NASCA International

Recent Swing Club court cases in the news.

Vancouver, Canada - On the eve of opening North America's first safe-injection site for drug users, Vancouver City Council has now sanctioned the right of sex-trade businesses to operate from local residences. In a surprise move, councillors voted 4-3 to include elements of the sex trade among approved businesses that a person can run from their home in the city's increasingly residential downtown core. Such a move would certainly be a Canadian first, said Simon Fraser University criminologist John Lowman, an expert on prostitution law. "Hats off to city council. This is a step in the right direction," Prof. Lowman said, citing the scores of street prostitutes who have died at the hands of customers in recent years. The council vote overturned an attempt by city officials to exclude "any dating service, entertainment service, exotic dancer business, social escort service or other similar business" from the expansion of commercial activity to be allowed in ground-level, downtown residences. The vote took place after Jamie-Lee Hamilton, a well-known advocate for prostitutes, spoke out against excluding sex-oriented businesses from the city bylaw. "It was very discriminatory," the transgendered Ms. Hamilton said yesterday. "It would have allowed lawyers, consultants, graphic designers, etc., to operate from their residences, but say no to escort agencies and the sex trade. That's discrimination. "Instead of treating sex workers as oddities, they should have the same rights as everyone else in society." Previously, all home businesses in Vancouver were limited to so-called "craftwork" type operations, with no outside employees, on-site sales or signage. Now, some people in selected areas will be able to run larger operations from their residences. Employees may be hired, some sales conducted and signs allowed. Sex-oriented businesses, including escort agencies, are among those covered by the change. Although Mayor Larry Campbell was not present for Wednesday night's vote and was unsure yesterday about the implications, he praised council for its chutzpah. "If this means Vancouver is 'out there,' so be it," Mr. Campbell said, noting the city's landmark safe-injection site, which opens Monday, and its current study of all aspects of gambling. "We're a city that is not afraid to discuss things." The mayor said something must be done to protect sex-trade workers, particularly in light of the scores of prostitutes who have gone missing from the poor, Downtown Eastside. However, Mr. Campbell said he personally favours regulated "red light" districts as the best way to do that, rather than permitting residential brothels. It was not clear whether the new bylaw goes that far, since keeping a common bawdy house remains a Criminal Code violation. "We're talking about a municipal bylaw here," Prof. Lowman said. "Unfortunately, the Criminal Code trumps that." But he congratulated Vancouver City Council for confronting the issue of Canada's prostitution laws, which he said are hypocritical and dangerous for prostitutes. Councillor Peter Ladner, who voted against the bylaw change, criticized the decision to include parts of the sex trade among permitted residential business operations. "Does an escort service actually mean sex-trade workers right on site? Does it include body-rub parlours? There are a lot of unanswered questions," Mr. Ladner said. "I think they [those who favoured the bylaw change] got carried away with the plight of sex-trade workers and listening to Jamie-Lee Hamilton, and were blinded by the reality of what they were doing. "I mean, if an escort service just means a greasy guy with a computer, who cares? But if you call the escort service and they say 'come on over,' then that's a lot different." Escort agencies and body-rub parlours, as in other Canadian cities, are licensed by the municipal government, although they operate in a murky legal environment. Councillor Anne Roberts said she voted against excluding sex-trade businesses from the so-called Office Live-Work bylaw because she felt it was discriminatory to leave them out when they are already licensed and regulated by the city. Ms. Roberts added that the bylaw includes a "good neighbourhood" agreement, ensuring that neighbours are not disturbed by unruly behaviour. Councillor Tim Louis, another supporter, called the move an experiment. "We will watch and listen. We are open-minded about this." _________________________________________________________________

Canadian Press: Montreal — Swingers clubs will start springing up across Canada after a Montreal judge who convicted five swingers ruled their activities are not necessarily illegal, the head of a Quebec swingers association said Friday. Municipal court Judge Denis Boisvert found five people guilty of swinging-related offences, but he said in his judgment that "contemporary Canadian society tolerates swinging and swingers clubs if the sexual acts take place in private." Jean Hamel, president of the 8,000-member Quebec Swingers Association, predicted Judge Boisvert's ruling released Friday will have national ramifications. "This judgment will affect all of Canada," Jean Hamel said in an interview. "I don't think more clubs will open in Quebec but I think it will open doors for other places in Canada like Toronto, where they didn't have any clubs with sexual activities on premises. "So that will be a big change for Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver, because the only province in Canada that you could find sexual relations on premises was Quebec. Quebec has always been a pioneer with sexual practices." Judge Boisvert found Denis Chesnel and his daughter Brigitte guilty on two counts each of running a bawdy house. Mr. Chesnel was also found guilty on one other charge, while his daughter was convicted on two others. Three other people were convicted of being present in a bawdy house. Denis Chesnel said he wasn't too disappointed with Judge Boisvert's judgment, although he called it a double standard. "The gays, they do what they want," Mr. Chesnel said. "Us hetero people, we can't do what we want. It's a joke." At the heart of Judge Boisvert's ruling was the notion of public sex versus private sex. "If the sexual acts take place in public, even among consenting adults, that is no longer swinging, but an orgy," he wrote. "And Canadians do not tolerate orgies or other Canadians participating in orgies." Judge Boisvert noted that most of the bedrooms in one of the two places that were raided didn't have any doors, making them a "common space." But he didn't outline what constitutes public or private, saying each case must be analyzed on an individual basis. The charges against the Chesnels and several other people were laid after undercover police visited two private residences in 1999 and witnessed various sexual acts involving multiple partners. Mr. Chesnel, who faces fines of up to $2,500, predicted more people will join his cause and dismissed a suggestion the convictions will scare off potential swingers. "No, no, not at all. They'll just be careful about the places they go because there are swingers clubs and then there are swingers clubs. So people will probably watch out where they go, where it's mostly legal." Judge Boisvert wrote that the sexual activities took place in public because the general public had access to the two buildings after seeing various newspaper and Internet ads. A lawyer who defended a woman acquitted by Judge Boisvert said there was cause for celebration for swingers despite the convictions. "This is good news because now we have a judgment establishing clearly that swinging is perfectly legal in Canada, depending if the act happens publicly or in private," said Bernard Corbeil. ___________________________________________________________________
COMES NATURALLY #138 Copyright © 2003 David Steinberg
"A MASSIVE DISRUPTION OF THE CURRENT SOCIAL ORDER" "What a massive disruption of the current social order... This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws [laws against fornication, bigamy, masturbation, adultery, prostitution, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity] can survive rational-basis review." -- Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting from the majority ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, June 26, 2003 It could have been "just" a gay rights decision. It could have been nothing more than a decision ordering that homosexuals be treated equally with heterosexuals when it comes to state regulation of sexual practices. It could have been a ruling that the state of Texas could only outlaw sodomy between homosexuals if it applied those restrictions to heterosexuals as well. That in itself would have been historic, a major victory for gay and lesbian rights after 17 years of legal campaigning, a cause for special celebration in gay pride events across the country. But that's not what the Supreme Court chose to say on June 26 when it issued its anxiously awaited decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Instead, the Court chose to go much further than affirming the right of gays and lesbians to have sex on an equal basis with heterosexuals. Instead, the Court decided to challenge the very idea that government has any right whatsoever to tell consenting adults of all sexual orientations and all sexual inclinations how they may or may not have sex in the privacy of their homes. "Were we to hold the [Texas prohibition of sodomy] invalid under the Equal Protection Clause," Justice Anthony Kennedy writes in his remarkable majority opinion, "some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit [sodomy] both between same-sex and different-sex participants." No, says Kennedy for the Court. The state has no business attempting "to define the meaning of the [sexual] relationship or set its boundaries." None at all, for consenting adults, unless there is "injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects." Why? Because, Kennedy says with more sexual appreciation than anyone could possibly expect from the inner sanctums of established government, it is essential that adults be able to "choose to enter upon this relationship [sex] in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons." The venerable Sexual Freedom League could not have said it better. Kennedy goes on to issue a veritable treatise on the importance of sex in human relations, and the history of sexual attitudes and legal constraints in this country. He cites the brilliant and radical work of John D'Emilio and Estelle Freedman ("Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America"). He notes that 19th-century sodomy prosecutions typically involved sex between adults and children, "predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent," not oral or anal sex between adults. He emphasizes that, prior to the 1970s, homosexuals were never singled out for criminal prosecution, that the very "concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century." He notes the dramatic changes in sexual attitudes that have occurred since the 1960s and cites these in defense of his ruling. "Our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here," says Kennedy -- the "emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." Laws that "purport to do no more than prohibit a sexual act" actually "have more far-reaching consequences," Kennedy observes, "touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home." Sex is so fundamental a part of human relationships, says Kennedy, that, in the name of basic liberty, the state must leave individuals free to pursue it however they please. To do otherwise subjects individuals to a stigma that is "not trivial," he says, including the requirement that they register as sex offenders in at least four states. Sex, Kennedy philosophizes in the passage most widely cited in media reports, is much more significant than the performance of a specific act. "When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring." The issue of sexual freedom, he says, is nothing less than one's "right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Then Kennedy really gets down to brass tacks. "The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce [its 'religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family'] on the whole society through operation of criminal law." It may not, Kennedy declares unequivocally. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, the publicity-shunning appellants in Lawrence v. Texas, have the right to engage in sex however they please, without the intrusion of the state, says Kennedy, not only because homosexuals should be equal in standing to heterosexuals, but more fundamentally because "individual decisions by [both married and unmarried] persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." "Keep Your Laws Off My Body" reads the decades-old slogan that gay rights activists and sexual crusaders of all stripes have emblazoned on hundreds of thousands of protest signs, t-shirts, and bumper stickers. Anthony Kennedy could appropriately have been wearing just such a t-shirt under his judicial robes when he delivered his majority opinion, speaking for five of the nine Supreme Court Justices. (Sandra Day O'Connor, the sixth vote in the Court's 6-3 decision, restricted her concurrence to the issue of equal rights for homosexuals.) Just as Brown v. Board of Education profoundly changed the legal standing of African-Americans in 1954, just as Roe v. Wade radically altered the circumstances of women in 1973, so does Lawrence v. Texas completely redefine the ongoing struggle for sexual freedom, autonomy, and self-determination in this country. The ruling is unambiguous, unrelenting, unqualified, and crystal clear. No group in society -- no matter how fervent, no matter how large -- has the right to impose its views about how people should and should not have sex on everyone else. Scalia is right. All laws prohibiting fornication, masturbation, adultery, playing with sex toys, attending private swingers parties and s/m clubs, prostitution, bigamy, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity must now be called into question and arguably overturned. Everyone who has long believed something along those lines need no longer feel the slightest bit hesitant to say so. It's not just a bunch of fringe perverts who believe in the importance of sexual freedom and self-determination, it's the majority of a very conservative United States Supreme Court. "Two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other [engage in sex] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." Social conservatives from Antonin Scalia to Jerry Falwell are stunned and angered by the Court's decision, as well they ought to be. Just when they thought they had the Supreme Court in their hip pocket, look what happens. "This is probably as bad a day as the court has had on social issues since Roe v. Wade," Falwell told The New York Times. "A grand-slam homer for the other side," bemoaned Jay Sekulow of Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), who created a major conundrum for George Bush with his remarks about the case prior to the June 26 decision, was quick to say I-told-you-so. Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, accused the Court of "pillaging its way through the moral norms of our country." But while social conservatives go apoplectic and scurry around drafting constitutional amendments to prevent Lawrence v. Texas from turning the tables in the ongoing debate about gay marriage, libertarian conservatives like William Safire are unapologetically delighted with the ruling. "The Supreme Court has just slammed America's bedroom door," Safire wrote in his nationally syndicated column. "Libertarian conservatives like me who place a high value on personal freedom consider Lawrence v. Texas a victory in the war to defend everyone's privacy." Indeed, Lawrence v. Texas places the social conservatives of the Religious Right in direct opposition to the libertarians who are often their political allies. Conservative politicians from George Bush down to your local Congressperson and State Representative are going to have to do some fancy footwork to hold their newly-divergent constituencies together. Meanwhile, everyone in America gets to be reminded that sexual diversity is as patriotically American as flying the stars and stripes. Ben Franklin is, without doubt, grinning from his grave. David Steinberg P.O. Box 2992 Santa Cruz, CA 95063 (831) 426-7082 eronat@aol.com ____________________________________________________________________________

Recent Swing Club court cases in the news.

LEGAL FUND PLEA

Club Chameleon, Phoenix, AZ.

"The legal battle that Club Chameleon is facing seems to be the main topic of all the emails that we have received at the clubs website. It also seems to be the main topic of discussion with most of the people that we have seen at the club. The postings on the Club Chameleon Yahoo posting board is loaded with ideas, well wishes, outrage at the city, and promises of help. This is all very commendable, people coming out of the woodwork pledging to help in any way that they can. Well folks, words seem to be really easy to post, say, and publish. The fact of the matter is that we have had only two - yes that is not a typo - 2 - donations that have been sent in to the club via the clubs website. The legal fees are mounting and the donations that have come in sure won't pay for much of the court costs. Milo and Nancy have put it on the line for all of us, with Milo even spending a night in jail so that we could enjoy the freedom of choice that we have in attending Club Chameleon. Now is the time to either put up or shut up. Now is no longer the time for mere words. Do you all really mean what you say. Dee and I are asking everyone that gets this email to get your credit card out right now and throw something in the pot. If you want to continue this fight for your freedom to attend clubs like Club Chameleon - lets ante up now..... Go to the link below and click on the donate icon. We are not asking for loose change, we believe that everyone that has ever attended a club like Club Chameleon should donate at least the cost of one Saturday night. - Yes, that is $40..... If you don't do it now or you may never be able to spend another $40 in going to a club again, because if we loose the legal battle here, there won't be any more clubs. And this does not just mean in Phoenix. This insidious cancer that is eating at our freedoms will spread to every city in the country. Only you can stop it. Stop it here in Phoenix before it spreads to the rest of the country. If you don't believe in this fight, then save your $40 bucks. You can use it to go to the movies for one or two nights, because without clubs like Club Chameleon, that will be all you can do on a Saturday night. For those that can afford more than $40. please stretch a little and let's see a whole bunch of hundred-dollar donations. Better yet, how about a few thousand-dollar donations. We know there are people out there that can afford this. Let's hear from you. Let's show the city of Phoenix that we will not let them usurp our rights. Fight back now - with your pocketbook - or you will not be able to fight back later for there will be nothing left to fight for."

Go to the following link and hit that donate button now.

http://www.clubchameleon.com/legal-fund.htm

Dick & Dee Club Chameleon webmasters

____________________________________________________________________________

Follow-up

The local Phoenix, Arizona authorities have an ongoing agenda to rid their community of on-premise swing clubs using the rationale that they are doing this to stop the spread of STD's. This is utterly ridiculous and ignorant. We must assert the protection that the 1st, 4th & 14th amendments to our constitution provide us. 1st - Freedom of Speech. 4th - Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. 14th- No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law & every person shall have equal protection of the law. Invariably, the legal battle to fight becomes cost-prohibitive and of course we all know which side has inexhaustible funds. Every time a club closes we all lose. If you want your local clubs to continue operating, you need to be pro-active in staying politically aware and active in your local community as well as nationally. Your local politicians have a major effect on your life as well as the Supreme Court. We all need to promote a greater awareness of who and what we are and what we want for ourselves. If you want this lifestyle as an integral part of your life then you need to keep yourself aware of what is going on in the industry. NASCA's function is to promote, disseminate and assist you in obtaining the current "state of the lifestyle". The battle line continues to be in Phoenix. We must dig in and stop this invasion once and for all A 1998 Phoenix City Council meeting showed the lack of secondary effects along with reduced crime stats and lower calls for police service around clubs. Apparently they do not much care for facts! Usually clubs get hassled due to zoning, noise or alcohol violations. None of those are applicable here. This harassment apparently is fueled by the National Family Legal Foundation. Their agenda is to dictate their extremist stance on the entire general population. NASCA protests the ban that the Phoenix City Council has enacted against on-premise swing clubs. It must stop here, otherwise it will proliferate and become an insidious contagious virus that other government bodies will adopt in an attempt to control our freedom of expression. ! NASCA INT. Tony Lanzaratta Executive Director TonyL@nasca.com (714) 229-4870

Tony Lanzaratta

Executive Director

NASCA INT.