Canada is a free country now

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ninot
Then what is it about swinging that is morally wrong?

Biblically morally? Nothing.

Moral from a caring about my fellow human beings POV? Exploitation of partners, more than anything else. You can't believe that every partner is an eager participant, can you?

Public health after that.

If these communities can organise themselves, and stay together in the privacy of their own homes, OK.

However, businesses that cater to, and would therefore promote the 'lifestyle', goes over the line of what I find acceptable for commercial activity.

[Asher]

So let's make it official: you think you are smarter and in a better position to make judgement calls then the consentual adults into swinging?

You think you understand their situation better than they do?

You know, I'm going to throw your own argument back up your ass: why are you an expert on this?

Why don't you let people -- who I guarantee you know more about themselves and their situation -- to make their own judgement calls. Why criminalize consentual behavior that hurts no one, just because in your opinion the women are making bad choices and you feel they are being exploited?

You can't believe that every partner is an eager participant, can you?

You can't assume they're not. Doing so makes you an arrogant idiot waving his moral wand of power.

Does your living in Edmonton give you the predisposition of assuming everyone is an idiot and incapable of making their own decision?

[Beta]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Who is in a better position to judge this? An appointed court or the people we elect who have to listen to a lot more arguments than would be presented before the SCoC?

The court, IMHO. The people we elect quite often end up pandering to the majority, for the sake of re-election.

Take the right of gays and lesbians to marry. The courts have made the right call, based on the Charter and the law, and that brainless wonder from out west wants to open it up to a referendum. Um, great. While we're at, let's have one about minority religions that bug the majority. And oh yes - what about skin colour. C'mon. Let's let the majority vote on that too. And let's let the city folks vote on farm issues. etc etc.

nye - your position on this issue is nothing short of mind boggling. Sorry - I'm with Asher and Ninot.

And while we are at it, yes, can we please legalize prostitution for the sake of those working in the trade.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
Does your living in Edmonton give you the predisposition of assuming everyone is an idiot and incapable of making their own decision?

Mostly for children from Calgary.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Mostly for children from Calgary.

I'm capable enough.

If my partner and I choose to have an open relationship and attend a "swinging club" (or a seedy gay bar ), it should be absolutely none of your concern. It's that simple.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Beta

The court, IMHO. The people we elect quite often end up pandering to the majority, for the sake of re-election.

A decision after a bad day for a bad lawyer for the feds makes better law than 300 and some elected representatives?

If the courts make better decisions than the Commons, why have a Commons? Let's go back to a Queen, since she doesn't have to worry about being elected.

Take the right of gays and lesbians to marry. The courts have made the right call, based on the Charter and the law

Most likely right, but that was the Charter. The Charter does not provide any fundamental right to hoohaw in a place of business, and therefore was not part of this case.

and that brainless wonder from out west wants to open it up to a referendum. Um, great. While we're at, let's have one about minority religions that bug the majority. And oh yes - what about skin colour. C'mon. Let's let the majority vote on that too. And let's let the city folks vote on farm issues. etc etc.

blink, blink

What?

nye - your position on this issue is nothing short of mind boggling. Sorry - I'm with Asher and Ninot.

Thanks. Try reading.

And while we are at it, yes, can we please legalize prostitution for the sake of those working in the trade.

Not too much problem here, so long as not dime one goes to anyone other than the prostitute. That goes for the government too!

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
A decision after a bad day for a bad lawyer for the feds makes better law than 300 and some elected representatives?

If the courts make better decisions than the Commons, why have a Commons? Let's go back to a Queen, since she doesn't have to worry about being elected.

You've completely missed his point. It's not that judges should make laws, but they do help ensure that the rights of minorities are not trampled even though they are not in sync with the majority.

[notyoueither]

There is no right to **** your partner, or someone else's, in a place of business.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There is no right to **** your partner, or someone else's, in a place of business.

There are rights that are conducive to that, such as freedom of association and rights to privacy.

In this case the court did its job, by interpreting what was vaguely termed "indecent". And since all people attending the club were there for the same reasons, for consentual reasons, it was ruled not indecent. That is the correct law.

As far as I know, they can try to pass a law prohibiting such houses. It may be legal to do so, but it's a terrible direction to take for an otherwise progressive nation.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I thought they were charged with operating a common bawdy house

The full charge is: "keeping a common bawdy house for the purposes of indecency"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Two of our justices disagree with you, as do I.

If Parliament thought we needed a more precise definition of indecency, they would have changed the law. I'm under the impression that our parliaments were happy with how things have been going, or they would have changed things

Well, the courts have found that the "indecency" portion is too vague as it was previously applied. So they've come up with another standard.

If Parliament doesn't want its acts interpreted in such a broad fashion then they must be more specific in their language.

[notyoueither]

Yes, I note that the SCoC are even overturning their own precedents.

You're right that this belongs with Parliament, like the first time they passed a law on the matter. And the parts that two justices said 'we're full of **** for this decision' about.

Be that as it may, I can buy into the argument that the current law is too broad for the courts to be relied on for. That is why I conceded the point 2 or 4 pages back to the nice lawyer who pointed out what the problem was.

[Asher]

I still have major qualms with people like notyoueither thinking they understand people and their situations better than the people themselves. It breeds from arrogance mixed with a sense of moral authority, and it's devastating to the people they're trying to protect.

Accept that you don't know sh*t about the people that choose to go to swing clubs, and let them make their own decisions.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes, I note that the SCoC are even overturning their own precedents.

You're right that this belongs with Parliament, like the first time they passed a law on the matter. And the parts that two justices said 'we're full of **** for this decision' about.

I can buy into the argument that the current law is too broad for the courts to be relied on for. That is why I conceded the point 2 or 4 pages back to the nice lawyer who pointed out what the problem was.

That's fine. I read that part after (have been away for the last 6 hours)

And courts always overrule their own precedents. It happens all the time.

Parliament passed a ****ty law to begin with. They ****ed up their responsibility to make their intentions clear to the courts in the wording of the laws they pass. In the absence of clarity the courts will have a hard time applying the law in a uniform, logical manner. My guess is that no future Parliament is going to touch this with a ten foot pole. The courts have kept the part that lets them convict people for exploitative behaviour, and thrown out the part that was causing all the trouble. Future Parliaments will find very little use in opening this can of worms again.

[notyoueither]

Yeah, right, Asher. I must be as wrong as I was when I was arguing for gay marriage. Very devastating.