Although the news is a couple of weeks old, I haven’t yet had a chance to comment on the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that clubs that allow group sex and partner swapping do not harm Canadian society and should not be considered criminal.
Colby Cosh said pretty much what I think, so I’ll let him do the talking:
Hey, guys, maybe you could explain what harm group-sex clubs actually do cause to non-members? Is there even one in your city, and if so could you find it?
Socons will find themselves, presumably to their
surprise, in the Bastarache/Lebel camp [these were the two dissenting judges]. They will see some meaning in
the phrase “the Canadian community as a whole” where absolutely none
exists. They will regard the court as having usurped and destroyed a
power of determining “indecency” that belongs to Parliament. In
principle I don’t like genuine “judicial activism”, but this decision also binds future courts; it has the effect of reducing the power of every branch of government, including the judiciary,
to assist in outlawing private behaviour and expressive materials.
Can’t social conservatives tell the difference between judicial
activism that expands the power of the state–like adding
newly-invented “protected grounds” to discrimination law–and judicial
activism that inhibits it?
Nah. What they care about is that the power of the
state be used for their own preferred ends. Hey, some of my best
friends are social conservatives. But when it comes to subjects like
this, most of them posses nothing resembling a philosophy–merely a
reflexive claim to authority.
In fact, it’s the same reflexive claim of authority that socons accuse progressives of touting.
I feel that in the end, we’ll put a uniquely Canadian spin on swinging, giving it a touch of good ol’ Canuck politesse: