The Supreme Court Of Canada has now erased the principle of community standards in law.
“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.
By the way, Justice McLachlin recently had this to say.
�The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion,� said a prepared text of the lecture Chief Justice McLachlin gave to law students at Victoria University of Wellington late last week.
�There is certainly no guarantee or presumption that a given list of constitutional principles is complete, even assuming the good faith intention of the drafters to provide such a catalogue.�
Chief Justice McLachlin set out a blueprint for when judges must rely on unwritten principles, which she defined as �norms that are essential to a nation�s history, identity, values, and legal system.�
I’m sure you remember the media and political firestorm that caused.
Yeah, me either.
Reading the comments, I’m surprised that nobody has yet raised the point that this ruling has pretty much set the stage for legalization of bigamy.
Related thoughts from Stanley Kurtz.
sounds like Canada is a promotional pamphet for NAMBLA > do what you want and age of consent is 14.
thank Pierre.
the west wants out .
free the west. this is a country of nutters. liberal nutters.
Lord All Mighty…..we are becoming animals!!
How low and how evil are we going to get before everything simply implodes on us???
Gay Marriage and now this?? What is next on the road to Gomarrah?
who cares about laws when you’ve got lieberal supreme court justices rewriting them (misinterpreting to suit their political agenda)
vote conservative. please.
Doesn’t this also place the argument of “harm” squarely on the victim to prove, rather than on the perpetrator, or am I missing some fundamental basis of proof under Canadian jurisprudence (yes, I am American and I have some particular beliefs when it comes to victims rights).
I can just imagine some paedophile using “what harm?” as a defense, and making the victim prove it.
Not good, as a blanket decision, as I see it.
I’m surprised by the many posts saying “the Supreme Court got it right.” I just find it inconsistent that there is such vitriol against smokers, e.g., who have become the new pariahs, yet Canadians are ready to accept this behaviour because it goes on behind closed doors. A few questions:
1. The age of consent is 14 years of age. Should someone that age engage in such behaviour?
2. Should our health care system be expected to treat people who have contracted STDs in such places?
3. Are Canadians so bored and their lives so empty that they have to resort to this for entertainment?
4. How can one reconcile accepting this decision with the so-called concern for “family values” so dear to most social conservatives?
5. The people running such clubs are being interviewed as I write this & they’ve already said this decision will lead to more clubs opening.
Yuck!
Okay everybody, let’s just sit back a second and take a breath. There, feel better.
As I said before I don’t see any problem with this. For those whose head has been burried in the sand, screwing and screwing around has been going of for centuries and saying it isn’t the government’s job to be everyone’s overseer isn’t going to send Canada to Hell in a handbasket.
Over the (many) years I have known several people who participate in that type of thing. Did I join? No, because for me that was not my choice. [Here is the Lecture part] My parents, not the government, taught me a lot about life, morals, values and to know right from wrong. Mmmm, parents and not Lieberal daycare.
So if your neighbours wants to go downtown to get their jollies or have a pool party at home then whatever floats your boat. Besides, ever see some of those places downtown the younger generation go to? They don’t call them meatmarkets for the menu.
NAMBLA and underage sex is an entirely different matter. Amongst people who are adult and (supposedly)responsible, sex or whatever isn’t my business. Children are and should be off limits for the same reason you can’t drink, vote or drive a car under a certain age.
Amen and pass the ammo.
FOLKS!!
Wake up! I really am very surprised at how many of you think that Madam Chief Justice Maclachlin’s decision….for the ‘majority’, no less…is correct.
In her Decision, the Chief Justice does nothing to indicate what SHE means by “Harm”. Is that harm to be immediate, or latent? On whose terms of harm does she speak? Since Canadian ‘society’ has not had the opportunity to consider, or determine, for itself what IT wants as a definition of harm or the timeframes for its appearance in our society then how can she possibly speak for that society? I submit that it is for reasons such as this that the United States requires that those who seek a place on the Supreme Court in that jurisdiction must submit to examination by those who society had elected to speak on its behalf. Justice Maclachlin does Canada no service unless she can show that HER view or definition of harm finds concordance with that of the society she is presumed to speak for. Show me that concordance!
FOLKS!!
Wake up! I really am very surprised at how many of you think that Madam Chief Justice Maclachlin’s decision….for the ‘majority’, no less…is correct.
In her Decision, the Chief Justice does nothing to indicate what SHE means by “Harm”. Is that harm to be immediate, or latent? On whose terms of harm does she speak? Since Canadian ‘society’ has not had the opportunity to consider, or determine, for itself what IT wants as a definition of harm or the timeframes for its appearance in our society then how can she possibly speak for that society? I submit that it is for reasons such as this that the United States requires that those who seek a place on the Supreme Court in that jurisdiction must submit to examination by those who society had elected to speak on its behalf. Justice Maclachlin does Canada no service unless she can show that HER view or definition of harm finds concordance with that of the society she is presumed to speak for. Show me that concordance!
Libertarians, can you not distinguish between right and wrong? And can you not see the harm done to others through the promotion of anonymous sex roulette? The post about pulling the wool over your own eyes is absoultely bang-on. Libertarians, you have the mentality of a four-year-old child.
The SCOC got it right? You people need to escape from your kink fantasy dreamworlds, and get with reality.
I don’t know if any one else cought this as a nuance in the legalese used in the quotes, but simply put if they are taken as parts of a whole they state that there is no law above do as thou wilt. Interesting, since even the wiccan creed which has that as a part, recognises the neccesity to temper this bold statement, lest chaos, anarchy, and destruction reign supreme even within their relatively small numbers. In my own bold opinion this judge and all her ilk should be disbarred and deported to the country that pleases them and will take them. Bolivia who now has a cocaine farmer as it’s prime minister, strikes a chord.
What beats all for me in this is that a “judge” like this is INSTRUCTING!?!?!!! just imagine it a “legal” system and indeed industry without precedences worth mentioning nor norms nor “community standards” who can determine anything nor indeed be said to be a qualified Judge. A thought has just occoured to me, it’s a dirty one to be sure. Perhaps this underminine of the set standards and potential for continuous appeals has an intentional industry oriented professional interest. If no case can ever be settled and no one is ever executed, also no standards can ever be used to measure one set of circumstances against another, nor moral codes be used as a benchmark. Then Lawyers and judges will forever be employed, debating in our courts of law on the backs of their clients, about the vagaries of each case (which can never be closed) all amounting to essentially how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I’d like to think i’m wrong and on an individual basis I am certain no lawyer is intentionally directing the industry in this direction but I can certainly see professional self interest left unchecked and ill considered leaning in this direction.
Daryl
Actually Kate, Paul Martin’s linking SSM with the Charter has done more to make bigamy possible than this ruling.
Ah ha I see this quote is from the swingers club case. My comments above still stand though. I beleive the honorable judge has commited an error in law though she has used the measure of the whole of society as opposed to the measure of a subgroup within that society. There is provision within the law for such a set of actions (swingers club, even paid swingers clubs) to exist the judge just has to look at the laws concerning serial fornication or for that matter serial adultery. Even in cases of serial adultery at least one of the partners has to raise a complaint with the courts about the other party. A mere third party cannot do this, it is even less so regarding unattached fornication. The issue of community standards is actually irrelevant to this case and should not have come up and was only intentionally undermined for future use by its inclusion.
Daryl
“Why should anyone care what consenting adults do in the privacy of a locked room if nobody is harmed?”
Too bad this ruling won’t also be applied to sports shooting clubs.
“Libertarians. Blech.”
Not necessarily. Try and bump pelvises with this libertarian’s 14 year old daughter and see what happens to you.
I’m so scared. The picture is so….cold.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=737
Is this for real?
“The essence of a democracy is to establish and recognize the rights of the majority over the tyranny of a minority..”
Actually, it’s the other way around, i.e. the essence of a democracy is to establish and recognize the rights of the MINORITY over the tyranny of a MAJORITY.
“Try and bump pelvises with this libertarian’s 14 year old daughter and see what happens to you.”
The above must be one of the more tasteless and primitive comments I have ever read on this blog.
[ The following is a longer quote from “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill
that covers many of the points raised above –Vitruvius]
No one’s idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another. No one would assert that people ought not to put into their mode of life, and into the conduct of their concerns, any impress whatever of their own judgment, or of their own individual character.
On the other hand, it would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another. Nobody denies that people should be so taught and trained in youth, as to know and benefit by the ascertained results of human experience.
But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way. It is for him to find out what part of recorded experience is properly applicable to his own circumstances and character.
The traditions and customs of other people are, to a certain extent, evidence of what their experience has taught them; presumptive evidence, and as such, have a claim to his deference: but, in the first place, their experience may be too narrow; or they may not have interpreted it rightly. Secondly, their interpretation of experience may be correct, but unsuitable to him. Customs are made for customary circumstances, and customary characters; and his circumstances or his character may be uncustomary. Thirdly, though the customs be both good as customs, and suitable to him, yet to conform to custom, merely as custom, does not educate or develope in him any of the qualities which are the distinctive endowment of a human being.
The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference, are exercised only in making a choice. He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice. He gains no practice either in discerning or in desiring what is best.
[…]
It will probably be conceded that it is desirable people should exercise their understandings, and that an intelligent following of custom, or even occasionally an intelligent deviation from custom, is better than a blind and simply mechanical adhesion to it. To a certain extent it is admitted, that our understanding should be our own: but there is not the same willingness to admit that our desires and impulses should be our own likewise; or that to possess impulses of our own, and of any strength, is anything but a peril and a snare.
Yet desires and impulses are as much a part of a perfect human being, as beliefs and restraints: and strong impulses are only perilous when not properly balanced; when one set of aims and inclinations is developed into strength, while others, which ought to co-exist with them, remain weak and inactive. It is not because men’s desires are strong that they act ill; it is because their consciences are weak.
[…]
The means of development which the individual loses by being prevented from gratifying his inclinations to the injury of others, are chiefly obtained at the expense of the development of other people. And even to himself there is a full equivalent in the better development of the social part of his nature, rendered possible by the restraint put upon the selfish part. To be held to rigid rules of justice for the sake of others, developes the feelings and capacities which have the good of others for their object.
But to be restrained in things not affecting their good, by their mere displeasure, developes nothing valuable, except such force of character as may unfold itself in resisting the restraint. If acquiesced in, it dulls and blunts the whole nature. To give any fair play to the nature of each, it is essential that different persons should be allowed to lead different lives.
In proportion as this latitude has been exercised in any age, has that age been noteworthy to posterity. Even despotism does not produce its worst effects, so long as individuality exists under it; and whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called, and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.
[ End of quote from John Stuart Mill. ]
“Actually, it’s the other way around, i.e. the essence of a democracy is to establish and recognize the rights of the MINORITY over the tyranny of a MAJORITY.”
Uh, no, sorry, try again. Democracy as such is about absolute majoritarianism. One can argue that respecting minority rights is a good thing, but restraining the power of the majority is, ispo facto, anti-democratic. Again, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad.
What IS bad is unelected judges deciding the law just by pure coincidence happens to exactly match their own policy preferences. Last I checked, judicial supremacy was not a written part of the Canadian constitution, nor even an unwritten principle of constitutional practice.
But, whatever, never mind, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
“restraining the power of the majority is.. anti-democratic”
Huh? So it would be perfectly and democratically ok to e.g. restrict free speech? Or force people to become members of organizations?
Wait a sec… the gag law… mandatory union membership… I guess Canada is a perfect democracy after all!
Clearly democracy *is* about tyranny of the majority; all government is about tyranny of some sort of power. That’s why we have things like the various forms of the Bill of Rights (or the Magna Carta): to limit the power of the government. To the degree that we keep the state effectively limited, democracy has the advantage (as Churchill said) of being least bad. If we fail to limit tyranny of the majority, our democracy will fail just like any other broken state.
By the way, the reason libertarians don’t form governments is because they are against tyranny. All those who are not libertarians upon principle (though I would advice one to be pragmatic upon practice) are in favour of tyranny of one form or another: they just think it’s not so bad as long as they are one of the tyrants.
Anyone ever hear about majority rule? It the basis of Democacy. Minority rule leads to the rule of one .. like Cuba or the former Soviet Union or WW2 Germany.
It’s about the greatest number of people in a society being pleased with conditions. If there is a minority that is unhappy, they have the option of finding a country that is more suitable to their needs.
If you can’t find a job in Nova Scotia you go to Alberta …. same thing.
In a civilized country (which we are last time I heard) minorities are not abused .. there are laws, a lively media and more importantly now, a blogosphere to protect them.
It makes more sense to have the majority pleased and a minority being tolerant than the reverse.
How did Democracy evolve into minority rule?
Oh, perhaps I am in Canada where everything in upside down now because of endless Liberalism.
Good is bad .. bad it good .. right is wrong etc.
When the good times subside as they always do, we will see how tolerant everyone is … better to get more of the population well-adjusted and a morally sound citizenery lined-up now so we can avoid an ugly back-lash later.
The social and polictial vortex we have been in since Trudeau warped our nation must end. All his ideas are failed and are in direct conflict with human nature.
Our nature is to be good and productive and decent. At least those of us who are civilized and I believe most of us are.
To void these values with the dole, vanished sexual morality, family break down, and corruption/entitlement lead to a feeling of purposelessness and self-destructive behavior. There are volume written on these points.
A healthy society needs decent values, law and order and each person exhibiting self-reliance.
This is the only way to be a truly proud unified people and to have the esteem necessary to take on the world on it’s own terms.
If Quebec can’t fit in .. let them go, cut a deal and we can get stronger without the continual domestic strife.
If immigrants cannot assimilate .. they can go home. If the Indians cannot find a way to fit into the modern world whose amenities they seem to enjoy well enough, then they can suffer for it without my money.
Opportunity is all anyone should require and need will be the mother of invention to find a way to succeed.
Now it’s miller time y’all.
Go to Duke’s Place for some laughs when you have nothing better to do.
http://dukemcgoo.blogspot.com
This ruling has me concerned not for the actual ruling itself but what doors it opens in the future.
The court seems to me to be taking away the right of communities to determine what acceptable standards are for that community. Bear with me I’m not a lawyer at all. In the past a community has been able to define itself.
If that is no longer the case where is the court going with this. I smell a rat. I think there is an agenda here that has nothing to do with Orgies in a closet or anywhere else for that matter.
If you folks can answer me that and satisfy me that this isn’t a red herring I may breathe easier. But the woman running the court has said that they are going to do things differently. My question is to what end and what effect will it have on me?
If the actions of this government and their minions are any indication it can’t be good.
Duke is correct when he notes that a healthy society needs decent values, law and order and each person exhibiting self-reliance. That’s why having the state forcing us to accept their proscriptions on private matters is so dangerous: it robs us of our self-reliance.
Or did I misread you Duke, were you actually saying, “As long as a democratic government has majority support, they can do no wrong?” ‘Cause if you believe the latter, then it’s you who will have to leave Canada, because Canada has never been that way.
Democracy is a schema, not a mechanism.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of minority rights except to make sure that minority groups have the same rights as the majority. The 13th, 14th and the 19th Amendments both extended to blacks and women the same rights as the majority of the citizens enjoyed but not once are these groups identified. The first two amendments concern the ending of slavery and the definition of citizenship. The 19th amendment refers to the right to vote regardless of sex. None of the se three amendments say that slavery of blacks is forbidden or that women have the right to vote but that no person can be enslaved and that all citizens have the right to vote. I agree with Dave J., democracy is by its nature and history for the protection the rights of the majority. The Greeks defined it as rule by the many not as rule by the many unless the minority doesn’t approve. Democarcay works best when there are plainly visible laws not auras that only the annointed few can ascertain.
Vit,
In a democracy you can flip the government of the majority .. but not of the one.
I think you read me right.
Vit,
or would that be rightly?
tufts University’s Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It’s because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate “the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world.” In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! “Safety demands that religion be put in cages,” explains Dennett, “when absolutely necessary….The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for.”
It occurs to me that at the least this decision is one more shot at Christianity. Subtle to be sure and of course the above quote relates to Darwin vs
ID nevertheless it seems that at the very least the elite keep chipping away at the foundations of
Christianity.
On the surface the ruling appears harmless enough but taken in the larger context of the assault on Christianity across the Continent it becomes in my mind far more insidious.
After all just off the top of my head the Sodom and Gomorrah story is a basic Christian lesson.
I still get a sense that without religion government has no opposition. It is the only and final answer to all peoples in all matters. As weak as religion has been in the near past it is still a stabilizing balance against government who without it would be able to implement anything they chose with no moral guide to oppose them or at the very least give pause.
In a democracy you can flip the government of the majority, Duke? No *you* can’t, only the majority can. In a government of one, *you* can flip the government by killing him.
I am certainly in favour of some sort of modern democratic state with a representative government constrained by an effective constitution and some sort of bill of rights. I certainly do not think that Canada is anything close to a tyranny, and I don’t think that will happen as long as it continues to be a functioning democrary. If it becomes an oligarchy in cahoots with China, the best we will be able to hope for is American intervention.
Meanwhile, the Liberals were elected democratically, yet signs of oligarchization are increasing. Now it’s time to exercise our democratic rights and cast our ballot to kick the bums out.
Vote Conservative – Stand Up For Canada
The judge is saying. *Only when obscenity or indecency causes provable harm or injury can there be grounds for a criminal proceeding.*
The courts are swamped. Budgets are tight. This looks very much like an economic measure rather than a purely legal one.
Speaking of law, if Martin were elected in a minority vote, would he be permitted any house of commons input while wearing a Dept. of Corrections ankle bracelet? TG
It is indeed to the immense credit of the Constitution of the United States of America that it specifies no exclusive rights, they are all inclusive. The separation of powers, layered regional government, and checks and balances provisions are excellent. The original bill of rights covers classic rights quite well indeed (freedom of speach, religion, assembly, security, equality under the law, &c).
But my favourite clause, indeed, one of my favourite sentences in the history of man, is amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So it would seem to me, correct me if I’m wrong Pat, that in the US the feds would be more likely to say: decide this stuff locally, it’s ultra vires to us. If I’m correct, then that’s just the sort of solution to the community standards problem that I would most like to see.
The Sodom and Gomorrah story is indeed a basic Christian lesson, and it should be well heeded. As Mill puts it above, “It would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another. Nobody denies that people should be so taught and trained in youth, as to know and benefit by the ascertained results of human experience.”
The problems, as Mill mentioned, are ones of understanding, context, and applicability. For example, did you know that (see Wikipedia):
Classical Jewish texts do not support the concept that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because their inhabitants were homosexual. Rather, they were destroyed because the inhabitants were generally depraved and uncompromisingly greedy. Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders.
A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that “what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours” (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion.
Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a horrible fashion. One example is the story of the “bed” that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up.
[ End Wikipedia Quote ]
While I am in no way anti-religion, for it is an important part of the Human experience, I suspect Jeff that your assertion to the effect that “[religion] is the only and final answer to all peoples in all matters” is probably difficult to support in practice.
Either way, it is not the case that religion opposes government. It is only religious people, and indeed other people, who oppose government.
At the end of they day, if these so-called swingers’ clubs become a pronounced problem (they currently are not), then the solution will be to convince them to change their attitudes, not to adjust the state’s chains on their behaviour. The latter will eventually lead to death by being buried alive under the state’s regulations.
“Everything which was not required was forbidden. Whatever was permitted was mandatory. Citizens were shackled in their actions by the universal passion for banning things.” Paraphrase of Boris Yeltsin, addressing RSFSR Congress of People’s Deputies, BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, April, 1991
Or as Vaclav Klaus said, “The enemies of free societies today are those who want to burden us down again with layer upon layer of regulations. We had that in Communist times.”
First Vitruvius thanks for the better explanation of Sodom and Gomorrah than mine. I knew that the end of those cities went far beyond what their names imply.
Actually what I was trying to convey is that with the assault on Christianity the secular governments are trying to eliminate their only natural rival. Clearing the way to becoming the sole moral authority in society, rather than being bothered with moral tenents that created in my opinion devinely but certainly independent of any agenda the government may have. And therefore acting as a natural inhibitor to any adventurism government whim may wish to indulge.
True religious people all people at the end of the day have to limit government. The job just becomes clearer if religious tenents are present in society.
Hope that makes more sense?
Why can’t The Swingers just stick to discrete “fondue parties”, like they did in the seventies?
I agree Jeff that the state’s assault on religion is due to it being a natural rival. On the other hand, not the only one. For example, liberty is also a rival of the state, which is why the state also assaults it. While it may be the case that the majority of libertarians are atheists (I don’t know the numbers), they will always be the first to stand up for freedom of religion. Well, at least, any religion that doesn’t force them to behave contrary to their beliefs.
I broadly agree with you on the moral tennets, but from a more utilitarian perspective. I don’t think they’re divinely created; I don’t they’re created at all. I think they’ve been discovered by humans trying experiments with different systems of moral codification. But I’ve been wrong before. I certainly think the Judeo-Christian moral tradition is at a minimum one of the best.
I think we agree at least in the following sense: it is up to moral people to oppose government. Not that government is a priori immoral, rather, government that is not checked by a perennially vigilent citizenry will eventually become immoral. It’s only a question of time.
I think Anonologue brings up a good point. We all know that too big is bad. Big government, big business, big unions, big religion, big art, &c. The community standards problem is probably not terribly effected by rare, occasional, small fondue parties, but common, frequent, large fondue parties can become problematic. Shortage of cheese for one thing. I touched on this above, when I mentioned “pronounced problem”.
“the essence of a democracy is to establish and recognize the rights of the MINORITY over the tyranny of a MAJORITY.”
Nope, sorry, that’s incorrect.
That’s just a saying of the left. Nothing more.
You don’t get what’s been going on recently.
The minority is actually tyrannically ruling over the majority via the Liberal regime and the SCOC.
Democracy exists for the purpose of the prevention of the tyranny of the minority. Hitler was a minority of one. Stalin also. Saddam, too. Chretien, ditto. Now we’ve got Martin. None of these dudes ever cared for democracy.
Democracy is about voting. One person, one vote. Everyone has a vote. How can any reasonable person favor instead the dictatorship of the one or the few over this?
I agree with you on the taxonomy of democracy, Sentinel, but I don’t think the Liberals are at this time a tyranny of a minority. A number of minorities have banded together to form in effect a coalition that votes Liberal. That is normal.
What is not normal, at least in the common law western civilization tradition, is notion of the people serving the government. The government is supposed to serve the people. The latter does not happen in an oligarchy.
And this leads to why the Liberals behaving as if they are entitled, as if we are here to serve them, has to be opposed.
So all that brings me back to my original question was the ruling simply to allow fondue parties or is there a trojan horse here?
I don’t know.
(Bet y’all never thought you would see me write that 😉
Building on the cheese theme, the state regulates lots of stuff, like the temperature at which Canadian curd producers produce cheese.
Apparently, to make proper cheese curds worthy of the glorious gastronomical gift that is poutine one must make the curds at room temperature, contrary to Ontario Ministry of Health regulations. From Ont. Leg. Hansard:
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): “It’s with some regret that I must again draw attention to the silly and harmful behaviour of bureaucrats who are attacking agriculture again in this province.
In recent weeks, Ministry of Health bureaucrats have been charging cheese plants for not refrigerating cheese curds immediately upon manufacture. Anyone knows that cheese curds, for as long as cheese has been made in this country, have not been refrigerated, and curds are meant to be eaten fresh and squeaky. In fact, modern science tells us that the lactic acids produced in cheese curds at room temperature kill harmful bacteria that would actually grow if curds were refrigerated, another example where plain common sense does not prevail.
Unfortunately, the fact that traditional measures are safer and have been proven safer means nothing to the bureaucrats working for the Ministry of Health. These bureaucrats play God, and nothing changes their opinion. Ontario’s milk and cheese producers are being forced to absorb unnecessary court costs in order to defend themselves against these irresponsible and ill-informed bureaucrats who are allowed to run loose”.
http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/35_parl/session2/l082.htm
Health Canada has made some stunning new changes in cheese regulation. Really:
http://www.cfis.agr.ca/english/regcode/ndrc/amdmt_oct00/prod_2e.shtml
Getting back to The Swingers, I don’t think Canadians have a problem with private “fondue parties”. Allowing them in commerical venues is an entirely different matter and I think the SCOC, unsurprisingly, made the wrong call. If we can have Secret Cheese Police enforcing draconian Cheese Laws then it seems resonable that The State can and should legislate on fundamental matters of morality, like for instance murder, rape, and public for profit commercial group sex enterprises.
Yup, the mercantilization of these fondue parties is what bothers me too. It’s not the home parties, or even the free-association small club parties, it’s the national chains that kind of creep me out. One thing all true private clubs have in common: they’re very small.
I just don’t think such mercantilization is very likely, and as I said, if it does happen, we’ve got bigger public morals problems that a shortage of cheese.
Thanks for the thought provoking discussion everyone. At this point I guess I’d have to say that to the degree that this decision leads to freedom of consenting adult behaviour for people otherwise so included to swing (is that term correct?) then that’s a good thing. But to the degree that this leads to popular commercialization of sex as a product, then that’s a bad thing.
The old clock on the wall is striking 04:00 as I type, which means it’s exactly 72 hours until Santa Clause stops by on his rounds for some port and brisket. Milk and cookies is not a balanced diet, you know. I better get some sleep.
Merry Christmas Everyone
Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward All
If I remember correctly, the Quebec court ruled against these clubs. Now, who would be more in tune with the ‘community standards’ of Quebec, the Quebec Court or the SCOC? Therefore the SCOC has overruled Quebec on what they want for their community. Where is the notwithstanding clause. Will Charest invoke it? For our sake in the ROC I hope he does.
14 years old? What will happen legally is zero (other than your arraignment should you take the law into your own hands).
That’s another community standard that was thrown out.
Liberatarians is is the biggest of all tents covering great thinkers and mindless idiots.
All law is about morality. If do as you will is the only law, why bother thinking about real libertarianism? Libertinism is way more fun.
If I may play devils advocate:
Why, exactly, is commercializing sex a big deal?
We commercialize everything else, so why not sex?
Put crassly, if I can give something away, why can’t I sell it? If we sell our intellectual or physical capacity every day (ak.a. “jobs”) why not our sexual capacity?
I’m not saying that this is an attractive alternative, but why should it be illegal?
Gabby in QC wrote:
3. Are Canadians so bored and their lives so empty that they have to resort to this for entertainment?
In a word, yes. Oh, for some, the boredom and the emptiness can be anaesthetized with drugs or VLTs, video games, “urban” music, shopping, anti-globalization protests or other activities as diverse as our society. For others, Friday nights on Showcase are no longer enough, and an orgy in an industrial park is the next push of the “envelope”. And there will always be a few, like Bernardo and Homolka, whose boredom and emptiness will lead them to ask, “What if….?”