Three days ago I told you the Canadian Supreme Court was about to rule on the legality of swingers clubs.  The ruling is out now:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Group sex between consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday, dismissing arguments that the sometimes raucous activities of so-called "swingers" clubs were dangerous.

In a ruling that radically changes the way Canadian courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the court threw out the conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have group sex in a private room behind locked doors.

"Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society," said the opinion of the seven-to-two majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

...

"Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society. The Crown failed to establish this essential element of the offence. The Crown's case must therefore fail," wrote McLachlin.

In indecency cases, Canadian courts have traditionally probed whether the acts in question "breached the rules of conduct necessary for the proper functioning of society". The Supreme Court ruled that from now on, judges should pay more attention to whether society would be harmed.

The judges said that just because most Canadians might disapprove of swingers' clubs, this did not necessarily mean the establishments were socially dangerous.

"Attitudes in themselves are not crimes, however deviant they may be or disgusting they may appear," the judges said, noting that no one had been pressured to have sex or had paid for sex in either of the cases.

"The autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with the sexual activity in question only those already disposed to this sort of sexual activity were allowed to participate and watch," they said.

I won't be going to Canada anytime soon even if Barb said I could do some "field research".  They may have figured out sex between consenting adults isn't a threat to society at large but they haven't figured out that someone that carries a handgun for person protection and hasn't ever committed any crime worse that going 10 or 15 MPH over the speed limit isn't a threat either.  But this is a step away from the Nanny State.  I wish the fiscal conservatives in this country would realize that being a Nanny State isn't just about refusing to let people spend their own money however they think is best.  It's also a Nanny State that tells individuals they can't fry their brains with recreational drugs, marry the person of their choice, or play a group game of belly bump.