Aren't you glad to be Canadian ?

[Fred Zed]

New Orleans invoking an 1805 "Crimes Against Nature" law....The law, which dates back to 1805, makes it a crime against nature to engage in “unnatural copulation”—a term New Orleans cops and the district attorney’s office have interpreted to mean anal or oral sex.............

http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=673
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...rleans-are-being-categorized-as-sex-offenders

 

[Karl Blues]

For that and a million other reasons! This is truly a great country to make one's home.

 

[VIP Alexis]

LMAO that is unbelievable. Couldn't be happier to be Canadian lol.

 

[emilioa4]

how the heck are they going to know who's giving and recieving oral or anal???? you have to have a sex cop in the bedroom before you commence activity???

 

[oh3421]

Hmmh..if I suck her pussy, put my tongue into her ass while she sucks my cock simultaneously...would this be like... three strikes and you are out??

 

[sonoman]

The law makes it a crime against nature to engage in "unnatural copulation" - a term New Orleans cops and the district attorney's office have interpreted to mean anal or oral sex

Oh boy... I'd be arrested in no time...

 

[HeMadeMeDoIt]

Hmmh..if I suck her pussy, put my tongue into her ass while she sucks my cock simultaneously...would this be like... three strikes and you are out??

That would make us permanent cell mates!

Although the initial point of the thread was funny it brought out the idiots in the crowd with the "I hate America and Americans" bullshit. Here's an example of how similar we are when it comes to archaic unenforced laws on the books:

Note: The offence of "Buggery and bestiality" was split into two separate offences, "Anal Intercourse" and "Bestiality," by An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, S.C. 1987, c. 24, s. 3.


An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, S.C. 1987, c. 24, s. 3.
[Anal intercourse]
154. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations as to the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that that person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

So just to put this in perspective if more than 2 people engage in anal sex in Canada they are guilty of an indictable offence, DP is out!

 

[greatshark]

Not too proud to be a Canadian these days when we have the neo-con Harper has our PM.

Now to be Canadian means we condone torture, deny global warming, and illegally occupy other countries and support corrupt third world regimes.

Not too proud these days.

 

[wet_suit_one]

That would make us permanent cell mates!

Although the initial point of the thread was funny it brought out the idiots in the crowd with the "I hate America and Americans" bullshit. Here's an example of how similar we are when it comes to archaic unenforced laws on the books:

Note: The offence of "Buggery and bestiality" was split into two separate offences, "Anal Intercourse" and "Bestiality," by An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, S.C. 1987, c. 24, s. 3.


An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, S.C. 1987, c. 24, s. 3.
[Anal intercourse]
154. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations as to the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that that person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

So just to put this in perspective if more than 2 people engage in anal sex in Canada they are guilty of an indictable offence, DP is out!

You are quite right. However, how is that law enforced in Canada?

The interesting difference between dumb fuck laws in Canada and dumb fuck laws in the U.S. is that these things are actually enforced in the U.S. Don't believe me? Try buying a sex toy in the state of Texas (just google it). The hoops you have to jump through to get there are fucking retarded. Whereas, under this law, I am almost certain (not quite but almost), that you will not find a single recorded case of anyone being charged for having a DP in Canada, except in cases of sexual assault in the last 30 years.

I dare you to find me the case. Time to hit the stacks my friend!

 

[oh3421]

That would make us permanent cell mates!

Although the initial point of the thread was funny it brought out the idiots in the crowd with the "I hate America and Americans" bullshit. Here's an example of how similar we are when it comes to archaic unenforced laws on the books:

Note: The offence of "Buggery and bestiality" was split into two separate offences, "Anal Intercourse" and "Bestiality," by An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, S.C. 1987, c. 24, s. 3.


An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, S.C. 1987, c. 24, s. 3.
[Anal intercourse]
154. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations as to the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that that person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.

So just to put this in perspective if more than 2 people engage in anal sex in Canada they are guilty of an indictable offence, DP is out!

Ahh. I am not a lawyer and this discussion goes well beyond my paygrade, so let me ask one unqualified question: Does this law only apply to two cocks in one a$$hole? Straight couple or gay couple? Is a$$penetration with your tongue applicable under this subsection?
Couldn't it just be that our caring Canadian government is just trying to keep us safe in all situations of life, including getting your a$$ ripped apart by two massive throbbing cocks? Just think about the health care costs of fixing all those broken sphincters, do you really want your taxes to go up?