coldstream said:
There is an issue here of societal norms of behaviour, of zoning, of social conventions. There might be an issue of privacy but there is also one of countervailing public responsibility. These things rightly belong in the realm of a legislature, not a high court. If sex clubs are a 'right' then clearly someone has the 'right' to open a brothel in the house next door, or next to the local school.
If the House of Commons were to legislate more specifically in relation to "sex clubs," as you call them, then the Supreme Court would have had something more to work with. As it is, they were given loose legislation and the broad
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to work with. They cannot "override" the Charter with what you would believe, rightly or wrongly, to be common sense.
coldstream said:
What we have seen in the Supreme Court of Canada, and the provincial High Courts, is a de facto judicial coup over legislative priviledge. It has imposed homosexual mores on a society that has had thousands of years of sequestering the phenomenon on religious and moral grounds. It has caved into a form of rampant individualism, free from notions of social responsiblity, on the most specious of grounds.
In terms of "religious grounds," they have no place in the Supreme Court. Moreover, there has been no such "judicial coup." This ruling can be overridden at any time through the invocation of the
notwithstanding clause of the Charter by the House of Commons; it isn't a "coup" if the House can overrule the Court, and intentionally chooses not to do so. We have our elected representatives, whether they are in the right or wrong, to thank for that.
coldstream said:
The hypothesis that a judge, by virtue of a law degree, has some special insight into rights and justice is being proved ridiculous by these rulings we see coming out now. Some time ago in Ontario, a tribune demanded that a Catholic school allow a homosexual high school 'couple' to come 'flagrante' to prom. They could have come as individuals, kept their relationship to themselves, but what the judges did was demand that a religious school recognize something that is scripturally defined as abomination (and rightly so) as valid. So much for freedom of religion.
One must keep in mind that the Justices of the Supreme Court are not ruling on the basis of their personal experience, or on their own opinions or feelings. They are making rulings on the basis of Canadian law; if their rulings do not reflect the values of Canadians, then our legislation does not reflect our values; it isn't the Supreme Court that needs to be reformed, but rather the Acts of Parliament that have already been adopted by a majority.
And another note on this, how I am I an "abomination?" I'm a gay teen, and I thought I was quite welcome in Canada. Hm. Learn something new every day, I suppose. And nobody says that just because the Courts have ruled, every now and then, in favour of "homosexual rights," or whatever you'd like to call them, doesn't mean you have to turn gay, now does it?
coldstream said:
Clearly this is the result of a court system out of control. Of a judiciary drunk with its own power, responsible to no one but their own shrivelled consciences. It brings to mind Lord Acton's admonition that "Absolute power, corrupts, absolutely". Certainly the Liberals continue to appoint these average minds, degraded intellects and moral pygmies to the courts as trusted hacks who won't hunt them down for their corruption.
Clearly, this is the result of a House of Commons that has not legislated in favour of your preferred policies. The Judiciary is not drunk with its own power, since this ruling could be overturned by the House of Commons with a simple majority vote to invoke the
notwithstanding clause. And in terms of "corruption," the Supreme Court has not been asked to answer any questions relating to the alleged corruption in the Liberal Party — they cannot initiate any inquery or reference on their own.
coldstream said:
The Charter of Rights, has shown, clearly that a constitution of this sort is an ANATHEMA to a Parliamentary system. It works well enough in a republican system like that of the Americans which has adequate checks and balances on the courts, but that is a written tradition. The oral tradition of Parliament has none of the constraints and restraints on the judiciary. Hence we are in the fix we are in, when Parliament ceased to be the highest court in the land.
Let's consider the differences between the Judiciary in Canada, and the United States' courts. Justices in the United States are permitted to be completely and unabridgedly partisan. They can openly exercise their powers in the name of whatever political party they see fit, to serve any political agenda they choose. Whereas in Canada, our Justices can be removed from office if seen as acting overtly partisan — our Justices do not dictate social policy, they answer the Government's questions and rule on the validity of Canadian law as being, or not being, as the case may be, consistent with the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I feel incredibly lucky to live in a nation where my rights and freedoms are so clearly drawn up and protected by a body so respectful and dutiful as our Supreme Court of Canada.
coldstream said:
I really don't care about sex clubs, they can rent a warehouse somewhere on the city's outskirts and have an orgy for all I care. There has always been an element of this sort in our culture. I don't want it next door to me, though. And its not a 'right'.. no more than injecting drugs or having someone aid you in committing suicide is a 'right'.
So, a person cannot have sex with more than one other person at the same time? That is not their right? Perhaps you should re-read the ruling; the Court ruled that the Government has no place dictating with whom, or with how many people, one can have sex, so long as it does not cause harm to society. If some consenting adults are having sex in a safe environment, whether or not they choose to have an audience while they do so, in the confines of a building clearly labelled as existing for that purpose, then it causes
you no harm. If you don't like it, then don't watch.
coldstream said:
Out of control sexual profligacy however, will inevitably lead to increased disease, and to substance abuse.. hence to crime. Those things go hand in hand, and that affects everyone in society. We now have judges who are moral reprobates, infested with sophistry and self interest. Clearly we are in for a period of sexual carnival now, promoted and protected by the Liberals, we'll see what comes of it.
If increased disease comes of this, then that is our own fault, as citizens, for not exercising safe sex. Sex and substance abuse do not go hand-in-hand; if people did not have to "hide" and avoid the law in order to have sex how they see fit, then it would not be seen as such a shady activity, in my opinion. Again, I don't plan on having an "orgy," nevermind with others watching, but I recognize the right of others to do the same.
I doubt we're in for a period of "sexual carnival." There are very few of these "institutions" in existence in Canada as of today. Furthermore, the Liberal Party is not "protecting" this apparent "right;" rather, the Supreme Court of Canada has chosen to protect what it deems to be a right in light of the Charter. That is their prerogative, and their duty.
If an error has indeed been made, then I would far prefer, as I am sure many Canadians would agree, that the Supreme Court err on the side of
more rights than I would it err on the side of too few.
With all due respect,
coldstream, I disagree. And while I doubt that my comments will have changed your mind in the least, our system of governance requires that we all express our opinions in order for it to be effective.
Happy holidays,
coldstream, and to everyone else as well.
Note Edited to resolve formatting issues.
