Actually, this is a good question I think. Why exactly do "Guards have an obligation to stop sexual activity among detainees"? I'm sure there are good reasons beyond prudery, or at least I hope so. I can think of a few possibilities:
1. It is suggested one of these inmates was charged with not informing a partner of her HIV+ status, perhaps there's a concern that this nondisclosure was repeated.
2. It might annoy neighbouring inmates in other cells. Though surely then it should be ignored unless there are complaints.
3. (Most likely I think) Inmates are presumed to be unable to give consent, due to their coercive environment. Certainly this is the argument against allowing them to be organ donors for instance, though this rule mainly refers to them being unable to consent in interactions with guards or authorities, not other inmates. Still, possible.
4. Sex is generally disruptive, and causes additional friction and instability in the facility. (Not intended to be a joke about friction, nor about awkward positions).

In any case, I would think what Dude refers to (palm twins) should certainly be permitted.

Apparently klem thinks "majority of people in the USA" means "majority of people". The same majority that deny evolution I suppose (OK, 45%, but great majority believe either in YEC, or in God-guided evo). The same majority that think Saddam was behind 9/11. Yes, "twisted logic" is indeed working with a lot of people, but maybe we could at least do better here in our discussions? Oh... or maybe we couldn't.

Craig O. makes good points, and makes them well. Spot-on with the moving goalposts.

I don't have access to the article, but by the abstract, the authors aren't actually making that claim. They state that they didn't find "clear evidence for toy boy proclivities in females or males". I believe it's the Telegraph, reporting on the article, that (big surprise) went far beyond the study in its headline.

Not a well-fleshed out (or even thought out) plan, but try this: elect the prime minister by vote of all MPs. Possibly the same for cabinet, and for committee memberships. One might even have annual elections within the House. Some sort of ban on "contracts" requiring a promise to vote for a "party leader" would probably be necessary. Parties might still unite around general ideological positions, but the power to exert immediate control over MPs within the House would dissipate.

It must be brilliant, I got the basic idea from "Yes Minister". :)

(and of course I meant "oppose", not "impose", oops)

Well, alfanerd, I believe the distinction you make comes down to "I would interpret things differently" - which is all fine and dandy, but I'm not sure it's such a high road to take. I suspect we're actually on the same side for much of this - I too oppose interpretations that go far beyond what, in my simple view, fits the letter of the law. I just don't think I'm particularly qualified to claim that my view happens to be more correct - it's just the one I prefer. Of course, I'd also have to point out that your "invariably progressive, leftwing" swipe in your original post ignores, for example, the US Supreme Court's broad interpretations, both recent and ancient, that extend individual rights to collectives, in the form of corporations as "persons". Not at all left-wing, but it's easier to argue if you ignore contrary evidence!

Naturally, part of a Supreme Court judge's role is to interpret the constitution, and yes, to strike down legislation that is contrary to that interpretation. Without this role, the constitution is just a wish list or a happy statement of principles with no force, as opposed to the brake on legislative authority it is intended to be. Note again that it still provides recourse for that legislative authority to be supreme - it just requires more effort, which is why the constitution is a "brake", not a "trump". Any government backed by the will of the people can change the constitution, or the charter... but they really do need clear popular support. It does seem bizarre to claim, as you seem to in my hazy view, that judges can interpret laws but not the charter or constitution.

Well, don't pretend to be "all in favour of the rule of law" then. You claim your problem is with activist judges, but it appears you are more concerned with judges that put the law before public opinion. So you subordinate the rule of law to the rule of the mob, which is indeed very democratic, but not reflective of the democracy we have, and good thing too.

There's also nothing fundamentally undemocratic about the use of judges to interpret the law, even when they may temporarily impose the will of the majority - after all, there is peaceful recourse just as you suggest for replacing elected representatives. In this case, rather than replacing the judiciary, one replaces the law. If the people are in favour of a particular interpretation, they can always have a law - or constitutional amendment - passed to support their position explicitly.

Kudos to several here, including Gaunilon, for at least trying to address the substance. On the other hand...

I don't read Day's comments as you do, Gaunilon. Making (1) "Day's larger point" is convenient for defending Day's position, but in fact the swipe at the Liberals was a parenthetical, a minor point. The main point was (2). At least, that's how I parse his words, which admittedly might not perfectly represent his intent.

Additionally, I don't really give two s**ts for point (1). I expect that sort of sniping, but I see no reason any of us should pay particular attention to it. What is of concern is the current situation - is Day addressing a real problem in a constructive way? (1) speaks to how the supposed problem developed, but Day should be expected to demonstrate the problem... the automatic blaming of the Liberals is not my concern

It's not for us, for Geddes, or for anyone else to make Day's argument for him. He's a Minister, he should be capable of presenting supporting evidence. On the other hand, it certainly is for us, and particularly for Geddes and his ilk, to poke holes in any statement made by authority if it isn't bulletproof. All the more so when any government official is advocating increased government intervention - which stiffer sentences would be, justifiable though they certainly may be. Challenging the government is what I want reporters to do, regardless of which band of villains happens to be in power.

Day made a fairly simple statement, and neither Geddes nor yourself, Gaunilon, has found evidence to back it up. You have presented evidence to support the weaker statement that some violent crime convictions do result in conditional sentences. That's fine... but it's not what Day said. I do recognize why data to support Day is harder to get, but again, it's not your job or Geddes' to help Day with that. Feel free to try to do so as a volunteer, but I don't think it's fair to call out Geddes on it. Geddes "main point", to use your tactic of picking the point easiest to defend, is that Day hasn't backed up his words with evidence. That seems unarguable.

And Lord Kitchener's Own, as usual, raises a good point. Conditional sentences for someone peripherally involved as part of a plea bargain, I don't know. Perhaps they're justified, perhaps not, but again, the onus is on Day to back up his words... at least, I like to think the world operates like that.

It might be argued that fixed election dates promote extension of campaigns - Canadian election campaigns are blissfully short, compared to the obvious counterexample across our land border. Knowing in advance precisely when the next election will be held allows far more planning, and the construction of a permanent election apparatus that takes a brief holiday after an election, then returns to work after a couple of weeks. Thank heavens our guys have to scramble a bit - even for the ruling, election-calling party - and that slightly reduces the polish and tight control parties long for to keep the electorate ignorant.