Rory Leishman wrote a column for the London Free Press, but refused to run it. This column is about indecency, and how a play breaks an indecency law. Leishman compares it to a "strip club". They thought that it was over the top.
Leishman writes in an email:
The London Free Press has decided not to run the following column that was slated for publication on Tuesday, October 24. I have received the following explanation from an acting editorial-page editor at the paper:
"In consultation with (Free Press Editor in Chief) Paul Berton, we've held your column for Tuesday. It would appear from your brief description that you hadn't gone to the play, and must have been relying on the reports, reviews etc that Sonja Smits was "naked" on stage - which she was. However, having talked to people who did go and weren't scandalized, comparing that to the goings on in a strip club is simply over the top."
It's true that I did not attend the play. Indeed, I have no wish to do so, but I disagree with the editor's judgment in refusing to run the column. Let me know what you think.
Here is the censored column:
Following the tawdry example of theatres in England and the United States, London’s Grand Theatre is luring customers with a play featuring a lead actress who appears stark naked on the stage. Count this as another sign of the escalating degradation of our Judeo-Christian civilization.
Just a few years ago, such a shameless performance would not have occurred even in one of the city’s seedier strip clubs, because the offending actress and the club’s managers would have been liable to be charged under section 167 of the Criminal Code with presenting “an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation in a theatre” – an indictable offence punishable by up to two years in prison.
What has happened in the meantime? Has Parliament repealed section 167 of the Criminal Code? Not at all. The law is still on the books. The problem in this as in so many other instances is that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to uphold the law as enacted and originally understood.
That’s fine with the management of the Grand Theatre. One wonders what they might stoop to next. Perhaps some day soon, they will strew the stage with mattresses and invite naked volunteers from the audience to engage in group sex.
That’s inconceivable, you say? Alas, no. In last December’s ruling in Labaye, the Supreme Court of Canada decreed that notwithstanding the law on indecency in the Criminal Code, there is nothing inherently illegal about the presentation of group sex in a public theatre provided only that the audience receives fair warning of what to expect.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote the reasons for the judgment of the Court in Labaye. In describing the sexual antics at issue in this case, she related that people lay on mattresses scattered about the floor and engaged “in acts of cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio and penetration. On several occasions observed by the police (undercover officers), a single woman engaged in sex with several men, while other men watched and masturbated.”
McLachlin and the majority of her colleagues held that there is nothing “immoral, indecent or obscene” about such conduct within the meaning of the law, because the presentation of an orgy of group sex before a willing audience is not of a nature that “causes harm or presents a significant risk of harm to individuals or society by predisposing others to anti-social behaviour that is incompatible with the proper functioning of society.”
This ruling was entirely unprecedented. It had no basis in either the plain language of the Criminal Code or the previous judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. In effect, McLachlin and her colleagues proceeded on their own in Labaye to overturn the law on indecency in Canada.
That’s fine with libertarians. They argue that people who are offended by obscene displays of nudity on television or in movies and the theatre should change the channel and boycott the offending movies and theatrical performances.
There might be something to be said for this argument, if there were reason to believe that the public display of lewd behaviour has no adverse effects other than to demean and degrade those who engage and witness such spectacles.
But that, plainly, is not the case. Ever more flagrant exhibitions of sexual promiscuity have coarsened our entire culture to the point that many husbands and wives who would not have dreamed of entering a relatively tame strip club 30 years ago now sit complacently through a far more graphic presentation of lewd conduct in the Grand Theatre.
And that’s not the worst of it. Only the naïve can suppose that there is no connection between a rising tolerance for obscenity and the epidemic of fornication, adultery and divorce that has undermined the stability of that most fundamental of social institutions, the natural family.
What can be done? There is one obvious remedy: Decent citizens can make a more concerted effort to support principled politicians who combine a sincere and enlightened compassion for all their constituents with a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and a firm determination to combat the usurpation of legislative power by the amoral and transgressive elitists who predominate on the Supreme Court of Canada.
Pass it on to others. Perhaps this can get a bigger audience that if it had run in the London Free Press.
