Yeah Canada! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News



Message

Mercnbeth -> Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 8:01:24 AM)

Good for you Canada!

If only all courts used the pragmatic "test" when it came to making something "illegal". It really is as simple as the second paragraph. If I were to ever run for political office this would be my primary plank; "Consensual conduct behind doors can hardly jeopardize a vigorous society!"

BUT NO!! Because people are offended (jealous???) about what other people are doing behind closed doors, they want to prevent other people from doing it. As if the thought of other people enjoying themselves is in itself offensive.

I doubt the US under the current puritanical climate will follow suit, but it's good to know that at least one court in Canada "gets it".

quote:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Group sex between consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday, dismissing arguments that the sometimes raucous activities of so-called "swingers" clubs were dangerous.

"Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society," said the opinion of the seven-to-two majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin


Entire Article: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2005-12-21T151550Z_01_KNE073843_RTRUKOC_0_US-SEX.xml&rpc=22



KnightofMists -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 8:19:41 AM)

It is not just one Court... IT IS THE COURT!! This ruling will have a huge ripple effect


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Good for you Canada!

If only all courts used the pragmatic "test" when it came to making something "illegal". It really is as simple as the second paragraph. If I were to ever run for political office this would be my primary plank; "Consensual conduct behind doors can hardly jeopardize a vigorous society!"

BUT NO!! Because people are offended (jealous???) about what other people are doing behind closed doors, they want to prevent other people from doing it. As if the thought of other people enjoying themselves is in itself offensive.

I doubt the US under the current puritanical climate will follow suit, but it's good to know that at least one court in Canada "gets it".

quote:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Group sex between consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday, dismissing arguments that the sometimes raucous activities of so-called "swingers" clubs were dangerous.

"Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society," said the opinion of the seven-to-two majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin


Entire Article: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2005-12-21T151550Z_01_KNE073843_RTRUKOC_0_US-SEX.xml&rpc=22




girl4you2 -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 10:14:59 AM)

i agree that this ruling will have a major effect on many cases in canada. the canadian supreme court is likened to the supreme court in the u.s.:

"Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society."

In indecency cases, Canadian courts have traditionally probed whether the acts in question "breached the rules of conduct necessary for the proper functioning of society". The Supreme Court ruled that from now on, judges should pay more attention to whether society would be harmed.

The judges said that just because most Canadians might disapprove of swingers' clubs, this did not necessarily mean the establishments were socially dangerous.

"Attitudes in themselves are not crimes, however deviant they may be or disgusting they may appear," the judges said, noting that no one had been pressured to have sex or had paid for sex in either of the cases.



Phoenxx -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 10:23:26 AM)

Here is the story again LOL
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/21/SCOC-swingers-051221.html
CANADA ROCKS....
....
and swings ;-)



quietkitten -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 11:21:57 AM)

I was very happy to hear this!! [:D]

It's good to know we aren't completely ass backward..



girl4you2 -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 11:32:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: quietkitten

I was very happy to hear this!! [:D]

It's good to know we aren't completely ass backward..

quite the contrary in many things (laws, medicine, gun issues...) canada is far ahead of her southern neighbor.



quietkitten -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 11:35:44 AM)

Lol... I don't really agree with that.. Mind you I have worked in health care for many years and have seen a lot of beauracratic stupidity so I am a bit biased.



girl4you2 -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 12:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: quietkitten

Lol... I don't really agree with that.. Mind you I have worked in health care for many years and have seen a lot of beauracratic stupidity so I am a bit biased.

so did i here in the u.s. and it's no better for patients who aren't well off. sooner or later we're going to have to go to sociaized medicine. managed care is in an abysmal state and getting worse all the time. we'd not have so many looking northward or southward for medications were our system so good.

hopefully this recent decision by the crown regarding what constitutes a threat to people regarding sexual activity will kick someone in the head here to get a few gears going (but not bloody likely).



MadameDahlia -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 12:09:48 PM)

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.


Don't mind me... I'm just practicing for when I move.



KnightofMists -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 4:28:28 PM)

I believe that it is important to point out that even thou the standard of determining indecency is if it brings social harm or not. It did not determine specifically what social harm is. It only determined in the case in quesiton that social harm didn't exist. Certain asssumptions maybe made from the case in how the courts are going to define social harm in the future... but it will likely be another case that social harm is defined and it is possible that federal laws will attempt to make that determination in the social context and not just a criminal one.




girl4you2 -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/21/2005 4:45:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

I believe that it is important to point out that even thou the standard of determining indecency is if it brings social harm or not. It did not determine specifically what social harm is. It only determined in the case in quesiton that social harm didn't exist. Certain asssumptions maybe made from the case in how the courts are going to define social harm in the future... but it will likely be another case that social harm is defined and it is possible that federal laws will attempt to make that determination in the social context and not just a criminal one.

i agree that the issue will come up again in regional courts, but because it has been determined that the judges must use as a reference point (in criminal indecency or obscenity cases) actual harm or what they determine to be a significant risk of harm to person(s), this case will come to set part of the precedent. it's now set to be other than societal norms, but breaches in "proper" functioning. that they also must think beyond attitudes, their own or those perceived as belonging to the parties they represent, into actions is quite a step. the subjective nature will be what is "proper" functioning, and is that which will likely cause another definition from the crown.



NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/26/2005 8:12:56 AM)

Woot! Maybe our northern neighbor's overall tolerance and common sense will spread! I think most of us could rest a little easier if that would come to pass.



krikket -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/27/2005 7:32:04 PM)

Think we can hope for the "trickle down theory"????

<sigh>

too bad we can't.



fastlane -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/27/2005 8:15:27 PM)

Canada rocks.....Thank God for Hockey.....and all that other cold shiat you all do and don't talk about?



mistressrobyn -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/27/2005 8:19:38 PM)

many people in Canada do see this ruling as finally getting the right attitude about all kinds of adult party
but we must remember that is the local police the investigate and if we don't watch out the cops will still be come to the dungeon doors



fastlane -> RE: Yeah Canada! (12/27/2005 8:42:02 PM)

Is Wayne Gretsky....Canadian,or American...that is the question?



Arpig -> RE: Yeah Canada! (1/11/2006 4:20:41 PM)

Just a Caveat...we are in the middle of an election up here, and our Constitution has a strange device known as the "Not withstanding clause", which basically allows the government to say...regardless of what the Constitution, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the Supreme Courts says, it is still illegal.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm
Granted there are limitations on its use, and I cannot see it being used in a case such as this, there has been some talk amongst the supporters of the Conservative party about invoking it to overturn the same-sex marriage ruling.
And unfortunatly for the spread of progressive thinking, the Conservatives look like they may just have a shot at winning....oh well, terribly hard and difficult come, easy go.



MsIncognito -> RE: Yeah Canada! (1/15/2006 5:18:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
And unfortunatly for the spread of progressive thinking, the Conservatives look like they may just have a shot at winning....oh well, terribly hard and difficult come, easy go.


The fact that Dubya thinks Harper is the best thing since sliced bread is enough to make me not vote Conservative. Add in the fact that the "Conservatives" are really just the Alliance in sheep's clothing and the NDP are a joke that only leaves one option - vote Liberal. Again.

I was rather annoyed this week by the fact that the press decided now was a good time to release information from a report done by the Liberals re: polyamory/polygamy. It was just another attempt at scare mongering just before the election. I hope the Liberals do get elected again AND that they make poly unions legal. Then if we could get the health care system fixed up this place really would be the closest thing to heaven on earth [:)]



RiotGirl -> RE: Yeah Canada! (1/15/2006 8:26:58 PM)

"blame canada.. blame canada........ blame canada.. blame canada"

its a really good song!



Behindclsdoorsm -> RE: Yeah Canada! (1/15/2006 8:58:13 PM)

Yeah Im so happy I live in Canada!

And conservatives? I'm not gay, but banning gay marriage to me is so a step backward.

The liberals aren't much better though. Hmm the lesser of two evils, or vote NDP and throw your vote away!




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625