Advocate Judges

(The following is a letter written by a local Whitehorse resident that was published in our local paper. He has consented to allow me to place it on Limited Thinking.)

It's another blow to the fundamental unit of Canadian society: the home, by undermining the binding properties, upon which the foundation rests the cohesion and continuance of family life.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that group sex among consenting adults is neither indecent or a risk to society, and, therefore, lifted a ban on "swingers" clubs.

In one instance, the court agreed that "criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society."

And, it adds to the comment that the establishments are not necessarily socially harmful.

Further, saying that "attitudes in themselves are not crimes" and "the autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with sexual activity in question."

Finally, stating that individuals and couples are now free to exercise their "fundamental rights".

These are words of fools: those who do not understand the principles of family, of social and personal integrity and the Constitution.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognized the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." states the preamble.

Did anyone consult God on the matter? Does doing whatever one wants constitute freedom to exercise one's fundamental rights?

What, in truth, is the familial, individual and social impact of such permissiveness?

It denies the sanctity and unity of the home and the union of both husband and wife as an inseparable bond. The individual is free to choose his or her activities whether or not most Canadians disapprove of the activity, say the judges. Is this democracy in action?

People live together under rule of law for the express interests of the common good. When a few have rights contrary to this principle, society erodes, chaos ensues, anarchy reigns, unity is dissolved and a nation collapses.

Sexual freedom puts pressure on our social programs, like health care.

When, not long ago, pressure was put on the health care program of Canadian society from smokers, great action from government and anti-smoking activists was the attention across our nation.

Will not all this sexual activity put the same pressure on the program? Will not the increase of sexually-transmitted diseases burden the health care program?

Further, will not unwanted pregnancies increase, unwanted children be born, and, in turn, will not a burden be put on social services programs?

People need to take a stand for that which is right; does not righteousness exalt a nation?

The courts need not to wait until the problem arises before they take action. If morality is not at the centre of legislation - then what do we legislate?

God calls group sex "sin"; the Supreme Court judges call it "fundamental freedom".

Who is the wiser?

Ken Besler