Canada....Group sex capital of the world

[bbor]

Glad i never got arrested before this case was done.



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.

“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.


The decision does not affect laws against prostitution because no money changed hands among the adults having sex.

‘Bawdy house’ proprietor's appeal
The court was reviewing an appeal by Jean-Paul Labaye, who ran the L’Orage (Thunderstorm) club. He had been convicted in 1999 of running a “bawdy house” — defined as a place where prostitution or acts of public indecency took place.

Labaye — who is still running L’Orage despite his earlier conviction — said he was relieved, and would now go ahead with a new venture with backing from a group of Florida investors.

“We hope clients will be more calm. This will probably lead the way to a good future,” he told reporters, saying he was looking at adding a Jacuzzi and a swimming pool.

Labaye said he had about 2,000 regular clients who paid around $20 ($17 U.S.) a year for a membership card.






Lawyers for Labaye and the owner of another swingers’ club in Montreal argued that consensual sex among groups of adults behind closed doors was neither indecent or a risk to society.

The Supreme Court judges agreed.

“Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society. The Crown failed to establish this essential element of the offense. (Its) case must therefore fail,” McLachlin wrote.

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 actively harmed.

Deviant, maybe, but not dangerous
This seemed to ensure there could be no repeat of Labaye’s original conviction for causing “social harm” by allowing degrading and dehumanizing group sex to take place.

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

“The causal link between images of sexuality and anti-social behavior cannot be assumed. 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 the cases the court considered.

“The autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with the sexual activity in question ... only those already disposed to this sort of sexual activity were allowed to participate and watch,” they said.

They also dismissed the idea — raised during Labaye’s original trial — that group sex was dangerous because it could result in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

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

[Draft Dodger]

another victim of the bang bus

[Desnudo]

Vigorous.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well done, Canada. Well done.

[Koryo]

Canada is a capital?

[Raiders Army]

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

I've read this a few times and still don't understand it. Must be Thursday morning crap.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I've read this a few times and still don't understand it. Must be Thursday morning crap.

It took me about 10 times to figure it out. Here is my take.

At trial, the prosecutor appears to have said that one reason there should be a law against "bawdy houses" (I love that phrase: "bbor's Bodacious Bawdy House" has just such a nice ring to it) that group sex is dangerous (indecent) because it could lead to sexually transmitted dieases.

The court, in reply, said that any time people have sex, whether in a group (indecent) or between two people (allegedly decent sex), there is a risk of transmitting sexual diseases. So claiming that group sex was dangerous because it could result in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases - and therefore should be outlawed - fails because based on that rationale all sex should be outlawed.

I have no idea if that clears things up. At all...

[Raiders Army]

I see now. That makes sense. Thanks!

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Vigorous.

Yeah, I'm trying to understand what a "vigorous" society is. Particularly in relation to being tolerant. Are those just code words for "we like to fuck freely, so there's no way in hell I'm declaring a group sex club most of us frequent to be illegal?"

[bbor]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

(I love that phrase: "bbor's Bodacious Bawdy House" has just such a nice ring to it)

So that was you in the Klima jersey with the buttless chaps at my last party.

[WSUCougar]

I never understood the whole group sex deal. Must be a Canadian thing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by bbor

So that was you in the Klima jersey with the buttless chaps at my last party.

HEH!!!

The ladies love the Klima jersey and chaps, what can I say?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I never understood the whole group sex deal. Must be a Canadian thing.

I'm Canadian, and I gotta say I don't get it either. Honestly, it's probably more of a Quebec thing

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

another victim of the bang bus

What the hell is that? I have an idea, but I'd like an explaination.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

What the hell is that? I have an idea, but I'd like an explaination.

No, you really don't.

[WSUCougar]

Is this the bang bus?

No...it's Iowa.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I'm Canadian, and I gotta say I don't get it either. Honestly, it's probably more of a Quebec thing

ding, ding, ding, ding!

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

What the hell is that? I have an idea, but I'd like an explaination.

Google Bang Bus and you will find what he is talking about. Or add a ".com" at the end of it. WARNING, DO NOT DO EITHER AT WORK.