of where it happens. The issue with sex clubs is that the acts that take place there are perfectly legal elsewhere. Any act that is illegal in a private home would be illegal there as well. Sex clubs are not some special place where ordinary laws no longer apply.

From the judgement:

In order to establish indecent criminal conduct, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that two requirements have been met. The first is that by its nature the conduct at issue causes harm or presents a significant risk of harm to individuals or society in a way that undermines or threatens to undermine a value reflected in and thus formally endorsed through the Constitution or similar fundamental laws by (a) confronting members of the public with conduct that significantly interferes with their autonomy and liberty, (b) predisposing others to anti‑social behaviour, or (c) physically or psychologically harming persons involved in the conduct. The categories of harm capable of satisfying the first branch of the inquiry are not closed. The second requirement is that the harm or risk of harm is of a degree that is incompatible with the proper functioning of society. This two‑branch test must be applied objectively and on the basis of evidence. [62]

In this case, the accused must be acquitted. The autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with the sexual conduct in question. On the evidence, only those already disposed to this sort of sexual activity were allowed to participate and watch. There is also no evidence of anti‑social acts or attitudes toward women, or for that matter men. No one was pressured to have sex, paid for sex, or treated as a mere sexual object for the gratification of others. The fact that the club is a commercial establishment does not in itself render the sexual activities taking place there commercial in nature. The membership fee buys access to a club where members can meet and engage in consensual activities with other individuals who have similar sexual interests. Finally, with respect to the third type of harm, the only possible danger to participants on the evidence was the risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease. However, this must be discounted as a factor because it is conceptually and causally unrelated to indecency.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 29 January 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I think this is great. The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation!!!

Let me update that for you:

The state has no place in the bedrooms sex clubs of the nation.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 29 January 2006 11:08 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion: "It's all going to end with dogs marrying cats ..."
Not that there is anything wrong with that, after all they are both mammals. And think of their offsprings!! So cute. However, I do draw the line at birds marrying fish.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 11:15 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion: "It's all going to end with dogs marrying cats ..."

You know how married couples start to look alike.

But I'm not so sure deBeauxOs is right about the children.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 29 January 2006 11:47 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
W W! How in the world did I miss this thread??? LOL
From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 30 January 2006 04:30 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
1st RULE: You do not talk about sex club
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about sex club!
3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes limp or taps out the sex is over.
4th RULE: Only two guys to a fuck.
5th RULE: One fuck at a time.
6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes.
7th RULE: Fucks will go on as long as they have to.
8th RULE: If this is your first night at sex club, you HAVE to have sex!


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 30 January 2006 01:55 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
1st RULE: You do not talk about sex club
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about sex club!
3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes limp or taps out the sex is over.
4th RULE: Only two guys to a fuck.
5th RULE: One fuck at a time.
6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes.
7th RULE: Fucks will go on as long as they have to.
8th RULE: If this is your first night at sex club, you HAVE to have sex!


I don't get it. Is this a joke...


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 30 January 2006 01:59 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes (although of course I can't talk about it).
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 30 January 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ALLLL RRRRRIIIIIGHTTTTTTT!!!

(thought it'd look funny on TAT)


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 31 January 2006 01:42 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
posted by RealityBites: But I'm not so sure deBeauxOs is right about the children.
Oh please please please tell me that those are Andrew Lloyd Webber's children ...?!?!?!

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 31 January 2006 08:06 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it was from some how-to site about face painting. When I want to use a picture, I just google a phrase and hope something amusing turns up.

I was really hoping for something like a dog in a cat costume (or vice versa) or some photoshopped funny/creepy hybrid.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 31 January 2006 07:50 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes limp or taps out the sex is over.

What is this? Professional wresting?

[Edit, looking over post]
Ugh. Add professional wrestling to the long list of things that have been ruined for me due to sexual innuendo on rabble.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 31 January 2006 07:51 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
--

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 01 February 2006 02:47 AM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The court only ruled that it cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that sex clubs are "indecent" (given no other guidance by Parliament}. Sex clubs etc (bath houses?) can be made illegal by amending the Criminal Code to be more specific about what is prohibited.

There are some Charter arguments based on section 7 and 15 but they would probably not work.

The conservative spin on the judgment, if accepting it as correct without attacking the SCC, is that the state of moral decay has made it such that such doubts about community standards are now reasonable, necessitating more specificity in the law.

The Conservatives would need 31 Liberals to support them to get the CCC amended: could they get that support?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 01 February 2006 10:13 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

8th RULE: If this is your first night at sex club, you HAVE to have sex!


ha. funny. actually, "no means no" is a well respected policy at most sex clubs - the hetero ones at least. you'd get thrown out right-quick with that kinda attitude.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 01 February 2006 10:57 PM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, you might get thrown out if you don't put out. My girlfriend and I were invited to something like that once but the invitation was withdrawn when we wouldn't agree upfront to participate.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 01 February 2006 10:59 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
Actually, you might get thrown out if you don't put out. My girlfriend and I were invited to something like that once but the invitation was withdrawn when we wouldn't agree upfront to participate.

Were you invited to a sex club or to a play party?


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 01 February 2006 11:30 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's the difference?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 02 February 2006 12:06 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A sex club is an established business while a play party is an event where guests engage in sensual/sexual activity.

Not everyone owns a sex club but anyone can host a play party.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 02 February 2006 02:54 AM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe it was a play party. Still, that is the prevailing attitude.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 02 February 2006 03:12 AM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
What's the difference?

Seriously? That's like asking what the difference is between a lounge that serves alcohol and a frat party.

Edited: 'a' and 'frat' are clearly two separate words, and 'afrat' does not to the best of my knowledge exist.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Raos ]


From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 02 February 2006 10:40 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
I believe it was a play party. Still, that is the prevailing attitude.

In my experience that isn't the prevailing attitude, but maybe I just travel in more open-minded circles? ;-)

The club I joined had a strict policy of 'no means no' and doesn't obligate participation (as I posted earlier). The club my friends belong to in Montreal is the same deal. More people watch than actually 'do'. As long as you don't end up with a club full of sniggering, disrespectful jerks it works out great for everyone. The exhibitionsists get an audience and the voyeurs get a show.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca