Wolfenden in Canada: within and beyond official discourse \nin law reform struggles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De-criminalisation, Wolfenden and Canadian social and state formationIn a perceptive critique of the Canadian state law reform process in late 1960s Canada, gay activist Doug Sanders, who was involved in homophile and gay organising at that time, argued that the 1969 reform:Takes the gay issue and describes it in non-homosexual terms.[Decriminalisation] occurs in a way in which the issue is never joined.The debate never occurs.And so homosexuals are no more real after the reform than before ... I felt that an issue had been stolen from us.That we had forgotten that the reform issue was an issue that could have been used for public debate and it had been handled in such a way that there had been none.The only thing that had a promise of helping people was a public debate.It didn't happen.(Sanders, cited in Kinsman 1996a, p. 264) In this chapter I focus on the influence of the 'British' Wolfenden Report (Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution 1957) and the conceptual practices (D.Smith 1990) of public/private and adult/youth sexual regulation it articulated on the law reform process in Canada leading up to the 1969 criminal code reform that decriminalised same-gender sex acts in 'private' between two consenting adults.I also point to the continuing legacies of this regulatory strategy on sex political struggles within Canadian social and state formation.It was in the context of the extension of the criminalisation of homosexuality, in the 1950s and 1960s, under pressure from legislation and social mobilisations
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it