I don’t get it.  Or probably more accurately these people don’t get it:

Wash lawmakers want to ban overseas sex tours

By RACHEL LA CORTE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Travel agents wouldn’t be able to book or sell “sex tours” under a measure lawmakers are considering, following the lead of Hawaii, which signed a similar bill into law two years ago.

Arranging such tours would be a Class C felony, intended to crack down on sex tours to such places as Thailand. Violators would face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

Sen. Karen Fraser, the main sponsor of the bill, said she wants to help reduce the demand for such trips. While she said she wasn’t aware of any Washington state travel agents offering such tours, she said the state needs to take a pre-emptive stand.

“It is a global moral issue, and we should take every step we can to try and reduce sex slavery,” she said.

Okay, I’m against slavery of any type but not all sex for money involves slavery.  Prostitution is legal in many countries and even some counties in Nevada.  Would this law prohibit a “sex tour” to Nevada too?  Just because these Puritans in the Washington State legislature want something to be against the law everywhere doesn’t mean they have the authority to exercise that control over their citizen when they travel outside the state.  They can’t tell their citizens they can’t use a machine gun or suppressor when they visit Oregon, Idaho, or Nevada.  They can’t tell their homosexual residents they can’t get married while in Massachusetts if they meet the requirements of that state.  If they want to exercise that type of control then they should just be up front about it, put up their own “Berlin Wall”, and make it illegal for their residents to leave the state.

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.

From the Ottawa Sun:

The Supreme Court of Canada is set to rule on whether
spouse-swapping in public venues should be a criminal act. The
ground-breaking case, which could set new standards for decency in
Canadian society, stems from two Montreal “swingers” clubs charged with
keeping a bawdy house.

One defendant, James Kouri, ran the Coeur a Corps bar, where couples
could hook up by paying a $6 cover charge. Every half hour, a
translucent black curtain automatically closed around the dance floor
while people took part in, or watched, sex acts.

Kouri was convicted of keeping a common bawdy house and sentenced to
pay fines of $500 on the first count and $5,000 on the second. He won
acquittal from Quebec’s top court, but the other club owner, Jean-Paul
Labaye, lost his appeal.

Although there are similar prosecutions happening in the
U.S. it’s frequently a socialist (when you think about it you realize
religion is frequently very socialist) mindset that drives this sort of
prosecution.  The people are just cattle to be
herded/controlled.  They don’t have the brains to make decisions
for themselves.  It’s for the “greater good” that people are
forbidden dominion over their own bodies.