Masturbation at home is your right, Canuks

[DPDarkPrimus]

ANCOUVER (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that masturbating at home is not an offence, even if the activity can be seen by peeking neighbours.

The case centred on whether a private space - Daryl Clark's living room - became public because others could view it. The high court said No in a unanimous ruling Thursday. "The living room of his private home was not a place 'to which the public (had) access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,' " Justice Morris Fish wrote, quoting the Criminal Code.

"I do not believe it (access) contemplates the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within."

On Oct. 28, 2000, Clark's neighbours across his backyard in Nanaimo, B.C., noticed "some movement" in Clark's living room.

The woman had been watching television with her two young daughters in their family room, a room lit only by a television screen and light from the adjoining kitchen.

The woman moved to another room for a better view, then called her husband. The pair watched Clark for up to 15 minutes from the privacy of their darkened bedroom.

The court found they took care to avoid being seen by Clark, peering out from underneath their partially lowered blinds. Later, the woman's husband fetched a pair of binoculars and a telescope. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to videotape Clark in action, says the judgment.

The judgment notes the pair were "understandably concerned" because they feared Clark was "masturbating to our children."

The neighbours, who are identified only as Mr. and Mrs. S, called police.

The officer was able to see Clark from his belly up from the neighbour's bedroom and from the neck or shoulders up from the street level.

But Clark was charged after the police officer shone his flashlight in Clark's window at close range.

The trial judge concluded he had "converted" his living room into a public place and the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

Clark was given a four-month sentence.

Gil McKinnon, Clark's lawyer, said his client is happy with the outcome and glad to be getting on with his life, but he's not interested in talking about his court fight.

McKinnon said the Supreme Court rejected the notion that people's private living spaces can be turned into public places just because someone can see inside.

"A person has the freedom in his or her own living room to do whatever they choose to do and is not caught by the criminal law if they have no intent to offend or insult someone who may not be on that private property."

The protection isn't extended to someone who commits an indecent act on their own property with the intention of letting the neighbours see it.

But in this case, the evidence suggested Clark had no idea he was being watched, the court found.

John Russell, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said he was surprised the case got before the courts in the first place.

But he said he was relieved the ruling went the way it did.

If it had gone the other way, "we would have to be a lot more careful about closing the drapes or covering up.

"In fact, most Canadians are careful in those ways and it would appear that the poor man had just failed to take the formal precautions."

Source

[Temjin]

The woman moved to another room for a better view, then called her husband. The pair watched Clark for up to 15 minutes from the privacy of their darkened bedroom.

The court found they took care to avoid being seen by Clark, peering out from underneath their partially lowered blinds. Later, the woman's husband fetched a pair of binoculars and a telescope. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to videotape Clark in action, says the judgment.

I think that couple has bigger problems then their neighbor masturbation in the "privacy" of his own home.

The judgment notes the pair were "understandably concerned" because they feared Clark was "masturbating to our children."

I missed something. What gave them that idea?

[Darth Wong]

The judgment notes the pair were "understandably concerned" because they feared Clark was "masturbating to our children."

I missed something. What gave them that idea?

They're probably fundies. Fundies always think "children" the moment they detect any hint of sexual deviance. That's actually quite disturbing when you think about it.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Pointed out seperately just so that none of you get any funny ideas...

The protection isn't extended to someone who commits an indecent act on their own property with the intention of letting the neighbours see it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Pointed out seperately just so that none of you get any funny ideas...

The protection isn't extended to someone who commits an indecent act on their own property with the intention of letting the neighbours see it.

When will somebody think of the exhibitionists?

[jcow79]

Now last I heard this was illegal in the US, right? Or did I miss a court decision somewhere?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Now last I heard this was illegal in the US, right? Or did I miss a court decision somewhere?

I recall Scalia expressing his opinion that Americans do not have sexual privcacy a while back, but I'm fairly certain some sort of correction/retraction was made. I can't remember exactly.

[jcow79]

Now last I heard this was illegal in the US, right? Or did I miss a court decision somewhere?

I recall Scalia expressing his opinion that Americans do not have sexual privcacy a while back, but I'm fairly certain some sort of correction/retraction was made. I can't remember exactly.

I'm thinking of a case in particular with a couple was arrested because they could be seen having sex through a window. I don't believe the curtains were drawn. Anyone know what came of this one?

[Shroom Man 777]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH BEING SEEN HAVING SEX OR JERKING OFF? I mean, if a guy and a girl were screwing and some dumbass fundie sees them accidentally, what the fuck is wrong? Can someone explain to me how anyone (save a dumbass fundie) would think of it as an offense? If I caught someone taking a dump, on his toilet, would it be an offense? Jebus.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Wait, where does it say they're fundies? Or is this just Wong pulling religion into a discussion just so he can bash it?

[Wedge]

Wait, where does it say they're fundies? Or is this just Wong pulling religion into a discussion just so he can bash it?

I think it's a fair assumption. Who the fuck else would spend 15 fucking minutes looking at his neighbour masturbate and try to videotape him. If you don't like it look away it's not so difficult.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Wait, where does it say they're fundies? Or is this just Wong pulling religion into a discussion just so he can bash it?

I think it's a fair assumption. Who the fuck else would spend 15 fucking minutes looking at his neighbour masturbate and try to videotape him. If you don't like it look away it's not so difficult.

People who don't want some guy jerking off in plain view and want to do something about it.

[Stofsk]

Wait, where does it say they're fundies? Or is this just Wong pulling religion into a discussion just so he can bash it?

The first part of your statement is valid. The second is just stupid, and probably counts as an appeal to motive. Why the fuck do you care why Wong mentioned fundies? Given that fundies are generally hung up about sex, it's a logical deduction to make.

[Plekhanov]

Wait, where does it say they're fundies? Or is this just Wong pulling religion into a discussion just so he can bash it?

I think it's a fair assumption. Who the fuck else would spend 15 fucking minutes looking at his neighbour masturbate and try to videotape him. If you don't like it look away it's not so difficult.

People who don't want some guy jerking off in plain view and want to do something about it.

The officer was able to see Clark from his belly up from the neighbour's bedroom and from the neck or shoulders up from the street level.

Thats hardly "plain view” they could easily have ignored him or if they must asked him to draw the curtains next time, spying on him from numerous darkened vantage points trying to best view and then calling the police is distinctly odd behaviour of the kind sexually repressed types (very often fundies) go in for.

[Stofsk]

People who don't want some guy jerking off in plain view

False. He was jerking off in his home. That's not 'plane view' and the only way they could see what he was doing was spying on him from afar. They even closed their blinds to hide their activity.

and want to do something about it.

Oh right, like the cops need to be called when some guy is masturbating. Yeah, society's in great danger from jerkoffs everywhere. Get a grip.

[Sharp-kun]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH BEING SEEN HAVING SEX OR JERKING OFF?

Depending on the people, its not always something you want to see I have no desire to see some overweight sweaty man jerking off, or having sex with his equally obese wife.

[Shroom Man 777]

But how can it be a crime? It's not like they're jumping in front of you, grabbing your heads and rubbing your faces on their hairy man-titties. In fact, the situation is much more closer to you jumping in front of them and cramming your faces into their man-titties!

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Fine. I concede.

[Sharp-kun]

But how can it be a crime?

]Never said it was, its just not something most people would like to see, much like obese people in tight clothing.

[Mayabird]

But how can it be a crime?

Never said it was, its just not something most people would like to see, much like obese people in tight clothing.

Then there's no reason to stare. I don't hide in my darkened bedroom obsessively watching obese women wearing tight booty shorts or neighbors jacking off because I don't want to see it. It defeats the purpose.

[Axis Kast]

Seems to me the prosecution managed to spin the attempts to observe and video-tape the activity as an attempt to procure evidence, not vouyerism. How they convinced everyone else, I'll never know.

[Darth Wong]

Fine. I concede.

Is that rolling-eyes icon intended to indicate your disgust at having people show what an asstard you are?

[J]

It's good to know that hypothetically speaking, if I were touching myself in my bedroom and forgot to close the curtains and some peeker with a 10" telescope set up on his apartment balcony several miles away was watching me and decided to report me to the police, I'd be in the clear according to the law. And don't you just love run on sentences?

[Rye]

Oh right, like the cops need to be called when some guy is masturbating. Yeah, society's in great danger from jerkoffs everywhere. Get a grip.

The pun! Oh the pun!

As for the article...uh....yay? This reminds me of my friend clarkie's room. He keeps the curtains shut 24/7 because one time, way back, he put his playstation on, and some guy said to him the next day, "I saw you playing on your playstation last night," and he's been phobic of it ever since. I find it amusing that some voyeurs tried to prosecute someone they were perving on, though. "Are we not even safe watching our neighbours' sexual habits anymore? Where is the justice? Oh the humanity!"

[Darth Servo]

even if the activity can be seen by peeking neighbours...

...The pair watched Clark for up to 15 minutes from the privacy of their darkened bedroom...

...The court found they took care to avoid being seen by Clark, peering out from underneath their partially lowered blinds. Later, the woman's husband fetched a pair of binoculars and a telescope. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to videotape Clark in action, says the judgment

Being a peeping Tom is what should be a crime.