YOUR SPACE:
Swingers clubs don't harm society, top court rules
CBC News Viewpoint | December 2005
 Interior of a Montreal swinger club
The high court, which was ruling on two Quebec cases, said Canadian standards can tolerate the activities, even when they are done amid spectators.
The judges, in a 7-2 ruling, said the test for indecency is the harm it causes, and not simply community standards.
The cases involve two swingers clubs in Montreal that allowed sex acts, including swapping.
Your letters:
My wife and I just got involved in swinging one year ago, after 18 years of monogamous marriage and a 3 year courtship. We're the couple next door with children and a parent that we care for.
There are fewer negative emotions and relationship problems among those that we have met then we have seen in couples we know within our church.
Most (but not all) people within the swing lifestyle practice "safer sex" - condoms, etc. - and rule #1 is No means NO - otherwise the person not listening will be asked to leave.
"Not being a willing participant" is abuse - it's not swinging.
—Kurt | Minneapolis, MN
I have to say that I whole heatedly disagree with Supreme Court’s ruling on Swinger’s clubs.
Our laws, especially those pertaining to morality are continually being eroded, especially by the judiciary, who change them based on regressive societal whims. Do you think that anything we’re doing now hasn’t been done in the past? Swinging isn’t a new fad, it’s been around for eons – so has homosexuality, bestiality and polygamy.
Our society, in the not so distant past, examined these issues and found them to be more harmful to society than beneficial, and therefore outlawed them. These laws were established not by an imposed judiciary but by elected officials, or by common law and tradition.
—Kevin Lavoie | Quesnel, B.C.
Well done to the Supreme Court. To those who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and therefore think it is appropriate to control others, maybe you should look inside and find out what it is that you are uncomfortable with and why.
Then you may be able to work through your own sexual issues without attempting to put reins on other Canadians because you feel uncomfortable.
—M Nelson | Salt Spring Island, B.C.
So, what other activities will the Supreme Court approve of because in their opinion does not cause harm to society? And what makes them experts in determining what constitutes harm? Our country is slipping into moral decay, with people cheering on as the authorities pave the way.
To simply say let people do what they want is potentially destructive to society. For hundreds of years, societies have recognized the harm that comes with certain types of behaviour, such as substance abuse, hostility, and immorality.
Those who support immoral activities are short sighted and not looking to the long term strength in the fabric of society. Moral decay was one contributing reason that the Roman empire fell.
—Jim | Vancouver
I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court and with the motivation in making that decision. As long as sex is consensual, it's fine. To those who don't like it, well don't do it more than once.
—Michael Sharon | Montreal, Québec
This is just one more shameful thing in our society in Canada. What on earth do I tell my children? What are the values we are promoting here. What happened to this wonderful nation?
And we are so surprised of nations that have polygamy.
I am not sure where are we heading here.
—Jane Austin | Ottawa
What's next: polygamy?
I think that the decision is ridiculous.
Soon enough Canada will be so free, that there will be no guarantees for our kids to ever live in a stable home. Stop this nonsense. Don't give in to people with sexual problems - help them by leading them to a safe and positive self-image, instead of reinforcing deviant behaviour.
—Ina Kulczynska | Kitchener, Ontario
Here's the thing - either swingers do their swinger-thing in the privacy of their own homes, or they do it in clubs. Ruling for or against clubs does not stop the swinger's movement, nor does it slow it down.
Those who believe in partner swapping will partner swap. The question here, it seems to me, was whether or not the two clubs were running a bawdy house. Sex was not sold, no one was forced, it's paying customers with paying customers.
The fact of the matter here is that the club exists due to demand. Demand is not created by the clubs. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling - if it harms no one, do as you wish.
—Mei | Ottawa
This ruling is a positive movement for Canada ethically, although should have been an obvious one. That it took to until the year 2005 to reach such a ruling shows that there is still a lot of superstition and backwards ideas governing the role of law.
I can appreciate that such activities as having sex with multiple partners does offend the sensibilities of certain citizens, however the law is not there to protect their tastes. It is there to protect people from harm.
By limiting actions which do not harm others you are harming citizens. To persecute people for such ridiculous charges turns the law into a tool for what it is trying to stop: The mistreatment of it's citizens.
—Peter Utgaard | Victoria, B.C.
I'm disturbed at this ruling. Though it does not affect me personally as I would never go to one of these clubs, it bothers me that the federal courts are condoning this sexually deviant behaviour.
I read a lot of these comments about this that say that as long as they are consenting adults, its their own business. There has to be a line drawn somewhere when we say enough is enough.
I shudder to think one day I might hear the same argument for allowing perhaps even more sexual deviant practices in the future. Why must people indulge themselves in sexual practices such as these? I'm ashamed that we are arrogant enough as a nation to make silly statements like "keep the government out of the bedroom" when people treat sex as just another desire to be indulged in rather than a sign of commitment and love between two individuals.
—Joel Bain | Lions Bay, B.C.
As a proud Canadian, and as a swinger, I am thrilled to read about this ruling!
The STD argument that people make is laughable. My "monogamous" friends and I had way more prescriptions for antibiotics than do any fellow swingers.
All in all, if more people were tolerant about what goes on between consenting adults whether it involves swinging, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever this world would be a way better place!
The interesting thing about the Lifestyle is that we have met so many more couples that are just a pleasure to be around (less bickering, total honesty, less eye-rolling behind their spouse's back, people who live life to the fullest, people who push boundaries, spouses to truly TALK to each other in an open fashion) as compared to sexually "monogamous" couples.
Heck, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that a lifetime of imposed sexual monogamy is probably more dangerous to the well-being of society, than letting consenting adults enjoy each other!
—Mark P. | Hinton, Alberta
I've read the letters about the Supreme Courts decision and wonder a couple of things.
How do people bring any government into this decision? The decision was made by a group of non elected officials who know our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and FREEDOMS inside and out.
This is simply a RIGHTS issue here people, what gives you the authority to oppress your views on everyone else. Just as we have the FREEDOM of movement, we can travel anywhere in this great country without having to check in with the authorities, people who want to share partners behind closed doors away from the public eye should be FREE to do so.
—David Munro | Barrie, Ontario
Right on Supreme Court!! You make me proud. I am impressed by your courage to make such a rational ruling.
I think you are absolutely right in measuring indecency by the harm it causes. I think that consenting adults should be allowed to do what they please behind closed doors as long as no one comes to harm. Of course all consenting adults need to take responsibility for their own health, safety and emotional well being.
If they are not interested in swinging or if they are not interested in being monogamous they should be honest with their partner(s) and find someone who is compatible with their needs.
I certainly don't see this as a threat to monogamy, nor do I see monogamy as a situation that guarantees less harm. Being in a "monogamous relationship" doesn't mean that you are necessarily practicing safe sex, it doesn't ensure that your partner doesn't abuse you, it doesn't ensure that your partner will be faithful to you forever.
Good work Supreme Court.
—Karen Sun | Toronto
I applaud the Supreme Court's decision. I don't tell anyone else how to run their sex lives, and I don't want anyone to tell me how to run mine. I wouldn't personally go to a sex club, but I couldn't care less if someone else does. Even if I did care, that shouldn't make a difference. They should be free to live their lives however they wish, including their sex lives.
As to some of the issues raised by other posters (coercion, STDs, divorce), I very much doubt that a few sex clubs would have much impact on these issues.
Coercion is, and should remain, illegal in relation to sex as in relation to anything else. This ruling doesn't change that. STDs are a problem, and I would hope that everyone practices safe sex whether they're at a sex club or not. As for divorce, I doubt an otherwise healthy marriage would suffer if the spouses went to a sex club. An unhealthy one might, but such a marriage was probably doomed anyway.
Live and let live, I say. Bravo to the Supreme Court of Canada!
—Jon. Waller | Vancouver, B.C.
Everything everybody is commenting on here is exactly the same things as what people said when they decriminalized homosexual acts in the 60s.
If two consenting adults want to engage in this behavior, then so be it. You can't stop behavior simply because there might be something bad that COULD happen. By thaargumentnt nobody should drive cars because somebody is going to die in an accident.
If somebody is coerced, they should be charged and sent to jail.
—Christopher Hylarides | Toronto
I fail to see the problem here. These are adults who are engaging in behaviours they have consented to - in a place that is dedicated for this activity. Until this media report - did YOU ever really think about this issue anyway? No - because if you don't like it, you don't do it.
Their actions have no impact on anyone outside the walls in which the behaviour takes place. I think that adults can make their own decisions - and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that adults have fullfunctionalal brains - that permit adults to make good or bad decisions, but the point is that we still have the right to make that decision.
—Christopher Rastin | Gatineau, Québec
It's another example of the stupidity of a legal system which so narrowly defines things according to a charter that is fundamentally flawed.
No wonder Islamic nations look at our morality and cringe. How can anyone embrace a democratic example such as Canada when we allow such immorality to run amok and then have judges say it will not harm our society. This is why they are at war with our values.
—Chaim Olam | Vancouver
I support this ruling and any like it that sanction sex following relationship pathways that are not pre-established and not compulsory. We should think about and practice forms of being together that do not trap our relations in preconditions or habitual practices.
Such desire is a line of flight from the heterosexist and male-centered mode of organizing sexual relations hegemonic in Canada today. We should support bodies that crave extra-ordinary capacities to experiment and create novel affects.
If you are against freedom of sexual expression, if you wish to regulate sexual relations on the basis of moral presuppositions, you have to ask your self what is at stake in your discourse, how is your position on this issue simply sustaining forms of interpersonal domination you are already implicit in?
—Kevin Walby | Ottawa
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation nor should it be poking its nose into places where consenting adults are enjoying each other's bodies beyond the view of the public.
— Woody Waker | Halifax
The ignorance of the facts displayed by the writers of these comments is stunning; it's abundantly clear that none of these people have read the ruling in question. Every single one of the objections raised by the commenters was addressed in the judgement.
The sexual acts in question in this place occurred behind a locked door marked "Private," the combination to which was given only to club members. These club members had been interviewed beforehand and understood completely what was going on. Nobody else was allowed to participate.
Nobody was paid for sex, nobody was treated as a sexual object, and nobody was pressured to have sex. These acts took place in private, not public, among those who consented freely of their own will.
Are these commenters saying that the government should have the power to stop consensual, non-harmful sexual activity going on behind LOCKED DOORS just because they express moral disapprove? That is what's shocking and immoral, not this judgement.
—David Pischke | Toronto
From the responses listed here, it is obvious a lot of people love to speak about things they do not know about.
My wife and I have been swingers for years, and NEVER has there ever been an issues. No STD's (protection, protection, protection). No emotional entanglement. We never confuse who we love and who we are having sex with.
I have never witnessed any coercion. I have never pressured my wife. Anybody who seems a little uncomfortable with the situation, we don't push it. Swingers live by a code.
Until you actually experience it, you don't know what you are talking about.
—A. Swinger | Toronto
Shame! Shame! Shame! Canada is being run by a sick government and it will have a wake up call soon. Don't let me hear anyone complain about the Americans and their values when our Liberal government has elected such stupid judges all except two who had the moral sense to vote against such corruption.
—Therese Picard | Edmonton
How can partner swapping and group sex NOT harm Canadian society? Imagine the impact on children whose parents contract a disease from one of these clubs, or break up because they met someone at the club who pushes their buttons better!
These court judges who approved this are simply blind and morally bankrupt. I am ashamed of our country.
—Allan Dowdeswell | Saskatoon
Today's decision of the Supreme Court, that Swinger's Clubs are not Criminal and are not a threat to Canadian Society, shows exactly why we need a discussion by the Party leaders about the Moral Direction in which they and their Party would lead the country.
To be sure, Judge Made Laws, such as these, are yet another reason why people are turned off by the Liberal/NDP alliance, since these Parties obviously lack Moral Direction and would, in all likelyhood, agree to the Court's interpretation.
Lets hear their views openly. Are they in favour of debauchery or not.
—Lloyd McDougall | Mississauga
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of harm is. Isn't it ultimately harmful to both people and society when individuals are treated merely as instruments for the sexual gratification of others?
How free is any of the consent of the adults involved in these activities? Can the Supreme Court be absolutely certain there is no coercion involved with couples who seek swingers clubs?
What if one partner is leading another one who is somewhat reluctant? Coercion can be a very subtle thing, and can begin with emotional weapons-- the withholding of affection, for example.
It is the job of lawmakers to protect people from being imposed upon this way, and it is simply common sense for the laws of the country to discourage swinger's clubs and bawdy houses.
— Michelle Martin | Hamilton Ontario
How in the world could it not affect society especially when allowed in a public place? The more things I read like this the more it embarrasses me to be a part of a country that would allow this type of behaviour.
With all the diseases, violence and chances that not everyone would be a willing participant I can't imagine how it will not effect society.
— Linda | London, Ontario
In these days of AIDS and an increase in STD's, instead of practising safe sex in a monogamous relationship, the courts don't seem to care what we do. We can no longer say to our children that something is wrong because it is against the law.
Maybe the courts are trying to implement a new type of birth control? Just let them kill themselves off with their unsafe practices.
—Dianne Wood | Newmarket, Ontario
Send us your comments:
|
Disclaimer: The CBC reserves the right to edit submissions. Participants acknowledge that the CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize their comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. CBC News Online will post as many submissions as possible but can not guarantee that every contribution will be published.
|
^TOP
CBC Ombudsman
|
|
 |
 MENU |
|
|
| ABOUT VIEWPOINT: |
Viewpoint is CBC.ca's place for informed opinion and commentary. Our goal is to provide a range of informed perspectives from around the world and here at home on issues of interest to Canadians. All material published in the Viewpoint section is subject to CBC’s journalistic policy, standards and practices.
Writing for Viewpoint
We accept queries from people with significant expertise in their field and previous writing experience. We are interested in domestic and international contributions. We do not accept unsolicited finished pieces.
If you want to contribute to Viewpoint, please send your query to letters@cbc.ca with VIEWPOINT in the subject line and please include three samples of your published work. Columns are typically 800 words in length and focus on timely issues, events or personal stories with wide appeal. Please familiarize yourself with our content before submitting your ideas. Only those accepted will be contacted.
|
|
| FEEDBACK: |
|
|
| LETTER OF THE DAY: |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
» MORE
|
|
| MORE: |
|
|
|
