Swinging Supremely

Just in time for Xmas, the Supreme Court has handed its decision on swingers clubs in Quebec. According to the Supreme Court, there is nothing indecent about group sexual relations in a commercial business while others watch.

We have come to the point that even the elderly in the Court do not see the objectification of sex in these kinds of things:

Everyone going into the bars knew what to expect, she added, and at both clubs there was no evidence of anti-social acts or attitudes. “No one was pressured to have sex, paid for sex, or [was] treated as a mere sexual object for the gratification of others.”

The categorical assertion that “everyone knew” would suggest that the seven Justices who favoured the swingers clubs may have taken a little research trip to Montreal sometime this year. In some instances, people come to swap spouses with others for sexual purposes right on the premises, but Justice McLachlin does not see any objectification at all: it’s all out of the purest for of love.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin did raise the question of communicating venereal diseases. But she quickly found that venereal disease is as disconnected from decency as the judges are connected with most decent Canadians. It’s perfectly decent, in her view, to acquire a collection of venereal diseases at one of these swingers clubs and later to have the wider public pay for the treatment. There are no ethics involved in that either.

Crossposted from Civitatensis.ca