You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Canadians can have group sex in clubs: top court
2005-12-21
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. In a ruling that radically changes the way Canadian courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the 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 existing laws against prostitution because no money changed hands between the adults having sex. The court was reviewing an appeal by Jean-Paul Labaye, who ran the L'Orage (Thunderstorm) club. He had been convicted of running a "bawdy house" -- defined as a place where prostitution or acts of public indecency could take place.
I have to reluctantly agree with Hizzoner. If it's behind closed doors it's not "public," regardless of the number of participants. Nor is it "prostitution" when all you're paying for is the room and drinks and little blue pills.

Strictly as a matter of taste, I'm not impressed. That might be because at my age I try to keep all my attempts at assault with a dead weapon hidden away from the eyes of the world, but even when a young and vigorous fellow I thought there was something tacky about the idea of gathering large numbers of people to share bodily fluids. One on one (well, maybe once or twice two on one, but we won't discuss the di Angelis sisters) was enough for me.
Posted by:Fred

#13  Montreal...what a town... Only place I've been treated for STDs.
Posted by: Classical_Liberal   2005-12-21 23:07  

#12  an easier solution is to get rid of socialized medicine.

...and pray you never get sick and be at the mercy of your insurance company.
Posted by: Rafael   2005-12-21 20:22  

#11  I'll bet Moose would like to buy his booze in a state run liquor store, too.

As long as I don't see it and am not harmed by it, I don't mind how they do it.

As for Adriane's problem, an easier solution is to get rid of socialized medicine.
Posted by: Cromoper Elmunter1946   2005-12-21 20:13  

#10  A "fast food" approach to prostitution put a whole new spin on the phrase "Do you want fries with that?"
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2005-12-21 19:55  

#9  Personally, I look forward to the time when there are two forms of legalized prostitution, for the two main styles of prostitution. That is, in addition to the typical red light district with beds and government issued condoms, there be a second kind.

Much prostitution is "oral only", and takes place on the big commuter routes of large cities. For this, something that looks like a cross between a fast-food restaurant and bridge toll booths are needed.

Somebody drives up and parks their car. They see a crowd of prostitutes wearing large number IDs. They select one by number and approach a ticket booth. They pay and receive a booth number and an electronic key. The prostitute is paged. She approaches the booth, then agrees or refuses the john.

If she agrees, she is issued a condom, and the two of them go together to a booth. The john opens the booth with the key then both enter. When finished or when time expires, they both must exit the booth and return to the ticket booth.

Both must say to the ticket master that the transaction is complete and no offense has happened. The prostitute then returns to her station and the john returns to his car and drives away.

Prostitutes are carefully screened for drugs, alcohol and diseases. They are licensed and possibly unionized. Their money is automatically deposited in a bank account, less taxes and fees, which are automatically withheld.

This cuts out the pimps, the violent predators, the rip-offs and the disease, and confines prostitution to a very small area, not an entire district.

This also means that the "illegal" prostitution is singularly bad, in that it *does* almost inherently involve other crimes and serious risk. This propels it from a "vice" act to the felony arena of a "criminal conspiracy", in which the prostitution itself is a minor part.

For anyone who is amused at the image of "fast-food" prostitution, this is actually somewhat how it is done right now in some major US cities, especially NYC. Except it is done without control or protection for those involved.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-12-21 18:38  

#8  "Live Clean or Pay for it Your Dingdang Self..."

...and if you can't afford it, tough cookies!

(doesn't appeal to me either)
Posted by: Rafael   2005-12-21 18:28  

#7  Pfft big deal.

Let me know when this morphs into a Fundamental Right.

Then I'll be interested.

Posted by: Carl in N.H.   2005-12-21 18:02  

#6  I'm with you, Fred. In more ways than I'd really care to admit.
Posted by: Glenn   2005-12-21 17:43  

#5  ...it must be applied evenly and fairly.

More than works for me.

"Live Clean or Pay for it Your Dingdang Self..." doesn't exactly have the emotional appeal of "Live Free or Die!". But it's a pretty good summary of my position.
Posted by: Adriane   2005-12-21 17:41  

#4  Also, it is out of pocket for the average Canadian, who pays the piper via socialized medicine.

Same applies to smoking, drinking, sun bathing, eating too much, driving, bungee jumping, skydiving, hiking in dangerous or remote places, engaging in terrorism activities, and on some occasions watching TV. If you're going to use that argument, it must applied evenly and fairly.
Posted by: Rafael   2005-12-21 16:32  

#3  It is a threat to the spouse of those involved if the members are not periodically screened for AIDS and other STDs; and, shown the door if positive. There is a reason that bathhouses aren't as popular as they used to be.

Also, it is out of pocket for the average Canadian, who pays the piper via socialized medicine. IF Hizzonner wants to stipulate people acting like horny idiots have to pay their own way, then it is truely between consenting adults. Otherewise it is between them and every other non-participating Canadian.
Posted by: Adriane   2005-12-21 16:04  

#2  Maybe it's because of this, and not Martin that there has been a run on handguns in Alberta.
Posted by: Penguin   2005-12-21 15:55  

#1  Sex clubs in Montreal? Whodda thunk it...
Posted by: tu3031   2005-12-21 15:38  

00:00