Recognizing that Trudeau's "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" is anathema to Canadians, the Court has ruled accordingly. Reading the case makes it even more clear to me that the majority focused more on precedent rather than the black and white text of the law. Indeed, there is absolutely no analysis in the majority opinion of the part of the Criminal Code being broken, s. 210(d). Instead, the majority revels in playing the philosopher king, asking: is a bawdy house indecent? does it cause harm? does our Canadian tolerance extent to bawdy houses? Here is the relevant section in the criminal code:
Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.Case closed. Yet, the judges babble about decency and harm.
The real big issue, in my opinion, is the continuing neo-natural law jurisprudence of this Court. This neo-natural law jurispudence evidently appears to focus more on good sounding slogans than law. "Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society," says McLachlin. Essentially, the Court has baptized the harm principle.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RULING IS THUS: Logically, these sexual decisions based on consent may logically lead into economic decisions between people based on consent. Look at McLachlin's formulae to test whether or not state interference is unjust or not. I have been saying for years that this type of sexual liberation in society is really bad news for government. Not only do they lose their right to legislate for the public good (morality). But they may also lose their economic right to intrude on its citizens.
For example, I cannot set up a gambling operation in my house. I need a license from the state. But why would I need to under the logic of these sexual liberation cases? If consent without harm=permissable without state interference, the government requirement of a license ought to be nulled unconstitutional and void. Heck, the concept of "taxes" is an implicit interference upon two or more private consenting individuals.
Since a situation where the Court rules taxes unconstitutional based on the firewall of consent is absurd, so must this decision be. And thus, the signficance of this case is not a drawback of public morality, but of a dangerous road of precedent being developed.