Late on a sunny Friday, it sometimes pays to check out the local news websites.
Like this story, courtesy of CBC, on a stripper who has been charged with committing an immoral act in public. Apparently the young woman, originally from Quebec, employed a sex toy in her stage act hence bringing the local cops to the bar.
Okay, people.
There are a few things here that come to mind.
1. This is not an act that a cop stumbled across on the street. Either they were forewarned or one our finest local citizens observed the event while just happening to be present in the establishment partaking of the alcoholic beverages or merely observing the exotic terpsichorean entertainments offered in a place known as Bubbles.
2. CBC links us to the relevant section of the criminal code. Every story is not merely informative; it is also an educational experience.
3. In the realm of inadvertent humour, there is this comment from CBC relating an observation by the young woman's lawyer, Bob Simmonds. "Simmonds says he has not seen anything like it since he began his career in the 1980s."
Trust me, I will be asking Bob about this on Monday when I see him.
4. This comment raises some obvious implications of its own. Was Mr. Simmonds referring to the allegedly indecent act or the laying of the charge or the laying of the charge for the said act?
5. The young woman has been granted bail with the condition she cannot work at the establishment where the act is alleged to have taken place. She is now out of work. This hardly seems fair. Might she merely have been let out on the condition that she dispense with the use of the said object in her act, thereby leaving her with the means of gaining a living? This makes no observation on the priority of her occupation or of its social implications. I just wonder why someone is effectively being stopped from engaging in her work if she agrees to stop doing what the police say she shouldn't be doing.
6. As I typed this up, Bob was just on the radio doing an interview. His comments are interesting but I fell on the floor laughing as he struggled to describe with a straight and serious face the charges and circumstances.
Sex toy, Bob is a good phrase. Object or item might even be passable. However, the word "apparatus" carries with it connotations of some great medieval device involving steam machinery great gears and a huge amount of noise. One shudders to imagine what occurred if an "apparatus" had actually been involved.
Perhaps Bob needs to pay a visit to a shop just up the street from his office which specializes in presenting a modern attitude to consenting acts between adults. Bob has the right enlightened view but he may find some useful illustrations for presenting his case and reinforcing his argument.
Oh well. It is hard to find fault with Bob. He was speaking during an interview and sometimes simple words fail you in that circumstance. He just defaulted back to lawyer-speak when a perfectly simple and commonly used expression was available.
In fact, had he said sex-toy or even dildo or vibrator, he would have emphasized that the item involved in the charge is found in a great many homes in St. John's.