Who wants this lobbed into an election?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm not imposing anything. The legistatures and our federal Parliament have.

You know. Those people we elect to make our laws and govern us.

And it's up to which branch of government to interpret those laws?

[notyoueither]

Interpret, not strike down because they feel a liberal urge to do so with no grounds in the Constitution or Charter.

[notyoueither]

As if the SCoC defines what is indecent, and not our legislators.

[joncha]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'll follow this up with...

The SC has decided that swingers clubs are not indecent. Wrong in the eyes of our legislators, but fine.

What Charter right prompted them to do so?

None?

You're right.

What they have said is that they disagree with our legislators, and they will therefore go ahead and make new laws.

Who signed on for this?

Who voted for those seven?

Who makes our laws?

The bull was for the whorehouse line you were using, but nice dodge.

As for you new argument: behind closed doors, willing participants and no money being exchanged. Indecency doesn't apply.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As if the SCoC defines what is indecent, and not our legislators.

If the legislators had something specific in mind, they should have written it down.

What they did was leave it at "indecent acts". It is therefore up to the supreme court to interpret that and determine what is or is not indecent if the law is contested.

In this case, you disagree with their ruling and you're throwing a tantrum and rambling about how "they can't do that!!", but it's Working As Designed from what I can see.

If the legislators want to ban consentual adult sex in "swing houses", then they're welcome to try to draft a law saying that and then see if it is constitutional.

The "common bawdy house" itself is archaic and needs to be struck down eventually. They've used it to shut down bath houses in Calgary because people have sex inside consentually (oh noez!).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by joncha


The bull was for the whorehouse line you were using, but nice dodge.

As for you new argument: behind closed doors, willing participants and no money being exchanged. Indecency doesn't apply.

It's in a business, joncha. How can no money be involved?

We're not talking about couples on their own time, in their own homes.

We're talking businesses that draw this crowd to their premises on the premise that you can **** anything that moves, please pay a cover charge and buy a drink or two.

Boo.

This is no more a case of behind closed doors with willing participants than the local whorehouse might be.

hence the charges. Keeping a common bawdy house.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
This is no more a case of behind closed doors with willing participants than the local whorehouse might be.

Do you understand the difference between paying to use the facilities, and then meeting someone inside and having sex with them? They're not paying for sex, they're paying for access to the building.

If we had things your ways the hourly-rate motel operators should be imprisoned.

[joncha]

The article you quoted said that no money was exchanged for sex acts.

I'm guessing they sell drinks or something on the side.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher


Do you understand the difference between paying to use the facilities, and then meeting someone inside and having sex with them? They're not paying for sex, they're paying for access to the building.

If we had things your ways the hourly-rate motel operators should be imprisoned.

You'd make a convincing madam.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by joncha
The article you quoted said that no money was exchanged for sex acts.

I'm guessing they sell drinks or something on the side.

And so, the purpose of the club?

To profit off indecency. A common bawdy house.

The madam of a whore house sould be protected by saying the girls just pay rent.

[Asher]

You have to forgive me for being modern.

Lots of old conservative men in Alberta throw their dentures at me when I argue that homosexuals should not be put to death, black people have the same rights as white people, and consenting adults can have sex in private clubs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And so, the purpose of the club?

To profit off indecency.

Indecency is a fundamentally moral compass.

It has no place in law. Christians legislating their morals.

And boo to you for supporting such backwards theocracies.

For what it's worth, I think getting smashed is a pretty indecent thing. Should the police be raiding the campus bars? Strip clubs are indecent too. Why aren't they raided?

[notyoueither]

And the real point, what charter right is involved, and just what mandate does the SCoC base its legislation on?

[joncha]

The right to get busy in private.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And the real point, what charter right is involved, and just what mandate does the SCoC base its legislation on?

Please read your own article.

The SCoC's role is to interpret the meaning of "indecency". They did.

This has nothing to do with the charter, though the "common bawdy house law" should be abolished anyway.