Canada is a free country now

[Asher]

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

You're sometimes right, you're sometimes wrong. You're way out in right field on this one.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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.

According to Flubber, the law was good enough for a hundred years or so. I guess they did a really bad job, eh?

And if you think this issue is closed, I have a bridge to sell you.

There's no way this is going to live more than a year or two.

[Asher]

If the conservatives bring this issue up in court and show themselves to be the social relics that they are, they may as well kiss half their votes goodbye.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

You're sometimes right, you're sometimes wrong. You're way out in right field on this one.

We'll see once the left wing of the NDP get ahold of this issue.

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, I find it silly to ban consenting adults from congregating in a privately owned and operated establishment in order to **** each other's brains out.

I'm not too worked up about this either way. It's not normative behaviour by any stretch of the imagination, and it definitely has some negative impact associated with it, so there is some basis for legislating against it. But we let smokers smoke, so...?

[notyoueither]

Not in clubs we don't.

[notyoueither]

Depending on your jurisdiction.

Although, I can't wait for a tobacco company to fund someone to take municipal, and in some cases provincial, laws all the way to the SCoC.

You can't smoke, but you can ****. That would be quite a decision.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


According to Flubber, the law was good enough for a hundred years or so. I guess they did a really bad job, eh?

Good enough to create convictions based on personal feelings of individual judges, where your chances in court were based entirely on the luck of the draw and the area you were nabbed in.

It's a ****ty law. It's vague, and leaves everything to the discretion of the courts. It offloads the responsibility for making the hard decisions.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Not in clubs we don't.

No, but on street corners.

The law against smoking in clubs is at least putatively for the benefit of nonsmokers.

Where are the nonswingers being harmed by swinging?

[notyoueither]

A lot of things are left to the discretion of judges.

Are you a fan of mandatory minimums and 'three strikes and you're out'?

Personally, I find the argument that our judges are incapable of wisdom to be a weak argument against a law, or for taking their discretion away from them.

[notyoueither]

... but I'm being told they are not happy with the burden of excersicing common sense and making rulings.

OK.

Parliament will do it.

Might start giveing less discretion in other matters as well.

Unfortunate.

[KrazyHorse]

Now you're confusing sentencing with conviction.

I think that discretion in sentencing is essential. The discretion as to whether or not a crime has even occurred is not.

[notyoueither]

Of course it is. Intent is a large part of any criminal conviction.

[notyoueither]

But not if law makers have to make straight jacket laws.

You have sex outside of a private residence, you go to jail.

That there would be a fine law, and we may have to live it, because our courts are 'tired' of having to excercise some judgement.

[KrazyHorse]

?

The presence of criminal intent is a matter of fact, and is decided on by the jury

The presence of indecency is a matter of interpretation, since indecency has a much more nebulous definition. The decision of the jury with respect to whether or not indecency was present will depend entirely on the instructions given them by the presiding judge