I think the jump to prostitution and Red Light Districts is a bit of a stretch, remeber there is nothing preventing your neighbour from holding these sex parties so why should a club be prevented from doing so if everyone involved is consenting, an adult and uncoerced.

Posted by: Halden at December 22, 2005 08:50 AM

---

You say, "The Supreme Court ruled that since no money exchanged hands and no one was harmed, the State had no business interfering." One cannot help but wonder why the court does not take the same approach to the underground economy, nativity scenes, and school prayer.

But of course, its all about money and liberal values is it not?

Merry Christmas Angry, and please continue to be angry for the rest of us.

Posted by: Brian J. at December 22, 2005 09:11 AM

---

"Will Canadian cities become destinations for American sex tourists?"

I'd say Montreal already is. Do a few Googles on Montreal's escort scene -- not at work, obviously. They're hardly bothering to lay low.

Posted by: Ian in NS at December 22, 2005 09:17 AM

---

I posted this on another blog:

---
Liberal judges have been put on the supreme court bench by the Liberal prime minister for years. This is the result.

In my community of Windsor, known as Tijuana North to Americans, prostitution is legal and regulated by the city. A club pandering to this sick sexual activity will be right at home amongst the strip clubs, kiddie bars and casino in our downtown core. The struggle against immorality and corruption seems pointless.
---

You see Steve, it is the degradation of the moral standard in this country that is so worrisome. If we let this go by without making a stand for decency in this country, we will have less credibility for the next fight against depravity. After discussing this ruling last night, my wife said that Canada is on the highway to hell. I agree.

Posted by: slider at December 22, 2005 09:52 AM

---

Will the no smoking bylaws hold true in these 'clubs', or will the participants have to go outside for a smoke after sex? That should make for an interesting sight on the streets.

Posted by: George at December 22, 2005 10:13 AM

---

Bottom line is I don't know where this will go. Maybe nowhere. Maybe we'll all be regretting it in twenty years. Maybe in twenty years we'll be wondering why we didn't do it twenty years earlier.

Well said. My gut is that this is really just a tempest in a teapot, but like you, I've been around long enough to see just how wrong I can be sometimes.

Posted by: Damian at December 22, 2005 10:17 AM

---

"Liberal judges have been put on the supreme court bench by the Liberal prime minister for years. This is the result."

I recall Justice McLachlin was a conservative appointee.

Posted by: Murray at December 22, 2005 10:19 AM

---

If this Supreme court says yes to group sex. What will they say to bigamy and on and on and on? Over 35 years I have come to disagree with that brave statement uttered by the philosopher king PET.
Sadly I look back on the statement as mere insolence. Today I say that a society must have rules , otherwise we will soon have no society.

Posted by: crowbar at December 22, 2005 10:49 AM

---

In short, the court said the six dollar admission fee for the "group sex grope club" did not constitute prostitution or 'keeping a common bawdy house'.

To sell your body for six dollars is a bit of stretch, so on that part of the SCOC's ruling I would agree.

As to "community standards", I would probably suggest the court says we don't have any, when the door is locked or the curtain is drawn.

Succinctly, if you want to swing from the chandalier you are free to do so. You are free to sink to your lowest "natural" level.

If you are looking for salvation or moral edification you are best to look elsewhere; as this just reestablishes the right to behave in the same way the Greco-Roman societies did as they declined.

"Family life" has just been extended in a major way. Considerations of social disease is no proscription to the untrammelled pursuit of whatever fleshly lust one is taken with.

What is next the shepards sheep, as long as the sheep is not "harmed"? Is there such a thing as consenting sheep? Where exactly does society say here is the line, you shall not cross?

Speaking of shephards, aren't they associated with Christmas? Oh yeah, I should be focussing on something morally uplifting; rather than heaving myself headlong into the gutter.

Getting into the spirit of Christmas, I raise my glass and suggest "Here's one for the ditch!"

Merry Christmas, I think I will now pursue something edifying like decorating my Christmas tree.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at December 22, 2005 11:07 AM

---

I would like to see how Paul Martin will apply his "if-the-Supreme-Court-rules-it-is-good-enough-for-me stance" to this ruling. With SSM he used to be against it until the Supreme Court ruled and now he is the champion of the issue. I wonder if he sees it as the PM's job to now defend group sex. I think this is a real window of opportunity for the CPC to point out Parliament's role is not subservient to the Supreme Court on this issue or the definition of marriage.

On another point... I wish PMPM would stop saying "Let me say to you". He should just say what he's want to say without the unnecessary introduction. He does it for emphasis. But I say to him, "you don't have to emphasize EVERYTHING."

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

Posted by: Southerncdn at December 22, 2005 11:45 AM

---

McLaughlin was appointed to the SCOC by Chretien

Posted by: George at December 22, 2005 12:15 PM

---

The one thing I'd like to know -- and the one thing nobody's said about so far -- is whether alcohol is served in the clubs.

If so, that means that teenagers not only can but legally must be denied entry. If not... well, the sexual age of consent in Canada is 14. What guarantee do we have that the club owners and bouncers will be responsible in who they admit and exclude to their clubs? Especially when they have a clear motive (their own profit) to err on the side of greed rather than caution?

What adults do -- and what risks they choose to accept (looking at the statistical link between bathhouse frequenting and STD transmission should forever rid us of the notion that such behaviour is "safe") -- is their business. But allowing adolescents to be exposed to it is another story.

Sure, teenagers can and will have sex. But their opinions and sexual habits *will* be significantly different depending on *how* they learn about it and with whom; a girl who loses her virginity to her loved and trusted boyfriend of two years will think very differently about sex from one who loses it to a bunch of nameless strangers in a club while she's drunk.

I can't think I'm the only person profoundly uncomfortable with opening a door like this, especially given who the doormen necessarily will be. Hopefully these clubs *do* serve booze (and I can't think why they wouldn't -- you make way more money on bar tabs than on cover charges, every club owner knows that), so it's all a moot point... but I worry, nonetheless.

Posted by: Stephen J. at December 22, 2005 01:04 PM

---

"What adults do -- and what risks they choose to accept (looking at the statistical link between bathhouse frequenting and STD transmission should forever rid us of the notion that such behaviour is "safe") -- is their business. "

I agree, but ONLY if they bear the full responsibility for, and costs of, their actions. Those who engage in behavior which is unhealthy should have to pay their own way. As long as the state is the sole provider of healthcare it will always interfere in private behavior (e.g., smoking).

Posted by: Leonidas at December 22, 2005 01:18 PM

---

"Will Canadian cities become destinations for American sex tourists?"

With the age of consent at 14, Canada already is a destination for sex tourists.

"www.ageofconsent.com"

Posted by: JulieM at December 22, 2005 02:35 PM

---

And the worst part about all of this is that this is the discussion that many people will be having over Christmas. This is the taste that will be left in the news-vacuum of December 25.

A higher STD transmission rate harms all of us, even those of us who will have only one sexual partner our entire lives. How many partners has your spouse had? How many had his/her partners had? And so on, into a giant web where a small percentage of the population can substanially raise the risk for us all...

And people who have had a new sexual partner in the last 6 months can't donate blood. Neither can people who have STDs, and then we wonder why the blood bank can't find donors. We should not be surprised because promiscuity is becoming the national pastime.

This has effects that reach farther than the walls or curtains of a sex club, that reach farther than even our "esteemed" judges, who are tampering with the fabric of society, can see.

The reference to the decline of the Greek and Roman societies is not far off base. We've seen, in our society's war against the family, an increase in poverty and the cost of living, a decrease in good stable jobs, and in things like home ownership, and a visible decline in the status of Canada in the world over the past 30 years.

When you destroy the family, which is the central unit from which our prosperity as a society grows, you destroy our prosperity.

Judicial activism, combined with citizens that care more about their next thrill then the next generation, are what is destroying Canada.

Posted by: Brad in Barrhead at December 22, 2005 02:44 PM

---

Here is the new test for criminal indecency in Canada. Any criminal lawyers out there wishing to comment?

Indecent criminal conduct will be established where the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the following two requirements:

1. That, by its nature, the conduct at issue causes harm or presents a significant risk of harm to individuals or society in a way that undermines or threatens to undermine a value reflected in and thus formally endorsed through the Constitution or similar fundamental laws by, for example:

(a) confronting members of the public with conduct that significantly interferes with their autonomy and liberty; or

(b) predisposing others to anti-social behaviour; or

(c) physically or psychologically harming persons involved in the conduct, and

2. That the harm or risk of harm is of a degree that is incompatible with the proper functioning of society.

I'm not sure how this definition is any better than the former "community standards of tolerance" test which the SCOC rejected in favour of the public harms test. Outside of killing one's sex partner which Justice MacLachlin says is an obvious candidate for proscription; what else would qualify?

It seems to me at first blush, that notwithstanding Section 160 of the Criminal Code, that if one's partner is not a natural person that part one of the test isn't satisfied and 'degree' of harm is the subject of the judges interpretation. Of course if one's conduct is shielded by a 'locked door or drawn drapes' how is the community "Harmed" and by what degree?

If we say that only 1% or 2% engage in these activities how is society "Harmed"?

Therefore in terms of the Criminal Code is there truly an objective test for "Indecency" that all members of Canadian society agree on?

Well we have had some fundamental laws like marriage that most once agreed on; but that is now thrown in doubt, why not section 160 of the Criminal Code? Well if the transmission of an STD, or public health factors and its concomittant burden on the taxpayer, is not a determining factor where else does one look if one wishes, as a society, to "outlaw" this type of behavior? If majority moral, religious and consent issues are not determinative, then what are?

Interesting decision, but where is this all going to?

If one worshiped the ancient gods of Astarte or Vesta and set up prostitutes to show one's "worship" would this be covered by the Charter's "freedom of religion" clause? I wonder how well thought out all of this new test really is?

If we are all just a ceaseless aggregation of minorities as PM Paul Martin asserted in one speech, one can see no end to "minority rights".

Very interesting decision and debate indeed.

Posted by: at December 22, 2005 03:07 PM

---

Conservatives on this blog remind me of the taliban when they took over Afghanistan - desperate to impose THEIR values on the Canadian public. Reason number ONE why Canada will again be voting Liberal in the next election...

Posted by: Flanstein at December 22, 2005 03:17 PM

---

George, McLachlin was appointed to to the Supreme Court of Canada, March 30, 1989, according to the SCC website, so she must have been a conservative appointee.

There are two strands to modern conservatism--libertarian (individual freedom and responsibility) and republican (preservation of institutions through moral code). Conservative blogs seem split in reaction to the decision.

The "Lifestyle" movement, as it exists (about 3 million in the US) is not a social threat, to families or health. The participants are mostly middle-aged married couples who have had children and don't want any more. There has been no reported violence. AIDS transmission is virtually nil. STD transmission is very low.

The arguement would have to be that this will let the genie out of the bottle to far greater things.

At the end of the day one has to ask, will the fact other people go to these clubs reduce your commitment to your family? How many people will think, gee, other people go to these clubs, I guess I should reduce my commitment to my family?

To me, it just does not seem likely that these clubs will result in epidemic abandonment of family structure and parental nurturing of children.

Posted by: Murray at December 22, 2005 03:38 PM

---

The dissenting opinion given below:

Full text here:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2005/2005scc80.html

Our colleagues have opted to modify the concept of indecency found in the case law to make it more objective by basing it solely on harm and disregarding the other criteria that have been recognized by the courts. According to the majority, the fundamental test for determining what the contemporary Canadian community will tolerate can be reduced to whether or not the conduct causes social harm that is serious enough to be incompatible with the proper functioning of society by, for example, predisposing individuals to act in an anti‑social manner. Only by demonstrating such harm can it be established that the acts in question are not tolerated by the community. The acts must constitute wrongs that are formally recognized as such by the community and must be sufficiently serious in degree. This ensures that the test is objective. In the case at bar, our colleagues are of the view that no serious social harm was demonstrated, given the absence of degradation, commercial transactions or sexual exploitation. They instead stress the consensual nature of the acts and state that there was no evidence that the participants were used as objects of gratification. As there were, according to this harm‑based test, no acts that could be defined as indecent, the appellant’s establishment was not, in their view, a common bawdy‑house.

75 The majority is in this way departing from the case law of this Court and proposing a new approach to indecency that is, in our view, neither desirable nor workable. It constitutes an unwarranted break with the most important principles of our past decisions regarding indecency. Our colleagues’ approach replaces the community standard of tolerance with a test that treats harm as the basis of indecency rather than as a criterion for determining the community’s level of tolerance. Whether or not serious social harm is sustained has never been the determinative test for indecency, and it cannot take the place of a contextual analysis of the Canadian community standard of tolerance without completely transforming the concept of indecency and rendering it meaningless.

76 In contrast to our colleagues, we propose to continue applying the original test for indecency, which focusses on a contextual analysis of the impugned acts and incorporates the concept of harm as a significant, but not determinative, factor to consider in establishing the applicable level of tolerance. Whether or not harm is sustained is merely one of several indicators or contextual factors that make it possible to gauge the degree of tolerance of the Canadian community. In our view, all the contextual factors must be considered in every case. The application of this test to the facts of the case at bar leads to the conclusion that the impugned acts were indecent and that the appellant’s establishment was a common bawdy‑house within the meaning of s. 210(1) Cr. C.

The interesting part is paragraph 75. I would agree with the dissenting judges:

Whether or not serious social harm is sustained has never been the determinative test for indecency, and it cannot take the place of a contextual analysis of the Canadian community standard of tolerance without completely TRANSFORMING THE CONCEPT OF INDECENCY AND RENDERING IT MEANINGLESS.

This would go to my previous post about Section 160 of the Criminal Code.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at December 22, 2005 04:06 PM

---

"Conservatives on this blog remind me of the Taliban when they took over Afghanistan - desperate to impose THEIR values on the Canadian public."

There is a big difference between imposing values *on* the Canadian public, and *sustaining* the values *of* the Canadian public in the face of constant attempts by a vocal minority to erode them.

When the Conservative Party of Canada starts dynamiting 2,000-year-old works of art because they come from a non-Christian religion, denying women the vote and stoning homosexual people, I'll take comparisons to the Taliban more seriously.

Posted by: Stephen J. at December 22, 2005 05:53 PM

---

"Conservatives on this blog remind me of the taliban when they took over Afghanistan..." Sorry, but when it comes to trying to impose one's values on others, Liberals excel.

Posted by: Ovni at December 22, 2005 06:12 PM

---

"The same force reminds me to take the garbage out every Tuesday morning. Need I say more?"

Your wife tells you what you can and can't write about, on your own blog? I'm noticing a definite trend among Canadian "men" bloggers here...

Posted by: Anonalogue at December 22, 2005 06:27 PM

---

This is ridiculous.

The poster who compares modern society to a greek/roman orgy. Yeah, and when this society is 2000 years old we might have to worry about another city state or the hordes, as it is, at 200 we don't have much to worry about. The lack of civic morals was the _last_ thing that caused either of those civilizations to reduce.

"A higher STD rate affects us all" - yeah. Gonorrhoeae peaked during WWI and WWII and immediately following the "sexual revolution, thereafter there has been a steady decline. (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cjhs/cjhs8.html)

Obviously our morality has declined since the Libs have been in power . . . not.

I mean I can be as partisan as anyone, but to blame a swingers club for allowing consenting adults their choice of amusements for the decline of civilization or common morality seems just a bit of a stretch. No?

Cheers,
lance

Posted by: Lance at December 22, 2005 11:07 PM

---

legalized fascination with genitalia like monkies in a zoo. Devolution are us.

Where is self-control. Where is modesty. Where is dignity.

When your child asks what is a sex club .. what should we say about it? That it's the Canadian thing to do.

Will they grow up wondering if mommy and daddy do this stuff..it's legal. And "when can I do it mommy". "When you turn fourteen darling. But don't do it in the dark or you may wind up in daisy chain with uncle Bob."

I have an opinion Angry. I think this stinks and I submit that the goverment and it's hand-maiden the supreme court had no business ruling on the bedrooms of the nation.

Posted by: Duke at December 23, 2005 02:29 AM

---

"When the Conservative Party of Canada starts dynamiting 2,000-year-old works of art because they come from a non-Christian religion, denying women the vote and stoning homosexual people, I'll take comparisons to the Taliban more seriously."

It would just be a matter of time...

Posted by: Flanstein at December 23, 2005 08:22 AM

---

"The ruling on group sex and partner-swapping applies to conduct in a private club ... The Supreme Court ruled that since no money exchanged hands and no one was harmed, the State had no business interfering."

I'm not a lawyer, but, uhh ... no. This club was no more a private club than, say, the Legion was found to be when dealing with various anti-smoking bylaws. What the judgement focused on was that the general public wouldn't have to see (and thereby be offended by) the activities unless they positively chose to. That seems to effectively be the standard for "privacy" for this matter.

Still, this particular club allowed singles to join, and members could freely bring guests. The trial included evidence of many various sex acts, and one woman with many men. That this club had a bar downstairs was completely incidental to the judgement: other clubs could permit any age (over the age of consent) and simply not sell alcohol (or restrict access to the bar). The Court also explicitly preemptively rejected orientation-based discrimination, so gay clubs and gay sex acts are equally supported by the ruling.

And the fact that money was required to change hands before access was granted to the area in which sex acts took place is little different from a cover charge, or an admission fee. Even in a strip club, the monies paid are directly related to sexual behaviour (stripping).

The standard set by the majority is very high: in effect, it's whether Canadian society ceases to function in light of the activity; the concept of community standards and tolerance is eliminated. As a result, it would seem to be hard to argue that an offense takes place if one of the sex partners were to benefit financially: certainly, there would be more moral outrage, but community standards are no longer a consideration under the law. Especially given that strippers already commercialize sexual activity.

The response to this decision is not based on concern over the two existing swinger clubs, but rather on its applicability to other businesses which want to get into this market, including existing strip clubs, who can presumably now collect a fee from customers and offer the opportunity (not a guarantee, but that's really irrelevant) for sex with a willing partner.

Posted by: Paul O at December 28, 2005 07:25 AM

---

Angry, I have done some research into these clubs, NO NOT because I have any interest in participating in such a perverse lifestyle, but just to see what exactly the SCOC was ruling in favor of.
Ok forgive me here, I'm going to speak from the heart. As a born and raised Canadian, mom of three "boys" 20,17,14, a christian (but not bible thumper) old fashioned (in some regards) woman, I am appalled by the Supreme Courts ruling.
It seems to me nothing is "sacred" in Canada anymore. Christmas, marriage, family values, all seem to be disolving in this once great country, and a many other things as well.
The Clubs I have researched in Calgary, do NOT serve alcohol, they do however serve mix for those that byob, and snacks for the patrons. The clubs in Calgary that I was able to find information on, hold events like theme parties from time to time, encourage sexy attire, personal cleanliness (duh!) and do not endorse on site sexual escapades, altho they don't seem to state that they won't tolerate it either.
Single females are welcome, however one club will not permit single "males" entry. All males must be accompanied by a female and or partner.
They do make comments, referring to using safe sex methods ie: condoms for one's personal health, but are quick to say "each to their own" so to speak. Well condoms are a wonderful tool no doubt, however they are not infallible, condoms do and can break...so I've been told.
Apparently most ppl that participate in "swinging" and orgies, do practice safe sex. Swingers perhaps but those participating in orgies, are they really going to stop and switch condoms everytime they move on to a new "body"? I somehow doubt it.
I can see the headlines now, Woman seeks paternity testing from 12 men including own spouse after romp in Sex Club. I can also see the headline, "Convicted Sex Offenders frequent Sex Clubs to Prey Upon Unsuspecting Victims" or even "Aids Cases Soar in Canada due to legalization of Sex Clubs".
I won't go into morality issues, I'd be here all day.
Hell Martin likes to "ban" things why not "ban" marriage and the foundation of marriage altogether? Because neither seem to be held in the high regard it once was and should still be.
As a mom I have done my best to raise my children to be responsible and accountable, to have respect for their fellow man/woman, and I have also tried to instill in them that "sex" is not a game, it can and will come with a cost if not taken seriously. Now please don't think I'm a complete prude, I did put a box of condoms in my oldest sons stocking this year, not because I condone him "gettin' it on" every chance he gets but because I want him to be as safe as possible should he make the decision to have intercourse. I have also informed him that condoms are not 100% reliable altho for him it is the best protection he can count on, besides abstaining from such activity.
What ppl do behind the privacy of their own bedroom door is their business, but I don't think it is right or appropriate for the SCOC to legislate sex and the business of sex.
Isn't it absurd, you can now go to a sex club, get your "groove on" but no way, and damn you if you even think about lighting a cigarette! Only in Canada eh!
I know most ppl here speak from "logic" and I'm strictly speaking as an emotional and probably somewhat paranoid "mom". I can't help it, I'm watching the country my grandfather and his father before him fought for, turn into a morally devoid institute. I think this ruling begs for Supreme Court Justices to be elected rather than appointed.
I also have to ask, why is it, when someone says something that may not coincide with a "Liberal's" viewpoint, that they feel the need to (and disgustingly so) refer to others as Nazi's or Taliban-like? In my opinion that is such a feeble minded arguement/comeback, and goes to prove the ignorance and lack of respect "Liberals" have for anyone else. Surely you can come up with something a little more intellegent to voice your opinion.

Posted by: Rottigirl at December 30, 2005 01:06 PM

---