No Typical Raver

OTTAWA (AP) - Two Montreal clubs that cater to group sex do not breach standards of decency, Canada's Supreme Court has ruled. Wednesday's ruling, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, said group sex among like-minded adults in private does not meet the test of indecency.

The decision might make it easier for "swinger" clubs or gay bath houses to operate without the threat of police intervention or arrest.

The ruling dealt with two Montreal cases in which swinger club operators were charged with keeping a bawdy house.

Canada's criminal code defines a bawdy house as a location that is kept for prostitution or indecent acts.

James Kouri and Jean-Paul Labaye were both convicted, but the unsettled state of the law was demonstrated clearly when separate Court of Appeal rulings upheld Labaye's conviction and overturned Kouri's.

The high court threw out Labaye's conviction and affirmed the Kouri decision.

"Entry to the club and participation in the activities were voluntary. No one was forced to do anything or watch anything. No one was paid for sex," McLachlin wrote in reference to the Labaye case.

__________________
King of the Hullaboard as voted by my peers.

itsgigglegirl

good for them i'm a firm believer in that what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors should be their business, not anyone's government's...it's just further proof that canada RULES

__________________
~~Noodle~~

You can't miss me, I'm the girl with the smile

Shake like an earthquake, and cut like a guillotine

Everybodies_Daddy

I'm a firm believer in wife swapping, especially if you're stuck with a minger.

MCED

__________________
Dirty Little Secrets

Hot + Dirty

No Typical Raver

sir, the word "firm" does NOT belong in this thread. the jokes are too easy. please refine your humor.

Andjo

Good, now I can open the club Ive always wanted!

__________________
Dont cry because it is over. Smile because it happend!

astralkid

I also believe in this notion, BUT the health risks here are just too much ...

They really did not think this through

itsgigglegirl

well consenting adults should be responsible for their own actions i.e. knowing to use protection...if you're going to partake in any risky behaviour, be it group sex or riding a motorcycle or sky diving, you need to be informed and safe about it...it's common sense in my mind, tho i know that my mind doesn't operate the same way 75% of the population's does

astralkid

Lol mine too

Everybodies_Daddy

Swinger clubs do not equal orgies... the vast majority of swingers are older, educated professionals who're out for a bit of spice. I read a bunch on it for a project back when Fantino wanted to tighten 'bawdy house' regulations on all different areas of the sex trade.

These people are extremely careful & safe... all the swinger clubs provide is a theme night for them to meet other swingers, dance a little dirty, and have a few drinks.

MCED

DJLeash

been to a couple yourself haven't ya mike?

__________________
happy 2 tha hard 2 tha mother f*ckin core!
FOR MIXES, PARTY INFO AND MORE GO TO:
www.goodvibesentertainment.com
or
www.myspace.com/djleash

mintjellie

its not the governments job to protect people from sexually transmitted diseases. thats the responsibility of the individual.

the proper role of government is not protecting people from their own stupidity.

good on the supreme court for handing down this ruling.

__________________
huh? what?

No Typical Raver

um, do we not have governmetn health regulations for, oh i dunno, EVERYTHING? keeping a countrys citizens safe and healthy is DEFINITELY a priority.

thats why if you have a disease and know it, and you go around spreading it without telling people, YOU GO TO JAIL.

astralkid

Exactly...

No Typical Raver

cheers right?

astralkid

Cheers....lol

Everybodies_Daddy

Surprisingly, no.

MCED

mintjellie

knowingly spreading disease is ASSAULT because you are knowingly causing direct physical harm to another person dumbass.

i can't stand dumb fucks who think that good mother government should always coddle you, and protect you, and keep you safe from harm. its people like that that say "please government, protect us from <insert ethnic or religious group here>" when a terrorist attack happens (or is orchestrated).

guess what. LIFE ISN'T SAFE.

this goes for so many things... its not 100 percent safe to drive a car, but it should be MY responsibility to wear a seatbelt, my choice. and i would where a seatbelt because i'm not stupid and don't need to be told what to do. and if someone else chose not to and died thats their fucking problem.

just like if someone gets AIDS because they had unprotected sex, its there stupidity that got them the disease. they deserve the consequences of their action, a slow and agonizing death. every action has consequences. people like you for some stupid reason think that its governments job to remove the consequences of the individuals actions. no wonder the average person doesn't think, or question the way the world is around them. they aren't required to think to survive! they have old mother government to be their brain for them!

that person who contracts AIDS simply doesn't deserve my money, or your money, to pay for their treatment. they deserve to be left to rot, and regret their idiocy. besides, if we didn't give healthcare to idiots who have unprotected sex, or use injection drugs, or drive their car at 160 clicks with no seatbelt, we would have more money left over to spend on giving children with autism the treatment they need in order to grow up into a functional adult. whats the difference? the guy that gets aids from a dirty needle chose his death. that child with autism is sick through no fault of their own, and is essentially helpless because of their age and the mental cage they live in.

mintjellie

so, where, in going to a swingers club, are you directly causing harm to another person?

i thought disease came from having unprotected sex?

you can't go to a swingers club and not sleep with someone the first time, but ask anyone your interested in to get tested and show you the results and offer to do the same for them? people at swingers clubs can't use condoms?

siwngers clubs don't spread disease. not knowing your partners medical history and not putting a fucking dome over the little guys head spreads disease.

way to go fishing for red herrings, dumbasses.

No Typical Raver

^^
lol
you're silly

astralkid

These Clubs are public domains/ they are open to the general public and the govt has every right to assert some form of control they/ the people see fit . Screwing someone in your house and having safe sex or not is YOUR choose and the govt has no jurisdiction...

Way to ignore simple facts, dumbass

Mjorning

Turns out in Australia, this stuff isn't much of an issue at all, since brothels and all that crap are legal.

When I first arrived, I just thought Australian chicks thought I was really attractive, and that's why they wanted me to come inside with them.

...Sigh.

mintjellie

these clubs are NOT public domain, they owned by private individuals! businesses are private domain but sadly, they have been asserted to be public domain.

public domain? thats funny, your taxes don't pay for these clubs do they? i never realized they were owned by crown corporations! that makes things different!

lets say i own a business. i allow registered club members into this business to meet up with people looking for sex (NOT people looking to buy sex. Swingers clubs and brothels are two completely seperate things). how is this any different from me holding a swingers party in my own home? well? either way what is happening is happening on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Notice there is a fundamental hypocrisy in saying that PRIVATE PROPERTY is a PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Public Domain = A sidewalk. I can't kick someone off a sidewalk.

Private Domain = Privately owned homes AND businesses. I can throw whoever the fuck i want out of my home or my swingers bar and deny entry to whoever i want as well.

nice to see you ignoring some fundamental points there kid!

and i'd still like to see you adress my concerns about whether or not protecting people from the consequences of their own self destructive behaviour is a drain on resources that could be used to help people who are truly victims of circumstances beyond their own choice or control.

typical leftie. responds only to what suits his purposes, and talks from both sides of the mouth. you'll make a great NDP candidate one day.

mintjellie

great fucking response.

Weaver

i don't care what other people do, as long as it doesn't effect me/people i care about in a negative way.

and mint, you need to calm down a bit.

__________________
The cake is a lie.