Nudity Is NOT Punishable In Spain But Is A Constitutional Right [Archive]

Sanslines

07-03-2008, 04:48 AM

Nudism is just one
more of your rights

Since 1978 with the coming into effect of the current
Constitution, it can now be assumed that nudism has
become one more of our freedoms in Spain.

But we are still carrying along with us legislation against
nudism in public, inherited from the Dictator General
Franco era. So the offense of public indecency still exists in
the Penal Code, a Code which penalized nudism. This
situation brought about the establishment of authorized
zones, zones where nudism could be practiced freely
without fear of being fined. This offense was modified in
1989, suppressing the considerations of a moral nature,
and in this way adjusting it to the Constitution.

So this is the way it is: all of the authorizations for beaches
or nudist zones are based on a legislation which is contrary
to the Constitution which was corrected in 1989 and which
later on disappeared in 1995 with the repeal of the previous
Penal Code, and the approval of the present one, in which
this offense is no longer contemplated. In this way, all authorizations - and prohibitions - are contrary to the Spanish Constitution and constitute discrimination.

It is surprising that the authorizations that allowed the first
nudists to enjoy spaces where they did not have to risk
running up against the law later on were to become the
principal argument used against nudism. The argument is
that as there are zones or beaches that are authorized, in
the rest of the beaches it is not authorized, so it is therefore
prohibited. This is FALSE.

At the present time, nudism can be freely
practiced in any public space and does not
require any authorization whatsoever.

Beaches, rivers, lakes, open fields, paths,
roads, streets, plazas, parks, etc. are all public spaces.

Municipal sports centres or commercial premises that are
open to the public (bars, stores, etc.) are NOT public spaces.
These are private spaces that can have their own internal
regulations.

In that beaches are public spaces, beaches are for free
use.

Another question is that the degree of social acceptance that
this has, and the problems that we can encounter in the
practice of nudism, derived from the oppression that nudism
is subjected to, given that we live in a society which is in its
majority textile oriented.

What is important that we understand clearly is that according to present day Spanish Legislation, nudism can not be restricted, nor sanctioned, nor much less prohibited.
.
This can of course change.All that would have to be done is to
pass a law so that these measures could be applied, although
this would be contrary to the fundamental rights that are
included in the Magna Carta (constitution) and would also
collide with those rights that are recognized in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

We must bear in mind that nudism is a philosophy of life, an ideology, that we are a group, and that besides, we are a group which is frequently discriminated against; we have to be aware of the fact that this is another of our freedoms and that it is totally in line with the current legislation; it cannot be fined, an if it is, the fine can be appealed; we have to be ready to denounce and appeal any sanction against nudity, and any legislation development that is carried out with the intention of cutting off our freedoms.

We are a social group which, even though we are living in a democracy, we suffer a great discrimination in not being able to express ourselves freely.

Nudism is protected under the basic pillars of democracy itself, and the Spanish democratic Constitution states:

In freedom of thought, not being discriminated
against because of the way one thinks or because of
one’s personal circumstances (Article 16).

In the right to have our own image and clothing or
the absence of the same (Article 18).

In freedom to wander throughout the territory
without restrictions (Article 19).

In freedom of expression not having freedoms cut
off on the basis of opinions (Article 20).

In the right to bring up our children in accordance
with our morality (so long as this is within the
framework of the law... and nudism is) (Article 27).

And in not considering illegal whatever is not
regulated; the consideration that everything is
illegal except for what has been declared to the
contrary is befitting of dictatorships and not of
democratic nations.

No one has to date given so much as one real argument
against nudism. People have appealed to a sense of the
aesthetic, to elegance…which are arguments that can be
eliminated . And fundamentally moral reasons are
given as arguments, and what is moral is already included
in the Constitution, and protected...

... Specifically, what is established is the equality of
moralities and that none of these should prevail over any of
the others except, of course, if one of these contravenes the law itself, and nudism in no way does so.

We have freedom of expression, and we are free to
express our nudism, our ideology and philosophy of life so
long as we are not acting contrary to the law…and as there
is no law that goes against nudism, we can express our

nudity freely.

Today nudism is legal without the need for
any authorization, and this argument should
be used in our favour. But if the police appear
and violate your rights, this is what you
should do:

The police can come and ask you to get dressed without
this constituting any infraction of the laws whatsoever. You
can refuse, and this does not constitute any infraction
whatsoever either.

In the event that they do ask you to get dressed, you can
refuse, but without shouting or threatening nor doing
anything of a similar nature.

If you are in your home, they cannot say anything to you.
The home is inviolable. If you are in a public space you are
not as protected as you are in your home, but it’s still the
same.

In this case, when you refuse they can insist; you can ask
them to identify themselves, and it is their duty, their
obligation, to identify themselves. If they do not do so, then you can make a formal complaint just on these grounds alone.

Then you can indicate to them that you are not going to get
dressed and that in accordance to current legislation nudity
is one of your rights. Ask them on the basis of what
legislation they are asking you to get dressed. If they do not tell you, insist.

In the event that they insist, you can indicate to them that
you are not going to get dressed and that if they want to they can arrest you. You have to be ready and willing to go
through with that, but this is something that everyone has to decide for themselves.

This is a very tough approach because you
have to be ready and willing to go through
the whole experience, in the same way, for
example, as the feminists had to in order to
obtain some semblance of equality.

Refusing to get dressed is not punishable as
an offence of civil disobedience.

If they opt to arrest you: you must let them arrest you without putting up any resistance, and once you are in the police station demand that they institute proceedings and that they
provide you with a copy of the proceedings. They have the
obligation to do so, so you have to insist. If they refuse to do so then you can make a formal complaint on these grounds. If they give you a copy of the proceedings, these can be used to issue a formal complaint against the police officers that have arrested you, for illegal arrest.

It is also a possibility that they tell you there is some type of legislation which, if it does actually exist, will be some type of municipal law. In this case they are under the obligation to proceed, but this legislation is irregular and the sanction or fine, in the event that there is any, or everything that they do, can be appealed against.

Municipalities must have legal authorization in order to
establish sanctions. In order to establish a sanction, there
must be a Law that indicates that this is an offence, and the Town Hall does not ever have the legal right to establish a fine in the absence of an authorizing Law. In the case of nudism, this Law does not exist.

They can also threaten to lodge a complaint against you
for public indecency . This legal concept no longer exists. Ask them to indicate the article of the penal code in which this
offence is contained. Inform them that there is no such
offence and that you are under no obligation to take any
notice of them.

They can, however, threaten you with an offence that does
exist, which is the offence of “Exhibitionism and Sexual
Provocation” (Art.185 del Código Penal) arguing that there
are minors present. For this to be applicable, several things
have to arise: - That you were before minors or mentally
handicapped persons. – And that there had been a sexual intention, either to lead on third parties or to excite
yourselves. But one of these is not enough; both of these
situations have to be present. As there is no sexual
intention whatsoever, it is not applicable.

CopyLeft 2003 Euskal Naturista Elkartea / Basque Naturists
Club ( ). English translation and adaption in 2006 by
http://veraplaya-FKK.com. This document can be freely copied
so long as and when it is accompanied by this copyleft note and
it is indicated who the authors are.

http://eseduca.org/apartamento/legalidad_ing.pdf

mountainman

07-03-2008, 05:23 AM

this is awesome
we should use the Constitutional approach here in USA
Ive always wanted to visit Spain

Stu2630

07-04-2008, 08:53 AM

this is awesome

No, this is bunkum!

It was written by the militant Spanish nudist federation and, when I wrote to the Spanish Ministry of Justice on this very issue, they clarified the legal and constitutional situation in Spain and it is NOT how these nudist would have you believe it is. They peddle this nonsense in the hope that, if you tell a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it. But people have been fined for being inappropriately nude in Spain - and recently - and this blows the claim of the Spanish nudists out of the water (like the man who was fined 80 Euros for walking naked in Barcelona). While most nudists are considerate, a few are selfish because they fail to recognise that textiles have rights to enjoy nudity-free environments, too. Unfortunately, these obnoxious nudists seem to rule the roost in countries like Spain and Denmark, but usually the police and judiciaries there are not taken in by their falsehoods.

Stu

Sanslines

07-04-2008, 09:27 AM

No, this is bunkum!

It was written by the militant Spanish nudist federation and, when I wrote to the Spanish Ministry of Justice on this very issue, they clarified the legal and constitutional situation in Spain and it is NOT how these nudist would have you believe it is. They peddle this nonsense in the hope that, if you tell a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it. But people have been fined for being inappropriately nude in Spain - and recently - and this blows the claim of the Spanish nudists out of the water (like the man who was fined 80 Euros for walking naked in Barcelona). While most nudists are considerate, a few are selfish because they fail to recognise that textiles have rights to enjoy nudity-free environments, too. Unfortunately, these obnoxious nudists seem to rule the roost in countries like Spain and Denmark, but usually the police and judiciaries there are not taken in by their falsehoods.

Stu

No , this is NOT bunkum. It is good advice to real nudists as to how to conduct themselves when confronted by the police. The Spanish Minister of Justice is NOT going to get into minute details about specific cases. As the above article CLEARLY points out, when confronted by the police there is a procedure that must be followed. If a naturist starts yelling obscenities at the police or breaks other laws, then he will be charged accordingly. It's just unfortunate that some can not accept the fact that nudists have rights and do not need to be confined to some isolated and / or secluded place. We all don't get what we all want out of life and some will just have to accept that nudists will not be confined to secluded places.

Stu2630

07-04-2008, 10:22 AM

Sanslines

07-04-2008, 11:45 AM

The Spanish Ministry of Justice stated that, while there is no clear national law to prohibit nudity, most local authorities have imposed such a law as they are empowered to do to keep public order. That's what they said and that's precisely what happens. It's why the guy in Barcelona (which is regarded as the most liberal city in Spain) was fined 80 Euros a few months ago for walking nude down the street and the judge told him that people had a "right not to have to see him" in his naked state. And it's why his subsequent appeal at Spain's National Court in Madrid failed.

You believe the nudists if you like - I'll believe what I read in the legal journals. :D

I believe that you are anti nudist and will do anything to keep nudists segregated far away from you. Your hatred of nudity is so severe that you can never accept or tolerate anything to the contrary.

You could have said anything to the Minister of Justice. You could have premissed your email in such a way to 'beg the question' and have the Minister tell you what you want to hear.
You can also hide behind laws and the rest of us are free to challenge them and stand up when we are arrested under trumped up charges. The man who was nude in Barcelona was not disturbing public order solely because of mere nudity. The authorities had to charge him with something and misapplied another law. He could very well have been charged with disturbing the peace or resisting arrest. It's all part of the game. You know that. The judge could also have been anti nudity and abused his power to teach this man a so called lesson. You also know this. You also know that it is very hard to win on appeal against a judge's ruling. Judge's rulings are almost treated as a ruling from God in that other judges will not rule against one of their own even if their own is wrong or they do not agree with one of their own. You know all of this.

You need to be "confined" to plentiful, decent places with good facilities - and well out of sight of the rest of us.

You need to leave us alone and stop with your anti nudity diatribes.

Two Metre Man

07-04-2008, 01:01 PM

<snip> You need to be "confined" to plentiful, decent places with good facilities - and well out of sight of the rest of us.

Stu

I have no idea if this has been asked before, but since this is a "Clothes Free (sic) Forum" by definition, exactly why are you here, Stu? I'd love to hear your reasons and rationale for rubbing shoulders so frequently and so consistently with those whom you apparently dislike and/or disagree with so heartily.

They do say that those men who rail so much against gays are actually highly suppressed gays themselves, so I'm beginning to wonder - in the absence of any other apparent cause - if it isn't the case that you are actually a repressed, wanna-be nudist yourself who cannot summon up enough courage to step forward out of the clothes closet.

Care to share - in another thread perhaps? (and apologies in advance for hijacking this post!)

Two Metre Man

Sanslines

07-04-2008, 01:46 PM

Care to share - in another thread perhaps? (and apologies in advance for hijacking this post!)

Two Metre Man

No apologies needed as it is not a 'hijacking of this thread'. It is very perplexing as to why Stu continues to rally against nudists who dare to step outside the confines of the isolated and secluded holding pens he calls 'resorts'.

The information presented above is good, general information and advice as to how to conduct oneself when confronted by the authorities. What is important is to know how not to be provoked into doing anything (such as yelling profanities or resisting arrest) that will give authorities more ammunition to charge the so called offending nudist. There are also many good ideas as to what kinds of questions to ask that are pertinent to the so called offending nudist charges.

It is very clear that Stu would dispute and vociferously disagree with anything that would assist the nudist in disputing and fighting frivolous and bogus charges.

Two Metre Man

07-04-2008, 02:00 PM

<snip> It is very clear that Stu would dispute and vociferously disagree with anything that would assist the nudist in disputing and fighting frivolous and bogus charges.

So! A Trojan Horse and/or an "agent provocateur"?? Can we hear it from the (trojan) horse's mouth, perhaps?? I truly am curious about this.

TMM

eaglepeakpete

07-04-2008, 02:10 PM

Sanslines

07-04-2008, 04:07 PM

I live in Spain and operate my naturist complex there so know first hand how things are.
and I believe and have found that naturism is accepted without problems dispite what Stu says.

FEN the Spanish Naturist organisation also supports the posted view. Only Stu seems convinced they are all wrong.

Here we have it! A practicing and active naturist who lives in Spain and knows the situation first hand. The verdict is in and the issue has been settled.

Only Stu stubbornly clings to his notions of a dream utopia where all naturists are kept out of sight and out of mind in some secluded areas and behind closed and locked doors.

Stu can stay home and read his law journals and the rest of us can come to Spain and have a wonderful naturist holiday.

Stu2630

07-05-2008, 03:59 AM

Sanslines

You could have said anything to the Minister of Justice. You could have premissed your email in such a way to 'beg the question' and have the Minister tell you what you want to hear.I simply wrote stating that British nudists are under the impression that there was a right in law in Spain to be nude in public and I asked what the true legal position was. The answer I got was that there was no national law against nudity in public but that local authorities were free to make local laws to prohibit it, and most seem to have done so.

The man who was nude in Barcelona was not disturbing public order solely because of mere nudity. The authorities had to charge him with something and misapplied another law. He could very well have been charged with disturbing the peace or resisting arrest. It's all part of the game.Nudity is regarded as behaviour which is contrary to good order and people there are charged accordingly.

You know that. The judge could also have been anti nudity and abused his power to teach this man a so called lesson. You also know this.That's silly. You could say that a judge who sends someone to prison for a drugs offence is "anti-drugs".

You also know that it is very hard to win on appeal against a judge's ruling.That's simply not true. Judges rulings are regularly overturned on appeal.

You need to leave us alone and stop with your anti nudity diatribes.Hmm...but I come in useful sometimes, don't I?

It is very perplexing as to why Stu continues to rally against nudists who dare to step outside the confines of the isolated and secluded holding pens he calls 'resorts'.It shouldn't be perplexing. You know that some people object to nakedness for various reasons and are uncomfortable being around it - or having their kids see it. Most countries have limited access to beaches etc because not all the coastline is accessible to the general public. Some areas are privately owned, some are military and so on. Of the ones which are open to the public, some should be allocated for nudist use - nudists being a small minority - and the rest should be textile. There is nothing wrong with that.

It is very clear that Stu would dispute and vociferously disagree with anything that would assist the nudist in disputing and fighting frivolous and bogus charges.I don't agree with "frivolous and bogus charges" being laid against anyone. If a nudist uses a traditionally nude beach, he should not generally be charged with anything. If he uses a textile beach, in the knowledge that he is in the full view of others who may be offended by his nakedness, then he is behaving offensively and he should be charged.

Two Metre Man

I'd love to hear your reasons and rationale for rubbing shoulders so frequently and so consistently with those whom you apparently dislike and/or disagree with so heartily.I love discussion and debate and I get plenty of that here. I also visit other sites where I am able to discuss various topics in detail and hammer out philosophical points just as I do here. I don't "dislike and/or disagree with" nudism - quite the contrary. I admire responsible and considerate nudists for doing what they enjoy and not being hamstrung by society's norms. What I don't admire is gratuitous nudity which is done in non-nudist places and with blatant disregard for the feelings of others.

if it isn't the case that you are actually a repressed, wanna-be nudist yourself who cannot summon up enough courage to step forward out of the clothes closet.If I wanted to have a go at nudism to see if I liked it, I would. There are some good things about nudism which I think we textiles could learn from, in particular your sense of community and your laudable intention to avoid judging others by their appearance. But as for getting naked in the open air, I really don't see the point of it and having to wear a pair of shorts is not something I regard as an encumbrance. If you enjoy it, then I say you should be given every facility to pursue your preference - in places designated for that purpose.

eaglepeakpete

FEN the Spanish Naturist organisation also supports the posted view. Only Stu seems convinced they are all wrong.Only Stu...

and the Spanish police.

And the Spanish prosecutor's office.

And the Spanish judge.

And the Spanish Ministry of Justice.

The title of this thread is " Nudity Is NOT Punishable In Spain But Is A Constitutional Right". The below link PROVES that is not true because somebody got punished.

http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/13968

Stu

Sanslines

07-05-2008, 04:13 AM

Sanslines

I simply wrote stating that British nudists are under the impression that there was a right in law in Spain to be nude in public and I asked what the true legal position was. The answer I got was that there was no national law against nudity in public but that local authorities were free to make local laws to prohibit it, and most seem to have done so.

Stu

Who are these 'most'? Local authorities can make any law that they want but those same laws can not violate national law.

Sanslines

07-05-2008, 04:24 AM

Only Stu...

and the Spanish police.

And the Spanish prosecutor's office.

And the Spanish judge.

And the Spanish Ministry of Justice.

The title of this thread is " Nudity Is NOT Punishable In Spain But Is A Constitutional Right". The below link PROVES that is not true because somebody got punished.

http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/13968

Stu

If you contact the California State Park Commisioner, you will also most likely be told that nudity is forbidden in all state parks. You will not be told about the Cahill Policy or the fact that nudity is common in areas of several state park areas and has been for years. Again........you will be told what you want to hear and unless you ask specific questions you will not be told the entire story.

As for your article, the naturist refused to identify himself. This is illegal in the USA and a person can be charged if he or she does not identify himself to law enforcement authorities. The man was not charged for being nude for he can not be charged for being nude. He was charged for 'offending the dignity of others' which is a ludicrous charge and would be overturned with COMPETENT legal representation. The judge expressed his personal opinion about 'others who have the right not to see him without clothes' for there is NO federal or local law which states this.

Stu, you claim to know something about the law and yet you act as if you know nothing about the law. You see what you want to see in order to support your position regardless of what the actual laws are or if they were applied correctly. Pete's comment stands correct as stated......only you believe that which is not there and will continue to do so inspite of what everyone else says to the contrary.

Stu2630

07-05-2008, 06:02 AM

Sanslines

Who are these 'most'? Local authorities can make any law that they want but those same laws can not violate national law.

Obviously not. There is no suggestion that these local laws which are used against inappropriate nudity do violate national laws - or the Spanish Constitution. Clearly the judge in the case I cited didn't believe the application of the particular local law against a nudist was at odds with the Constitution. While there is no national Spanish law against public nakedness, there is no mention of nakedness being a fundamental right under the Spanish Constitution. This means that, contrary to what the Spanish naturists would have us believe, it all comes down to interpretation. And that is typical of the way most laws in Europe are framed and applied.

As for your article, the naturist refused to identify himself. This is illegal in the USA and a person can be charged if he or she does not identify himself to law enforcement authorities.

I don't know about Spain, but in the UK, and many other European countries, a citizen only has an obligation to identify themselves to law enforcement if they are told they are suspected of an offence. But that's a red herring. The article doesn't say the judge punished him for failing to identify himself, it says: "In his ruling the judge "considers that the officers had the authority to order the man to get dressed, and although not punishable under the Penal Code, a council byelaw dictates that 'nobody may undervalue the rights of others, nor offend their dignity'." The judge went on to say that the nudist seems to forget that "others also have the right not to see him without clothes."

He was charged for 'offending the dignity of others' which is a ludicrous charge and would be overturned with COMPETENT legal representation.

You are making an assumption that he did not have 'competent legal representation' but you don't have a shred of evidence to substantiate that. And then you go on to speculate that the case would have been overturned if he had. This is just a lot of guesswork on your part to shore up your collapsing argument.

The judge expressed his personal opinion about 'others who have the right not to see him without clothes' for there is NO federal or local law which states this.

The judge is interpreting the law as he sees fit - and as he is entitled to do.

You see what you want to see in order to support your position regardless of what the actual laws are or if they were applied correctly. Pete's comment stands correct as stated......only you believe that which is not there and will continue to do so inspite of what everyone else says to the contrary.

What I see is a claim made by Spanish naturists that public nudity can not be punished in their country while reading cases where nudity HAS BEEN punished. Now, whether you happen to think that the judge was prejudice, or wrong, or whatever, you can wriggle and wriggle but you can not escape the simple truth that a man was fined in Spain for being nude. And that means that the Spanish naturists are WRONG!

Stu

Two Metre Man

07-05-2008, 07:56 AM

S<snip> If I wanted to have a go at nudism to see if I liked it, I would. There are some good things about nudism which I think we textiles could learn from, in particular your sense of community and your laudable intention to avoid judging others by their appearance. But as for getting naked in the open air, I really don't see the point of it and having to wear a pair of shorts is not something I regard as an encumbrance. If you enjoy it, then I say you should be given every facility to pursue your preference - in places designated for that purpose.
Stu

Thanks, Stu. I appreciate the response and the clarifications.

What I should say, concerning your point quoted above, is that - as the old song goes - "ya can't have one without the other" ("Love & Marriage"). When one hangs on to those "encumbrances," they are the very things that socially militate against acquiring a closer ability to "avoid judging others by their appearance," which you seem to admire.

In other words, doffing those facades that general society demands its members wear opens the emotional door to permit that greater acceptance and recognition of our shared humanity. It is an emotional/spiritual "fast-track" to that mindset. Sure, one may struggle and strain towards it from a standard societal base, but it is far quicker and more easily attained by releasing the shackles of "appearance" convention. History proves time and time again that it is those who do not follow the herd who break new ground, make discoveries, develop new ideas and methods, solely because they have the courage to plough their own furrow and challenge conventional thinking.

In peaceful unity.

TMM

Sanslines

07-05-2008, 08:48 AM

I don't know about Spain, but in the UK, and many other European countries, a citizen only has an obligation to identify themselves to law enforcement if they are told they are suspected of an offence. But that's a red herring. The article doesn't say the judge punished him for failing to identify himself, it says: "In his ruling the judge "considers that the officers had the authority to order the man to get dressed, and although not punishable under the Penal Code, a council byelaw dictates that 'nobody may undervalue the rights of others, nor offend their dignity'." The judge went on to say that the nudist seems to forget that "others also have the right not to see him without clothes."

Tell me exactly what is the specific legal code which demands this this man get dressed? Unless you can provide this information, you are speculating based upon a judges OPINION and once again believing what you want to believe and not what is actually there.

You are making an assumption that he did not have 'competent legal representation' but you don't have a shred of evidence to substantiate that. And then you go on to speculate that the case would have been overturned if he had. This is just a lot of guesswork on your part to shore up your collapsing argument.

The only arguments that are absurd aroud here are yours. Tell me the name and credentials of the individual who represented this man. Please post the transcripts of the case which was presented? Unless you provide this information, you are only speculating and once again proving that you only wish to believe and promote that which is not there.

The judge is interpreting the law as he sees fit - and as he is entitled to do.

A rather meaningless statement as judges do indeed interpret the laws as they see fit. They also make mistakes and allow their own personal biases to enter into the judgement.

What I see is a claim made by Spanish naturists that public nudity can not be punished in their country while reading cases where nudity HAS BEEN punished. Now, whether you happen to think that the judge was prejudice, or wrong, or whatever, you can wriggle and wriggle but you can not escape the simple truth that a man was fined in Spain for being nude. And that means that the Spanish naturists are WRONG!

You once again show your total and willful contempt of the law. A man was fined and that man could have agreed to the fine for a variety of reasons. People who are innocent plea bargain and pay fines all the time rather then fight a system that has rendered a judgement against them that they fully will know is wrong.

The only thing that your responses to this topic once again shows is your contempt for nudists and your 'antiness' (as Moonshadow says). You gloat over setbacks for nudists and clearly demonstrate one very important lesson for all nudists in this forum. That is the utmost importance for nudists to support organizations such as the NAC with even small donations so that the NAC can fight to establish laws that protect the rights of nudists against your absudities. There is nothing to 'negotiate'. There are laws to be written and passed that protect the rights of nudists and we have you to thank for showing us that we do indeed need protection from you. We naturists have important legal work to do now and it is best we spend our time doing it!

Sanslines

07-05-2008, 08:52 AM

There are some good things about nudism which I think we textiles could learn from, in particular your sense of community and your laudable intention to avoid judging others by their appearance.

Yes Stu, you may want to try and practice this and stop judging nudists by their appearance (ie their lack of clothes).

Stu2630

07-05-2008, 10:35 AM

Sanslines

Tell me exactly what is the specific legal code which demands this this man get dressed?

The man was charged under a local law which states: 'nobody may undervalue the rights of others, nor offend their dignity'. The police believed this man's nakedness undervalued the rights of others and demanded he get dressed. He failed to do so and the police pursued the matter. The prosecutor agreed and took the matter to trial. The judge presumably also have agreed that the police had such a power bu virtue of his statement that "others also have the right not to see him without clothes."

Tell me the name and credentials of the individual who represented this man. Please post the transcripts of the case which was presented?

I don't need to do that. You see, if you knew anything at all about the law, you would know that it is a "rebuttable presumption" that "every defendant is capably represented by suitably qualified counsel" unless the contrary is proved. That means that the burden of proof that this man was not properly represented falls upon you, not the other way around. People in prison can't appeal and have their convictions quashed by requiring the state to prove that they were properly represented. That's silly! And funny! :laugh:

judges do indeed interpret the laws as they see fit. They also make mistakes and allow their own personal biases to enter into the judgement.

We assume that judges are sufficiently professional not to allow that to happen, but rather to be objective and dispassionate. But it's a cheap shot to accuse a judge of bias just because you don't happen to like his judgment.

you are only speculating and once again proving that you only wish to believe and promote that which is not there.

No, that's what YOU are doing. You can't escape the simple fact that, in spite of this thread being entitled "Nudity is NOT a punishable offence in Spain but a Constitutional right", I have shown that a man WAS punished in Spain for nudity.

A man was fined and that man could have agreed to the fine for a variety of reasons. People who are innocent plea bargain and pay fines all the time rather then fight a system that has rendered a judgement against them that they fully will know is wrong.

Wrong! Whether he paid the fine or not is immaterial. The point is that, in spite of contesting the case, he was convicted.

You gloat over setbacks for nudists and clearly demonstrate one very important lesson for all nudists in this forum.

I gloat over setbacks for irresponsible nudists, such as this man. I strongly support responsible nudism enjoyed in nudist places, as I am sure is practised by most people here.

We naturists have important legal work to do now and it is best we spend our time doing it!

You need to devote your efforts towards securing more and better nudist beaches and other venues instead of worrying about inconsiderate people such as Mr Te. He got what he deserved and there's an end to it.

Stu

David77

07-05-2008, 11:37 AM

So! A Trojan Horse and/or an "agent provocateur"?? Can we hear it from the (trojan) horse's mouth, perhaps??

TMM

The above is truly enjoyable poetic expression!

Boreas

07-05-2008, 12:47 PM

If I had the time and inclination, I would probably respond to Stu's comments. I have neither, so I won't. Frankly, it is just silly now.

MJ_KC

07-05-2008, 01:06 PM

If I had the time and inclination, I would probably respond to Stu's comments. I have neither, so I won't. Frankly, it is just silly now.
Stu doesn't seem to understand how the courts actually work.

Sometimes defendants know when to plea bargain based upon past rulings by a specific judge. Just because a law seems obvious does not mean that a judge won't let their own bias come into play and make it difficult to get a fair judgment. We have an appeals process because of the fact that this type of thing is way too common. Mistakes get made in interpreting the law and sometimes it is a willful error and not an accident.

Sanslines

07-05-2008, 04:07 PM

Sanslines

The man was charged under a local law which states: 'nobody may undervalue the rights of others, nor offend their dignity'. The police believed this man's nakedness undervalued the rights of others and demanded he get dressed. He failed to do so and the police pursued the matter. The prosecutor agreed and took the matter to trial. The judge presumably also have agreed that the police had such a power bu virtue of his statement that "others also have the right not to see him without clothes."

You are answering a question that I did not ask. If the law that you are quoting is indeed accurate, then this law can be used for anything and everything under the sun. Since there was no specific anti nudity law under which to charge this man, they 'found' a law and tried to make it stick. You will only see your side to this case and will gloat that this man was charged. You will never entertain the very real possibilities that a travesty of justice and a mockery of law was commited by the authorities. The man could have and should have been acquited of the charges but without knowning the specifics (and so far asking you for specifics has yielded nothing but your biased opinions) the man may have been advised to pay 80 euros (which is a relatively small amount of money) and then walk away from this case. It is very possible that he did not have the time or resources to overturn the decision on appeal. This kind of situation happens each and every day in courts across the USA nation.

I don't need to do that. You see, if you knew anything at all about the law, you would know that it is a "rebuttable presumption" that "every defendant is capably represented by suitably qualified counsel" unless the contrary is proved. That means that the burden of proof that this man was not properly represented falls upon you, not the other way around. People in prison can't appeal and have their convictions quashed by requiring the state to prove that they were properly represented. That's silly! And funny! :laugh:

You actually do need to do it if you want anyone to believe that you are doing anything more then offering speculations about a case. You have also just demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about the legal situation in the USA. Furthermore, when I pressed you to post the specifics of this case, you refused and came up with some ludicrous story. Stop playing games and post the information or admit that you are only speculating about this case and are force fitting it to your anti nudity mold!

We assume that judges are sufficiently professional not to allow that to happen, but rather to be objective and dispassionate. But it's a cheap shot to accuse a judge of bias just because you don't happen to like his judgment.

Judges are human beings and it is a fact of life that their biases do enter into how they rule in court cases. Any first year lawyer understands this as once a judge is selected to hear a case the lawyer would then tend to bias or skew the evidence to obtain a favorable ruling. This is part of how the game is played. Of course you would know this if you had a real understanding of the actual legal process.

No, that's what YOU are doing. You can't escape the simple fact that, in spite of this thread being entitled "Nudity is NOT a punishable offence in Spain but a Constitutional right", I have shown that a man WAS punished in Spain for nudity.

No he was NOT punished for nudity for there is no law which prohibits nudity. He was punished for so called 'offending the dignity of others'. You are wrong again!

Wrong! Whether he paid the fine or not is immaterial. The point is that, in spite of contesting the case, he was convicted.

You are the one who clearly stated that he paid a fine of 80 euros. You also clearly stated that because he paid a fine, the Spanish naturists are wrong. You did state that and now you are clearly contradicting yourself.
Wrong.....wrong.....wrong........Stu goes on and on and just digs his hole deeper and deeper with his presentation of his personal biased opinions and speculations as facts and attempts to advance his anti nudism agenda. Stu fools no one but himself!

Bob S.

07-05-2008, 07:35 PM

Stu:"'nobody may undervalue the rights of others, nor offend their dignity'."

If that is the actual translated verbiage of the law, then the locality really needs to get a bit more specific. As Sanslines mentioned, this can be used to ban anything. Being naked, the man did not undervalue anyone's rights. In fact, the opposite can be said. The police undervalued the man's rights by forcing him to dress.

I am not sure if the term 'dignity' means the same thing in Spain, but to me, no one can affect someone else's dignity outright. You must choose to allow someone else to affect your own dignity and in that case, you would be complicit in the "offense."

Sanslines:"Tell me the name and credentials of the individual who represented this man. Please post the transcripts of the case which was presented? Unless you provide this information, you are only speculating and once again proving that you only wish to believe and promote that which is not there."

Not meaning to take Stu's side, but he is correct. You were the one who made the accusation of incompetent legal counsel so therefore, you are required to provide the evidence. Until then, you are the one speculating. No one in court has to argue that they received adequate counsel. They have to argue the opposite.

Bob S.

Kari P

07-06-2008, 12:28 AM

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 05:32 AM

Sanslines:"Tell me the name and credentials of the individual who represented this man. Please post the transcripts of the case which was presented? Unless you provide this information, you are only speculating and once again proving that you only wish to believe and promote that which is not there."

Not meaning to take Stu's side, but he is correct. You were the one who made the accusation of incompetent legal counsel so therefore, you are required to provide the evidence. Until then, you are the one speculating. No one in court has to argue that they received adequate counsel. They have to argue the opposite.

Bob S.

My speculations concern a whole range of issues that need to be answered before anything can be concluded. Stu is absolutely convinced that nothing that I bring up is a possibility because he firmly agrees with the conclusion that the man was punished for public nudity. He does not seem concerned about the minor details of how such a verdict was reached and offers nothing but pure speculation and opinions that may or may not be correct. His opinions are no more valid then mine. As for my providing evidence that this man did or did not have legal counsel, the correct answer is that neither Stu or I have this information. Instead of Stu admiting this, he is trying to hide behind the law by demanding that I provide this information (which in a real court of law I would for I would have access to such information). Stu is speculating and offering opinions and I have raised reasonable doubt about a whole series of issues concerning this case. Stu will never acknowledge those issues for he can not be bothered with what he consideres to be trivial details that would clearly weaken his case.

What immediately appears to be so fishy in this specific case is that a charge that has nothing specific to do with nudity was used to indirectly prosecute this man for nudity. If the charge of 'offending someone else's dignity' is true, then a man who walks down the street and looks at the wife of another man can also be charged with 'offending the dignity of the married man'. Spanish jails could very easiliy be filled with those who offend the dignity of others. Such a law clearly needs to be challenged. As it pertains to nudity, I would like to know if it was and it was not then why not.

Stu so badly wants to conclude that since this man was charged for a 'crime' that was motivated by public nudity, therefore public nudity is illegal in Spain and the article that I posted is wrong. Such a conclusion is absurd and is beyond rational discussion.

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 05:36 AM

The laws are rather similar in most European countries. Not only in Spain nudity is not mentioned in laws and so it isn't a punishable offence as such; however there can be other, more vague laws that can be applied so that in effect nudity in public isn't allowed and either it is punishable as such based on interpretation of the law (in Finland, as a "public offence against sexual morals"), or if the person refuses to dress when the police asks that on public order ground.

I don't believe what the title says: that nudity is a constitutional right in Spain. Anyone who claims that should point a paragraph in the Spanish constitution which is very clear in its meaning, stating expicitly that nudity is, everywhere and everytime and for everyone, a protected right. Until not pointed, I don't believe such a paragraph exists.

This is a vague area and the laws do not specifically spell out the rights of nudists. Such laws need to be written to protect the rights of nudists. That is the problem worldwide.

There are countless vague areas of the law for the law can not spell out what can and can not be done in each and every issue in life.

Some parts of the world have tried the approach that unless a law specifies that what you are doing is legal, then it is automatically illegal and you can be charged accordingly. This 'blanket' law continues to be challenged as being patently unfair, overbearing, and discriminatory.

Stu2630

07-06-2008, 08:49 AM

Sanslines

If the law that you are quoting is indeed accurate, then this law can be used for anything and everything under the sun.

It can. A lot of European law is framed that way.

Since there was no specific anti nudity law under which to charge this man, they 'found' a law and tried to make it stick.

Correct. That's how the law works.

You will never entertain the very real possibilities that a travesty of justice and a mockery of law was commited by the authorities. The man could have and should have been acquited of the charges but without knowning the specifics

OK. That's your opinion. In my opinion, he was rightly charged and convicted.

It is very possible that he did not have the time or resources to overturn the decision on appeal.

Possible, but unlikely, and you have no evidence this was the case, or that he would have succeeded in any appeal to the highest court (my understanding is that his "paper appeal" to the Spanish National Court was thrown out). For that reason, unless you can show the contrary, we have to accept the simple and unarguable fact that a man was punished for being nude in Spain.

Furthermore, when I pressed you to post the specifics of this case, you refused and came up with some ludicrous story.

I have shown you the evidence as to what happened. You are speculating on why it happened. It's up to you to show that it is more than just speculation and you know you can't.

Judges are human beings and it is a fact of life that their biases do enter into how they rule in court cases.Judges are selected because of their ability to apply the law dispassionately and not allow their own prejudices to interfere with heir judgment. You are accusing this judge of unprofessionalism based un speculation because you can not prove that.

No he was NOT punished for nudity for there is no law which prohibits nudity. He was punished for so called 'offending the dignity of others'. You are wrong again!

You are turning this into a semantic argument. Would he have been arrested and fined had he not been nude? No. Period.

You are the one who clearly stated that he paid a fine of 80 euros. You also clearly stated that because he paid a fine, the Spanish naturists are wrong.

No - that's not true. I don't know whether or not he actually paid the fine - that's immaterial. What matters is that he was convicted and a fine was imposed by the court. So he was punished for being nude.

This is a vague area and the laws do not specifically spell out the rights of nudists. Such laws need to be written to protect the rights of nudists.

Fortunately, the judge in this case decided that other people have ights, too, specifically not to have to see this man naked. Good for him!

Kari

Thank you for your insightful and logical input into this. The Spanish naturists may wish it was a Constitutional right to be nude in public, but so far as I know, nudity doesn't even get a mention in their Constitution, so those who are nude may find themselves at odds with local bylaws.

BobS

If that is the actual translated verbiage of the law, then the locality really needs to get a bit more specific.

Laws, both local and national, are often framed in this loose way in European countries so that courts can look at any case on its merits. It does work quite well.

Being naked, the man did not undervalue anyone's rights. In fact, the opposite can be said. The police undervalued the man's rights by forcing him to dress.

I don't see it that way and neither did the police, or the judge. I think people DO have a right not to have to see nudity in public and by being naked in public, he is disregarding our right.

I am not sure if the term 'dignity' means the same thing in Spain, but to me, no one can affect someone else's dignity outright. You must choose to allow someone else to affect your own dignity and in that case, you would be complicit in the "offense."

In UK law, a person's "dignity" would certainly include retaining their ability to go about their business without encountering behaviour which is likely to cause an adverse emotional reaction. It's a rather old-fashioned interpretation of the word "dignity", but it is still valid.

Not meaning to take Stu's side...

Don't be afraid to take my side if you think I'm right. I would speak up in support of responsible and considerate nudists if people bad mouthe them in my hearing.

Stu

Agde

07-06-2008, 09:35 AM

This is really a dead-horse topic. As discussed at length in other threads, La Mercè (Virgin of Mercy’s Festival) in Barcelona is an annual civic-religious occasion when prayers are offered to the Virgin of Mercy for having rescued the city from a plague of locusts in 1687.

It was just a case of wrong time, wrong place and then getting fined for being obstinate and unruly. Otherwise, Esteban "habitually walks about the streets of Barcelona with nothing on" and it is a non-issue.

Bottomline: by default nudity is ok, but on certain occasions there are explicit or customary dress codes to respect. Sounds reasonable to me. It is the inverse of Stu's approach and offers him no particular argumentative support.

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 09:40 AM

Stu doesn't seem to understand how the courts actually work.

Sometimes defendants know when to plea bargain based upon past rulings by a specific judge. Just because a law seems obvious does not mean that a judge won't let their own bias come into play and make it difficult to get a fair judgment. We have an appeals process because of the fact that this type of thing is way too common. Mistakes get made in interpreting the law and sometimes it is a willful error and not an accident.

100 percent correct!!!

NudonyII

07-06-2008, 09:53 AM

The laws are rather similar in most European countries. Not only in Spain nudity is not mentioned in laws and so it isn't a punishable offence as such; however there can be other, more vague laws that can be applied so that in effect nudity in public isn't allowed and either it is punishable as such based on interpretation of the law (in Finland, as a "public offence against sexual morals"), or if the person refuses to dress when the police asks that on public order ground.

I don't believe what the title says: that nudity is a constitutional right in Spain. Anyone who claims that should point a paragraph in the Spanish constitution which is very clear in its meaning, stating expicitly that nudity is, everywhere and everytime and for everyone, a protected right. Until not pointed, I don't believe such a paragraph exists.

I've also mentionned this in the past. Nudism per se may not be illegal in many European countries; but, for example in France, "attentat a la pudeur" (literally "offence to modesty", better known here as indecent exposure) is very much illegal. And that's interpretable a variety of ways by the many regional and local court systems throughout Europe. If one's nudity is found to be outside and beyond nudity tolerant public venues (beach, lake, park), there's always a possibility of being charged with indecent exposure. And because of the many local ordinances and regional cultural values, just because someone gets away with walking across the street nude in Podunck, France doesn't mean they can get away with it in San Podunck, Spain.

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 10:04 AM

Sanslines

[quote]OK. That's your opinion. In my opinion, he was rightly charged and convicted.

Based upon what? Could it possible be that you agree that he was rightly charged ONLY because you agree with the FINAL VERDICT. Have you read the court transcripts?

Possible, but unlikely, and you have no evidence this was the case, or that he would have succeeded in any appeal to the highest court (my understanding is that his "paper appeal" to the Spanish National Court was thrown out). For that reason, unless you can show the contrary, we have to accept the simple and unarguable fact that a man was punished for being nude in Spain.

Stu, you really are confused about my intentions. IF I wanted to prove anything in an actual court of law, I would obtain FACTUAL information. Neither you or I have that information. All that I have done is to raise questions and doubts as to what may have occured. In your haste to embrace the final verdict, you ignore the fact that you are making assumptions with NO evidence to support any of it. The issue is not whether you are required to do so or not, for this is only a dodge by you to avoid discussing the real issue at hand. Your conclusion about this man being properly charged can not be substatiated by your opinions alone.

I have shown you the evidence as to what happened. You are speculating on why it happened. It's up to you to show that it is more than just speculation and you know you can't.

I have asked for evidence and all that you have done is to turn the tables and demand that I produce the evidence. What specific evidence has you provided? You have provided a final verdict, what the man was charged with, and a few opinions by a Justice. That's all that you have provided. You have not provided any court transcripts or any other case specific information because you can't. So you are only speculating as to what occured in this case and refuse to consider any possibilities as to what may have actually occured.

Judges are selected because of their ability to apply the law dispassionately and not allow their own prejudices to interfere with heir judgment. You are accusing this judge of unprofessionalism based un speculation because you can not prove that.

I am 'accusing' a judge of being a normal human being who has biases and beliefs just like the rest of us. You continue to refuse to understand that court cases are presented by lawyers so as to subtle appeal to these biases. This is what good lawyers do - they exploit any and every angle. Judges are clearly biased. Some are conservative by nature and rule in a conservative fashion. Others are liberal and rule in a liberal fashion. The US Supreme Court is a clear example of a representation of both liberal and conservative philosophies.

You are turning this into a semantic argument. Would he have been arrested and fined had he not been nude? No. Period.

You are dodging the real question as to should he have been arrested in the first place. You believe so because it supports your anti nudist agenda.

You are the one who clearly stated that he paid a fine of 80 euros. You also clearly stated that because he paid a fine, the Spanish naturists are wrong.

Did you or did you not say this: "......but you can not escape the simple truth that a man was fined in Spain for being nude. And that means that the Spanish naturists are WRONG!"

You clearly said that the man paid a fine AND that means that the Spanish naturists are WRONG! You said it and you know it!!

No - that's not true. I don't know whether or not he actually paid the fine - that's immaterial. What matters is that he was convicted and a fine was imposed by the court. So he was punished for being nude.

Both you and your article stated that the man was 'fined' 80 euros. Now you are playing games by trying to confuse the issue as to whether the man paid the fine or not. The fine was part of the final verdict. Either the man paid the fine or he did not. If he did not, then it can be argued that he paid no penalty for his so called 'crime' and therefore the whole case was for 'show' only.

Fortunately, the judge in this case decided that other people have ights, too, specifically not to have to see this man naked. Good for him!

Eveyone has rights. Including nudists but you can't seem to be bothered with nudists rights as you are only concerned with textiles and their rights. Just more sublte promotion of your anti nudist agenda.

Don't be afraid to take my side if you think I'm right. I would speak up in support of responsible and considerate nudists if people bad mouthe them in my hearing.

Just more smoke and mirrors to con nudists into believing real intentions that are not there. No one is fooled! We see your anti nudist agenda for what it really is. The final ruling is in.......the case is closed!

Stu2630

07-06-2008, 10:43 AM

Agde

Bottomline: by default nudity is ok, but on certain occasions there are explicit or customary dress codes to respect. Sounds reasonable to me. It is the inverse of Stu's approach and offers him no particular argumentative support.

Bottomline: The title of this thread is Nudity is NOT punishable in Spain but is a Constitutional right. FACT - The Spanish Ministry of Justice state that local authorities can and do make byelaws which prohibit public nudity. FACT - a man was fined for being nude in public in Spain a few months ago. No menion was made by the judge hat this was because it was a speial event or date. Therefore the statement which forms the title of this thread in plainly wrong.

NudonyII appears to recognise the reality when he points out that ".. because of the many local ordinances and regional cultural values, just because someone gets away with walking across the street nude in Podunck, France doesn't mean they can get away with it in San Podunck, Spain"

Sanslines

Neither you or I have that information.

So we have to take it at face value and assume that it was a normal court hearing before a fair and impartial judge.

All that I have done is to raise questions and doubts as to what may have occured.

Doubts which are pure speculation.

I have asked for evidence and all that you have done is to turn the tables and demand that I produce the evidence.

You are the one introducing doubts and you are asking me to prove a negative. That ain't how you debate! If I said that there is a giant teapot orbiting Jupiter then it would be for me to prove: the onus is not on sceptics to disprove. You made the suggestion that the judge was not impartial so you should prove it.

You are dodging the real question as to should he have been arrested in the first place.

I am delighted to address that. Yes, he should have been arrested because his behaviour was offensive and, as the judge stated, people have the right not to have to see him naked.

Did you or did you not say this: "......but you can not escape the simple truth that a man was fined in Spain for being nude. And that means that the Spanish naturists are WRONG!"

You clearly said that the man paid a fine AND that means that the Spanish naturists are WRONG! You said it and you know it!!

Yes I did say that he was fined, but I didn't say he paid the fine. Can't you see the difference? Do you think that everyone who is fined actually pays the fine?

Either the man paid the fine or he did not. If he did not, then it can be argued that he paid no penalty for his so called 'crime' and therefore the whole case was for 'show' only.

Whre a fine is not paid, courts often substitute a "community sentence" in its place, or else make an Order for the value of the fine to be deducted from the defendant's earnings or state benefits.

Eveyone has rights. Including nudists but you can't seem to be bothered with nudists rights

Nudists have a right to have places set aside for their use which they can enjoy with likeminded nudists and away from the rest of us, and away from people nudists object to like gawkers and perverts. I support that right!

Stu

Sanslines

07-06-2008, 01:05 PM

So we have to take it at face value and assume that it was a normal court hearing before a fair and impartial judge.

No we do not take anything at face value. We question everything and seek factual information........something that you can't seem to be bothered with as it might not support your joy in seeing someone punished for harmless nudity.

Doubts which are pure speculation.

We go round and round with this. I admit to speculation and raising legit questions. You refuse to do so and play games to avoid the issue. You then introduce your own set of speculations and when asked to provide proof for them you refuse. Can't you see this?

You are the one introducing doubts and you are asking me to prove a negative. That ain't how you debate! If I said that there is a giant teapot orbiting Jupiter then it would be for me to prove: the onus is not on sceptics to disprove. You made the suggestion that the judge was not impartial so you should prove it.

I raised enough questions with this issue to create plenty of doubts. If you wish to believe that the justice system is perfect and that there is never bias or that innocent people are never wrongly charged, then that is your perogative. I only have asked you to provide proof as you are presenting yourself and the self appointed expert on this case.

Yes I did say that he was fined, but I didn't say he paid the fine. Can't you see the difference? Do you think that everyone who is fined actually pays the fine?

Around here, if you don't pay your fines, there will be legal consequences to pay! One young lady ignored paying her parking fines. The police came and put a 'boot' on her front car wheel so she can not move her car until she pays the fines. Only scoflaws do not pay fines and the laws (at least around here) deal with scoflaws in a very harsh manner.

Whre a fine is not paid, courts often substitute a "community sentence" in its place, or else make an Order for the value of the fine to be deducted from the defendant's earnings or state benefits.

Then the final verdict would have been an order of community service and not some meaningless fine. If an order is made to deduct earnings to pay a fine, then the man was forced to pay the fine and did so.

Nudists have a right to have places set aside for their use which they can enjoy with likeminded nudists and away from the rest of us, and away from people nudists object to like gawkers and perverts. I support that right!

Nudists have a right to decide for themselves what works for them and they do not need Stu to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Can't you accept that??

Can't you understand that we have to deal with the anti nudist garbage in the real world and come here to this 'nudist' forum to escape it for a while only to be constantly reminded of our limitations by you? Why can't you respect us and our desire to be free from constant reminders in this forum? Why can't you even acknowledge this when one person after the other has told you this and yet you ignore all of us? Why can't you respect us Stu? Why Stu, why!!???

mountainman

07-07-2008, 05:40 AM

MoonShadow

07-07-2008, 08:08 AM

Good Grief!

Stu relents with his anti-ness!

Stu, we agree, all of us should be segregated to secluded beaches where no textile can see us. It's the way you want it and we all agree.

Now,

Will you go away?

Boreas

07-07-2008, 08:15 AM

Oh but MoonShadow, how can you say that Stu is anti-nudity?? :sneaky: He is so supportive of us having our segrated spaces. :surprised: That is pretty magnanamous for a guy who is absolutely repulsed by nudity. :laugh:

*please note this post is very sarcastic......not meant to be taken seriously. :rolleyes:

MoonShadow

07-07-2008, 09:37 AM

LOL Boreas

Yeppers, we all agree with Stu: keep us hidden from the textile world where no eyes of a clothed one will ever see us.

And, make sure signs are placarded everywhere and oh yes, let's put a barrier between the beaches of the nudists and the textiles.....can't have children swimming in diapers or naked to see us nudists.....tsk...tsk....shameful!

How's that, Stu?

Boreas

07-07-2008, 09:40 AM

MoonShadow, do I detect some sarcasm in your post? shocked :laugh:

MoonShadow

07-07-2008, 09:50 AM

Surely, NOT!

Boreas

07-07-2008, 09:52 AM

:funny::rofl:

Pete Knight

07-07-2008, 10:53 AM

Now, now ladies, stop picking on our resident troll, thats my job!

However I fully agree that we should be segregated from textiles, there should indeed be signs warning us that the stony beach at the end of a long walk may have people wearing cloth on their loins (No don't laugh, they really do it.) and we should avoid our children seeing this outrageous spectacle for fear that it will affect their development.

Oh look mummy, that man is wearing material on the beach, should we call the police?

Thanks for the laugh, just what I needed.

Pete Knight

Agde

07-07-2008, 11:02 AM

Bottomline: The title of this thread is Nudity is NOT punishable in Spain but is a Constitutional right. FACT - The Spanish Ministry of Justice state that local authorities can and do make byelaws which prohibit public nudity. FACT - a man was fined for being nude in public in Spain a few months ago. No menion was made by the judge hat this was because it was a special event or date. Therefore the statement which forms the title of this thread in plainly wrong.
Stu, you have legal training and know better. There is no constitutional ban on public nudity in Spain and localities may not create local laws without a legal foundation. Since you know this, your reference to "byelaws" must just be meant to obfuscate. Even your claim that " a man was fined for being nude in public in Spain" is designed to muddle -- nudity was not the legal issue any more than neckties would be the issue if someone got unruly about refusing to wear a necktie in a restaurant. Overall I know that you know that there is neither a ban on nor a right to nudity in Spanish law (no ban or right to be necktie-free either), so you are using formal illogic to attack the thread title and twist it to argue that lack of a right to nudity equals a right not to see nudity. Your "facts" and premises in the Spain case are just "teapots orbiting Jupiter."

Boreas

07-07-2008, 12:22 PM

Stu2630

07-08-2008, 03:22 PM

Agde

There is no constitutional ban on public nudity in Spain...

I don't know of a single country where there IS a Constitutional ban on public nudity. Can you name one? The absence of a Constitutional ban on a particular behaviour does not mean there is a Constitutional right to do it. There is no Constitutional ban on public nudity in Scotland, but that hasn't stopped them incarcerating Steve Gough for it for the past two years!

and localities may not create local laws without a legal foundation.

Local byelaws are usually created as subordinate legislation. We have that system here, too. Central government makes a national law which empowers local authorities to design their own rules on a range of matters from parking regulations to how people must conduct themselves in libraries. These often include powers to create local laws to govern behaviour in public places which could offend against what is considered to be good order and public comfort. These laws generally ban drunkenness, shouting, obscene language - and also nudity. That is all that's happened here.

Even your claim that " a man was fined for being nude in public in Spain" is designed to muddle -- nudity was not the legal issue..

Nudists here are in denial about this big time!! :laugh: Read the article again - carefully.

Yes, the man was fined because of the sum of his behaviour - the nudity, the place where it took place, the refusal to dress when required and the unwillingness to co-operate with the police. But the nudity was the actus reus, the substantive unlawful conduct, and what followed and the man's non-cooperation were simply aggravating features of the incident. Had he not been nude OR had the police not had the power to require him to cease being nude in public, there could have been no case to answer and he would have been acquitted. Put it another way - if he had been singing an obscene song in a loud voice instead of being nude, and he refused to desist when the police asked him to and that ultimately led to his arrest and conviction, you would never make the claim that he wasn't actually fined for singing the rude song, but rather for some other attendant behaviour or circumstances.

Overall I know that you know that there is neither a ban on nor a right to nudity in Spanish law (no ban or right to be necktie-free either), so you are using formal illogic to attack the thread title and twist it to argue that lack of a right to nudity equals a right not to see nudity.

There is no national law which bans nudity in Spain (as there isn't in Scotland). But other laws can be, and are, used against inappropriate public nudity. These are usually public order laws and are often local rather than national laws. My logic in this case is simple and certainly not twisted. It is that Mr Te was nude in public - the obviously considered this to be contrary to good order and public dignity so they ordered him to cease being nude - he refused and the police considered that his continued nudity constituted a continuation of the offence. The matter went to court and the judge agreed with the police interpretation of the local law that, by not ceasing to be nude, he was denying people their right not to see him nude. The inescapable conclusion for any rational observer is therefore that this man's nudity was, in this case, a de facto instance of a breach of the local law and therefore the primary cause of his punishment.

If you doubt my interpretation, why don't you show this thread to some other legal mind you know (a non-nudist, please) and get his or her take on it? I can almost guarantee you they'll come to something very close to the same conclusion that I have. :)

Stu

Sanslines

07-08-2008, 03:57 PM

Agde,

Don't waste your precious time arguing with Stu. It is completely pointless. Stu is only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. For example, he might make a statement such as 'the earth is flat'. You may then disagree. Stu will then reply by saying that he never said that the earth is 'completely' flat, that the earth has some slight curvature, and that therefore the earth is not completely. You might then resort to using a dictionary definition of words and Stu will counter that he doesn't believe in dictionary definitions. How can you have anything resembling a meaningful and intelligent conversation? You can't and it is madness to even try!

Stu will go round and round with anyone and everyone for the sole purpose of getting enjoyment out of twisting everything around with endless and nonsensical debate. You will never get Stu to accept anything that you state and Stu will argue with you until the end of time. That's just the way it is. You don't have to allow it by refusing to reply. No doubt Stu will continue to provoke anyone and everyone into making responses and will always have the last word no matter what.

Sanslines

07-08-2008, 04:16 PM

Agde

07-08-2008, 10:54 PM

Don't waste your precious time arguing with Stu. It is completely pointless.
Sanslines -- good advice! :) Especially on this topic, I just got a smile out of Stu virtually admitting that he was trying to prove "that there is giant teapot orbiting Jupiter" -- an otherwise singularly English challenge for British Aerospace.

Stu2630

07-09-2008, 04:09 AM

I gave a detailed and logical explanation as to why the man in Barcelona was charged, and how subordinate legislation generally works. I showed that the basis of my assertions was firstly my own legal background, and secondly the response I received from the Spanish Ministry of Justice. The article in the newspaper, and the headline itself ("Stubborn nudist fined 80 euros"), will be interpreted by people that he was fined for his nakedness. I challenged those who responded to me to find any (non-nudist) legal authority, including a friendly lawyer, to review my statements in light of the case, and the Ministry's reply. I have proved to any rational mind that the statement which heads this thread that nudity is not punishable in Spain and is a Constitutional right is absolute nonsense. So far as I am concerned, it is nudists here who are arguing for the sake if it, not me.

Sorry, guys, you may not have the grace to admit it, but this one is game, set and match to Stu. But I'll tell you what, though. I will bet that, within a year from now, someone else in Spain will also find himself punished by a Spanish court for public nudity and you lot will again twist the circumstances and make out all sorts of reasons as to why he wasn't really punished for his nakedness, but because he wasn't polite to the policeman, or he had a big nose, or something else. But, hey, if you want to live in your cosy world of denial, that's fine by me. :D

Stu

MoonShadow

07-09-2008, 04:54 AM

Sorry, guys, you may not have the grace to admit it, but this one is game, set and match to Stu.
Stu

Whatta go, Stu! Cheers! You're dead on! You are always right. We agree with you 100 percent!

Yep, we don't have any grace to admit to anything; you have us all pegged. Good for you!

MoonShadow

07-09-2008, 04:56 AM

The line of demarcation needs to be heavily patrolled and fortified so that no nudist can ever accidentally cross the border into hostile textile territory.

LOL

Absolutely!!! Heavens forbid that the nudists will in any way be seen and of course, let's be sure they are never heard.

Stu2630

07-09-2008, 06:26 AM

MoonShadow

Absolutely!!! Heavens forbid that the nudists will in any way be seen and of course, let's be sure they are never heard.

I don't mind seeing nudists - so long as they keep their pants on when in non-nudist places.

Of course nudists must be heard - all we ask is that they keep their pants on when in non-nudist places.

Nudists say they don't want to offend people - and they can guarantee not offending anyone if they keep their pants on when in non-nudist places.

Can you see a common thread running through this? I genuinely do try to empathise with nudists. I have said many times they get a rough deal in the largely textile society and that's not fair. But there is a seam running through the nudist movement which will have no truck with compromise. They are set on achieving some sort of right to get naked where they please and hang everyone else. For them, anyone who is uncomfortable with the nudity of others has a "problem" and that's just hard cheese for them. This belligerence is obnoxious, and also damages the nudist cause. It will set back the cause of responsible nudism in exactly the same way that the Taliban damages the reputation and interests of moderate Muslims.

The statement that there is a Constitutional right to be naked in public in Spain is plainly wrong: it is perverse and infantile to argue that this is the case. The Spanish Constitution doesn't even mention nudity any more than any other nation's Constitution does. The truth is that Spain has a relatively relaxed and liberal attitude to nudity when compared with most other advanced nations but the title of this thread is a gross exaggeration and distortion. That said, can we not agree on that point and move on?

There are factions in the textile community who would like to see you banned. They are dubious of your motives; they think you are acting out sexual fantasies and that your children are at risk from you. They would like to outlaw all forms of nudism and close down all your beaches. I am not among these people - quite the opposite. I fight the corner of nudists when they attract unfair criticism in the textile community. I will support any campaign to gain nudists more and better facilities for organised nudism and even a bit of tolerance if using remote places for such as skinnydipping or hiking, so long as they cover up when approached. In return, I would expect nudists to return the favour by making some effort to protect people like me from a sight we find upsetting. Is that SO unreasonable?

Stu

MissionNudists

07-09-2008, 06:51 AM

A lot of this discussion is based on one case. In this thread I can't find: the actual change, excerpts from the court records, or any other factual information.

In Canada the Charter of Rights guaranties equality of the sexes, so if a man can be top-free so can a woman. Disobeying a police officer is a crime, unless the request is illegal. Wearing a top is not illegal.

A woman is walking down the street top-free, and a police officer stops her, and tells her to put a top on. The story could continue in two different ways.

A: She calmly puts her top on, explains to the officer that it is her right to be top-free, and requests that the officer seek advice from their superiors. Most likely, after the officer made contact, no further action would be taken.

B: She flatly refuses to put her top on, argues with the officer that it is her right to be top-free. The officer removes her/his jacket and attempts to cover the women and she pulls away. She is charged with disobeying a police officer and obstruction of a police officer. If she continues, to resist she could be charged with resisting arrest. And she would lose on all counts. The media would say "Women Arrested for Being Topless", not really true but why would the media use the real truth, it doesn't sell.

I live near Maple Ridge, BC. home of Linda Meyers, top-free advocate, one time the head line went something like this "Topless Rider Causes Accident". Reading further you found out: that Linda had already put her top on, the officer was requesting instructions, the police car was partly blocking traffic with its lights flashing, and a rear-ender occurred. Maybe the headline should have read "Police Cause An Other Rear-Ender". No charges were laid against Linda.

The point is. Without more facts, this single case proves nothing.

Stu: I looked at your profile, very informative: male from the UK. From your posts, it appears that your are against nudism, so why are you here?
Also you like to debate, but since you don't give facts, that we can verify, you're not very good at it. That may explain why you are here, and not on a debating forum.

Information on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Canadian law. (http://www.canada.ca)

P.S. Top-freedom is not legal in Canada, it's just not illegal. The government could pass a law requiring everyone to wear a top. Or for that matter, could outlaw tops completely, not likely, too cold in winter.

MissionNudists

07-09-2008, 07:03 AM

In return, I would expect nudists to return the favour by making some effort to protect people like me from a sight we find upsetting. Is that SO unreasonable?

Not unreasonable at all. And if I was irrationally or religiously upset by bald heads should I expect the same consideration?

Boreas

07-09-2008, 07:18 AM

Thanks for your reasoned response MissionNudists!

I would like to also respond to Stu's comment about obnoxious nudists. I have said this before. You say you are supportive of nudist's rights. Fair enough. You would have more credibility with this if you were not so openly absolutely repulsed by nudity. Also, as MN said, there are always more facts to a situation than what read. The way I see it, you are as rabid on the anti-nudity issue and you accuse the nudists of being on the pro-nudity side.

Stu2630

07-09-2008, 07:18 AM

MissionNudist

The point is. Without more facts, this single case proves nothing.Would be reasonable to suppose that the most qualified legal person involved in this case is the judge? I think so. The judge found Mr Te guilty, not of failing to obey a police officer (which is not usually an offence in European countries) but of a specific byelaw offence which states that nobody may undervalue the rights of others, nor offend their dignity'. The judge went on to say that the nudist seems to forget that "others also have the right not to see him without clothes". Just to add to that, I even emailed the Spanish Ministry of Justice some months ago as to what the law is in Spain on public nudity, and I posted their reply on here. I was told that there is no national law against nudity but that many local authorities have byelaws which make it illegal in their districts. That seems pretty clear to me and I'm not sure what more "facts" you want.

Stu: I looked at your profile, very informative: male from the UK.What more information do you want about me? I'm a married man with three kids - two are grown up. I am a college lecturer by profession and educated to doctoral level. I live in Yorkshire. Anything else?

From your posts, it appears that your are against nudism, so why are you here?Didn't you read my last post? I said: "I fight the corner of nudists when they attract unfair criticism in the textile community. I will support any campaign to gain nudists more and better facilities for organised nudism and even a bit of tolerance if using remote places for such as skinnydipping or hiking, so long as they cover up when approached."

Does that sound like someone who is "against nudism"?

Also you like to debate, but since you don't give facts, that we can verify, you're not very good at it. That may explain why you are here, and not on a debating forum.I don't know what "facts" you are talking about. You have all the facts. Yes, I do enjoy debate, but it seems to me that you are joining the fray in attacking me to show solidarity with your brother nudists.

Boreas

You would have more credibility with this if you were not so openly absolutely repulsed by nudity.

I am repulsed by nudity outside of certain situations, but I tolerate it in places where it is socially expected and acceptable. I can't help that and I don't believe my own reaction to socially inappropriate nudity colours my judgment. Remember that I have come a long way since I first started coming here.

Also, as MN said, there are always more facts to a situation than what read.

Like what?

The way I see it, you are as rabid on the anti-nudity issue and you accuse the nudists of being on the pro-nudity side.

I support nudists having a right to enjoy their chosen lifestyles in plentiful, accessible and well-resourced environments designated for their use and free from gawkers and other undesirables. I have yet to see a nudist say that textiles should also have a right to live in a nudity-free environment if they wish.

Stu

MissionNudists

07-09-2008, 07:31 AM

Stu

What I would consider facts would require references, such as, the URL of the court transcript. Maybe I missed it, and if I did I apologize. But so far all that I have seen is your statements of the case. By the way media does not count as fact.

And sorry our posts over lapped.

Walt.

MoonShadow

07-09-2008, 07:35 AM

Can you see a common thread running through this? I genuinely do try to empathise with nudists.
Stu

Pardon me, Stu, I will respectfully disagree with you. You do NOT empathize with nudists. If we were to read all the threads you have on this forum since the beginning, there is a "common thread" and that is you are anti-nudist, you are repulsed by nudity including your own or anyone in your family.

Sure, you speak that we should have our segregated facilities, secluded facilities, facilities posted with signage for all to see and clearly away from textiles. Dare none of us to be seen by a textile, nude.

Sorry, Stu, you are not a friend of nudists despite how "polite" your posts are. We have read your postings for quite sometime and we know the real you.

Two Metre Man

07-09-2008, 08:21 AM

...hence my earlier question - are you a trojan horse or an "agent provocateur," Stu? Whither goest thou here??...

Stu2630

07-09-2008, 09:05 AM

MissionNudist

What I would consider facts would require references, such as, the URL of the court transcript. Maybe I missed it, and if I did I apologize. But so far all that I have seen is your statements of the case. By the way media does not count as fact.I gave a link to the newspaper item which described the trial and gave a direct quotation of the judge In cases which occur in foreign countries, none of us have much idea how to access court transcripts, even if (a) they are actually accessible and (b) we could understand the language. You know full well that we are forced to rely upon the media in such matters. If you don't believe the media, then I hope you will be taking issue with the multitude of media reports shown on this site headed "Nudes in the News".

Boreas

If we were to read all the threads you have on this forum since the beginning, there is a "common thread" and that is you are anti-nudist,Yes, I have been coming here for several years and I have posted hundreds, if not thousands, of times. Would you care to show me one thread which has been disparaging of responsible nudism? Just one? I'll save you the trouble of looking because I haven't. I have praised responsible nudism and supported it. I even once sent a modest cheque to a nudist cause! Your claim that I am anti-nudist is unfounded and unfair.

you are repulsed by nudity including your own or anyone in your family.So what? If I said I don't like the taste of beer and I don't approve of public drunkenness, that doesn't mean I am anti-alcohol.

I don't care for nudity generally and I am repulsed by inappropriate public nudity. That doesn't make me anti-nudist: most nudists I know have no desire to be naked in the presence of people who are less than comfortable with it.

Sure, you speak that we should have our segregated facilities, secluded facilities, facilities posted with signage for all to see and clearly away from textiles. Dare none of us to be seen by a textile, nude.Being nude in the presence of others, including textiles, is a bit like sex in that it should be consensual on the part of both participants; the nude and the observer. That's not unreasonable. I have no problem with there being, for example, some clothing-optional beaches or events where nudity is permitted. I just want the option to be able to avoid it. That's not being anti-nudist.

Stu

Boreas

07-09-2008, 09:42 AM

Stu, you addressed you last post to me, when in fact it was Moon Shadow who wrote to you. I do agree with her though.

Perhaps I should add to what she said, since you missed the point, sort of. You said you were opposed to "inappropriate public nudity". I would argue that while you deny being anti-nudity, you cannot deny being opposed to social nudity. Oh sure, you are going to say it is okay as long as you do not see it. I still say you are opposed to social nudity.

What would make you think that a group of people comfortable (to varying degrees) with social nudity would think you were sympathetic to their cause????? :confused:

MissionNudists

07-09-2008, 09:52 AM

Fact by the media: "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". They always get it right.

Walt

Boreas

07-09-2008, 09:54 AM

Fact by the media: "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". They always get it right.

Walt

You mean the media is NOT the best place for information???? :eek:

Who knew? :sneaky:

MoonShadow

07-09-2008, 10:45 AM

Your claim that I am anti-nudist is unfounded and unfair.

Being nude in the presence of others, including textiles, is a bit like sex in that it should be consensual on the part of both participants; the nude and the observer. That's not unreasonable. I have no problem with there being, for example, some clothing-optional beaches or events where nudity is permitted. I just want the option to be able to avoid it. That's not being anti-nudist.

Stu

If I had the time, Stu, I would weed through your many and numerous posts and prove to you that you are anti-nudist.

Being nude in front of others is nothing like sex. Good grief!

You do have the option to avoid nudity, Stu ---- all the time so why do you insist on being in a nudist forum? You come in and confront anyone into double-speak, twisting words in your belief against this or that which nudists are interested in, participate in, or fantasize about. You actually lecture people here with your anti-ness. You are not a nudist, don't want to be, don't like nudity, so why are you here?

Perhaps you get some perverted delight in being antagonistic here espousing your view on nudity, nude activities, or the desires of some nudists. We don't need a textile who is oppose to nudity in our forum. We deal with enough of them in our real lives.

Boreas, good question you ask.

Two Metre Man

07-09-2008, 11:00 AM

<snip> You are not a nudist, don't want to be, don't like nudity, so why are you here?

I'm tellin' ya - he's a clothes-closet, wannabe nooodist!! Come out and join us, Stu, and quit prevaricating about your deepest, inner desires!! Let 'em loose. It's okay to be human. :yes:

TMM

Sanslines

07-09-2008, 11:17 AM

A lot of this discussion is based on one case. In this thread I can't find: the actual change, excerpts from the court records, or any other factual information........

You are correct. This discussion, debate, whatever you wish to call it......is based upon one single case. There are no court records or specifics (concerning this case) that have been presented here. Everything is an assumption and speculation. I speculated about the possibilites of judge bias and other factors that may or may not have affected the outcome of the case. Stu rejected all of this and demands that we accept that this one single case is a perfect case and is all that is needed to unequivocable conclude that 'free range' nudity is not legal in Spain. He clings to this in spite of what anyone and everyone has said. In the end, Stu is not interested in any kind of discussion or debate for he will reject everything that anyone says. You can go on and on forever with Stu and will get nowhere. However, the rest of us will give a fair hearing to what you post and will not automatically reject it because it does not keep nudity where Stu demands that it be kept - and that is behind closed and locked doors.

Stu is clearly anti-nudist. He does not promote nudism in a positive light and can always be counted on to present the anti nudity textile version. Regardless of the issue or topic at hand, Stu will always find some way to rejoice in the misfortunes of nudists and gloat when nudists are punished for that which he finds intolerable.

Boreas

07-09-2008, 11:19 AM

LOL Two Metre Man.

Good points Moon Shadow.

Pete Knight

07-09-2008, 11:58 AM

Agde

07-09-2008, 02:15 PM

A lot of this discussion is based on one case. In this thread I can't find: the actual change, excerpts from the court records, or any other factual information.
Just for the record, here is a link to the actual verdict (http://www.webpersonal.net/addan/sentencia2007.pdf).

Fined for being unruly with officers. Nudity legal.

Sanslines

07-09-2008, 02:32 PM

Just for the record, here is a link to the actual verdict (http://www.webpersonal.net/addan/sentencia2007.pdf).

Fined for being unruly with officers. Nudity legal.

I read this verdict and it elaborates about 'being disobedient with police offices'. This has absolutely nothing to do with public nudity. The police officers demanded that the man put on his clothes and he refused. If there is no law that stipulates that he must remain clothed, then he broke no law and was disobedient to an order that was not legally enforceable.

There are good and bad ways to reject illegal orders. Who knows how this man really responded.

Stu2630

07-09-2008, 02:49 PM

Boreas

You said you were opposed to "inappropriate public nudity". I would argue that while you deny being anti-nudity, you cannot deny being opposed to social nudity. Oh sure, you are going to say it is okay as long as you do not see it. I still say you are opposed to social nudity.

That's not logical. I don't like to hear country and western music and I would object to it being played loudly on a bus I had to travel on or in my doctor's waiting room, but that doesn't mean I am opposed to country and western music per se. I wouldn't be comfortable standing close to a couple of gay men involved in heavy petting with each other, but that doesn't mean I object to them doing it in a private place or a gay club etc. Social nudity is fine - but it should be in places where the people who are likely to be present are not going to be bothered by it.

What would make you think that a group of people comfortable (to varying degrees) with social nudity would think you were sympathetic to their cause???

It depends what "cause" you are talking about. I have written letters to local politicians opposing plans to close a nudist beach.

TwoMetreMan

I'm tellin' ya - he's a clothes-closet, wannabe nooodist!! Come out and join us, Stu, and quit prevaricating about your deepest, inner desires!! Let 'em loose. It's okay to be human.

Darn it! You got me! I've been a closet nudist all this time and was too afraid to admit it, but you have shown me that I have been in denial all the time. Thanks, buddy!! Tomorrow, I'm going to arrange a two-week vacation at a nudist beach. In fact...I'm going to get naked right now.

:laugh:

Agde

I read very little Spanish, but from what I can read, it doesn't appear to relate to the case of Mr Esteban Te at all. He isn't mentioned. Rather, it seems to relate to someone called Jacint Ribas Deix, who was acquitted in his case, (which appears to be failing to comply with some written order by a ministry official).

Stu

MJ_KC

07-09-2008, 03:27 PM

Social nudity is fine - but it should be in places where the people who are likely to be present are not going to be bothered by it.
Stu
Why? People who wrap up in too many clothes(some Muslim women) bother me because it sends a message that there is something wrong with the human body. Should it therefore be OK for me to demand that they stop doing this?

Sanslines

07-09-2008, 03:37 PM

It depends what "cause" you are talking about. I have written letters to local politicians opposing plans to close a nudist beach.

Writing letters to politicians to allegedly oppose plans to close a nudist beach is no justification or permission to pursue an overall anti nudist agenda. One 'right' does not excuse or justify a whole bunch of 'wrongs'.

nimrod

07-09-2008, 03:38 PM

Saying nudist should be segregated is not being very supportive of nudist. One could say that they like black people, everyone should own one. You see I am not opposed to them I said I like them, they should be treated fairly and have good facilities, but if they are in a public place without their masters of course they should be arrested and be held accountable for their actions. Sorry if I am sounding rude but I am trying to make a point.:rant:

Stu2630

07-10-2008, 01:11 AM

MJ_KC

Why? People who wrap up in too many clothes(some Muslim women) bother me because it sends a message that there is something wrong with the human body. Should it therefore be OK for me to demand that they stop doing this?

If sufficient numbers of people say they find the sight of women wrapped in this way to be actually offensive, then yes, they should provide separate places for women who want to dress in this way. Western women in strictly Islamic countries must abide by their religiously-inspired dress laws because they can actually find it offensive if a woman exposes her legs or doesn't cover hear head in public.

Sanslines

One 'right' does not excuse or justify a whole bunch of 'wrongs'.

It's not an "excuse": it simply shows that I am willing to lend practical support to assist responsible nudism.

nimrod

Your analogy doesn't work because it is too big a departure from the real world situation. As I have said many times, people are born black and spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for their entire lives being black and they can't change that even if they want to. If a place doesn't admit black people, there is no way that a black person can ever go there. Nudists are simply a minority of people with a preference to behave in a way which many other people find unacceptable in their presence, so they are allocated places where they can do it and bother no-one. If a place doesn't permit nudity, all a nudist has to do to be admitted is slip on a pair of shorts.

Society could be said to comprise two types of people - 1. people who like being socially nude or don't mind being around people who are socially nude, and 2. people who don't want to be nude in the presence of others and prefer to relax in the presence only of others who are clothed. It's a big world and there is plenty of space to cater for both groups. While supporting more nudist places, I will keep away from them and won't complain about them or proselytize against them or stand around and gawp and nudists should return the favour by keeping a pair of shorts on when in textile places. That's not advocating oppression of a minority - it is accommodating that minority while protecting the feelings of everyone else.

Stu

finchick

07-10-2008, 02:01 AM

i consider moving to spain! :rolleyes:
and serioulsy, where could we find this texts from constitution online?
i've never seen nude people on the streets of spain except a naturist village on Canarias. but it would be cool if spanish accepted public nudity so broad...

Pete Knight

07-10-2008, 02:36 AM

Society could be said to comprise two types of people - 1. people who like being socially nude or don't mind being around people who are socially nude, and 2. people who don't want to be nude in the presence of others and prefer to relax in the presence only of others who are clothed. It's a big world and there is plenty of space to cater for both groups. While supporting more nudist places, I will keep away from them and won't complain about them or proselytize against them or stand around and gawp and nudists should return the favour by keeping a pair of shorts on when in textile places. That's not advocating oppression of a minority - it is accommodating that minority while protecting the feelings of everyone else.

You conveniently forgot that huge grey area again Stu, the 'I don't give a toss either way' category is bigger than 1 or 2.

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-10-2008, 03:05 AM

You conveniently forgot that huge grey area again Stu, the 'I don't give a toss either way' category is bigger than 1 or 2

Yes, there is a grey area, Pete, but how big it happens to be is a matter of conjecture - and, as with elections, people who don't care - don't count. In any case, I believe with some certainty that category 2. is massively greater than category 1.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-10-2008, 03:28 AM

Yes, there is a grey area, Pete, but how big it happens to be is a matter of conjecture - and, as with elections, people who don't care - don't count. In any case, I believe with some certainty that category 2. is massively greater than category 1.

Stu
Well strangely enough I feel quite the opposite applies, but then neither of us have the proof needed to back our assertions, but that doesn't stop you making the assertions though does it, this I would classify as mis-information or false propaganda.

Pete Knight

Sanslines

07-10-2008, 04:08 AM

It's not an "excuse": it simply shows that I am willing to lend practical support to assist responsible nudism.

You continue to refuse to examine your definition of responsible nudism to understand that there are many definitions of responsible nudism. All of these definitions come together to form a real compromise that involves everyone's opinions. So far you have refused to compromise with others.

Stu2630

07-10-2008, 04:11 AM

Pete

Well strangely enough I feel quite the opposite applies, but then neither of us have the proof needed to back our assertions, but that doesn't stop you making the assertions though does it, this I would classify as mis-information or false propaganda.

That's a strange thing to say, bearing in mind your last assertion included the unproven statement that "the 'I don't give a toss either way' category is bigger than 1 or 2." So you are as guilty as I am.

But don't beat yourself up over it. In the absence of empirical proof, we all make assertions based on our perceptions of the world and the people who inhabit it, don't we?

Stu

Sanslines

07-10-2008, 04:14 AM

Well strangely enough I feel quite the opposite applies, but then neither of us have the proof needed to back our assertions, but that doesn't stop you making the assertions though does it, this I would classify as mis-information or false propaganda.

Pete Knight

It is mis information that only presents one, very narrow opinion based upon a fear of nudity. Such is hardly the basis for forming a sound and open minded opinion concerning nudism.

For those who are active nudists, the situation is indeed much more complicated and does have many shades of gray. Working quietly in one's own back garden nude is not an officially designated clothing optional area and in many locations individuals who do this are severly punished by the law. Also nude sunbathing in one's own back garden is again severely punishable in many locations. Nudists have a very long way to go to break the oppressive laws that textiles have established against them. Only real nudists would understand this.

Stu2630

07-10-2008, 05:34 AM

It is mis information that only presents one, very narrow opinion based upon a fear of nudity. Such is hardly the basis for forming a sound and open minded opinion concerning nudism.

If anyone said they strongly disliked seeing naked people in public, you would say the same thing. You would accuse them of having a "fear of nudity" and claim they couldn't form "a sound and open minded opinion concerning nudism". In other words, in your world, only nudists and people who support public nudity hold valid opinions. Then you wonder why nudism is making so little progress in the textile world! :laugh:

Working quietly in one's own back garden nude is not an officially designated clothing optional area and in many locations individuals who do this are severly punished by the law. Also nude sunbathing in one's own back garden is again severely punishable in many locations. Nudists have a very long way to go to break the oppressive laws that textiles have established against them. Only real nudists would understand this.

If you want to dig your garden in the nude, or sunbathe in it in the nude - fine - just make sure that the neighbours can't see you by erecting a fence, wall or hedge, or position yourself out of their sight or, if all else fails, tell them what you want to do and ask them if they mind. Simple solution.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-10-2008, 06:17 AM

But don't beat yourself up over it. In the absence of empirical proof, we all make assertions based on our perceptions of the world and the people who inhabit it, don't we?

Oh absolutely, I make my assertions based on my experiences walking naked, I've yet to be given anything less than an enthusiastic response, so this shapes my perception that people with your particular aversion are in a minority.

Pete Knight

Pete Knight

07-10-2008, 06:34 AM

If anyone said they strongly disliked seeing naked people in public, you would say the same thing. You would accuse them of having a "fear of nudity" and claim they couldn't form "a sound and open minded opinion concerning nudism". In other words, in your world, only nudists and people who support public nudity hold valid opinions. Then you wonder why nudism is making so little progress in the textile world! :laugh:
Now there you're quite wrong to make assumptions, and as previously stated I find these people to be the vocal minority while nudists tend to want to keep a low profile, and I still think you're a one man propaganda machine, a sort of 'Lord Haw haw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw-Haw)' but with a smaller audience.

If you want to dig your garden in the nude, or sunbathe in it in the nude - fine - just make sure that the neighbours can't see you by erecting a fence, wall or hedge, or position yourself out of their sight or, if all else fails, tell them what you want to do and ask them if they mind. Simple solution.
Why is it that you always place the onus on us to make sure we're not seen in our own gardens, why should the responsibility lie with the neighbor not to be a peeping tom and look into OUR gardens.

Your problem is that instead of brainwashing and demoralising us, we fight back, you'll never convince me that your ilk are in the majority, my experiences are that my nudity is more widely accepted than you claim, and you are indeed the vocal minority.

Pete Knight

MoonShadow

07-10-2008, 06:54 AM

Ah, Pete, good responses but it will fall on deaf ears. Stu is not flexible in any of his thinking regarding nudists. You hit the nail on the head with his brainwashing and demoralizing thinking and postings. He must get some sense of satisfaction sitting in a nudist forum (and who is nothing remotely close to a nudist) espousing his anti-ness. He needs to go somewhere else.

But then, if we ignore him maybe he will go away.

Boreas

07-10-2008, 07:33 AM

Yes, there is a grey area, Pete, but how big it happens to be is a matter of conjecture - and, as with elections, people who don't care - don't count. In any case, I believe with some certainty that category 2. is massively greater than category 1.

Stu

People who don't care about nudity don't count? Only the extremely small minority who are repulsed by it.

Have I got that right?

nimrod

07-10-2008, 02:19 PM

Stu once again you misunderstand my point, I was not saying that nudist, like blacks, are a minority, and I know what your viewpoint is on that, you deliberately miss the analogy so that you will not have to change your view. The point that I was trying to make is that your "support" of nudist is not supportive at all as long as you believe we should be segregated. It does not matter how many times, or ways you say it you do not truelly support nudism.

When you say that we should be segregated you are anti-nudist, No matter how wonderful the facilities are, and what kind of recreational equipment there is, as soon as you put the limitation for nudist to only be nude there, you are practicing bigotry, and are no longer being supportive.

So go ahead and deliberately misinterpret and twist everything I have to say to fit your prejudices, I know that is what you like to do.

Sanslines

07-10-2008, 03:16 PM

If anyone said they strongly disliked seeing naked people in public, you would say the same thing. You would accuse them of having a "fear of nudity" and claim they couldn't form "a sound and open minded opinion concerning nudism". In other words, in your world, only nudists and people who support public nudity hold valid opinions. Then you wonder why nudism is making so little progress in the textile world! :laugh:

Stu, we are not talking about anyone........we are talking about YOU. You have deep seated fears and phobias about nudity in general that apply in either public or private situations. Your fears and phobias are what drives you to make the prejudiced and biased anti nudity statements that you continue to make. You are hardly a compass of objectivity and you know it.

If you want to dig your garden in the nude, or sunbathe in it in the nude - fine - just make sure that the neighbours can't see you by erecting a fence, wall or hedge, or position yourself out of their sight or, if all else fails, tell them what you want to do and ask them if they mind. Simple solution.

How about the neighbours erecting their own fence, looking away, and minding their own business instead of demanding that nudists accomodate them. You know fully well that many cases where neighborhood children peer through fences at the 'lady who is naked sunbathing' only to go home and tell mummy. Mummy then gets outraged and demands that the police do something. The police go to the lady's home and demand that she not sunbathe naked anymore.
Stu, nudists can fully understand and relate to what I have just said. Societal prudes and laws are heavily biased against nudists. You are too! You are anti nudist but just won't admit to it. Instead of putting the onus on textiles where it belongs, you ALWAYS demand that nudists do the giving and accomodating. Well, nudists are pushing back against the anti nudity crowd and that crowd won't like it so the will squeel like pigs in heat.

MissionNudists

07-10-2008, 06:02 PM

Your analogy doesn't work because it is too big a departure from the real world situation. As I have said many times, people are born black and spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for their entire lives being black and they can't change that even if they want to. If a place doesn't admit black people, there is no way that a black person can ever go there. Nudists are simply a minority of people with a preference to behave in a way which many other people find unacceptable in their presence, so they are allocated places where they can do it and bother no-one. If a place doesn't permit nudity, all a nudist has to do to be admitted is slip on a pair of shorts.

Hey folks, we've made a break through, topfree is OK.

Stu, You weren't born nude? That might explain you attitude.

The people are naturally nude, just like being black is natural.

I agree that, individuals and businesses (including religious organizations) should have the right to set dress codes for areas under their control, but not public or common areas. But, you want to control all areas.

Objections to nudity usually come from religious beliefs, and you have the right to your beliefs, but you have indicated that the majority should have the right to impose their beliefs on all, and that is wrong in a free society. You are in a minority on this forum, maybe we should decide that to post you must be nude. I don't think that we would, it wouldn't be right, and we would lose your entertainment value.

Siting the dress code in Islamic countries, tells us something about you view of free society. Hitler had the minority Jewish population wear the star of David, no problem, it's just a dress code. Right?

If you're so opposed to seeing genitals, stay off the street, the neighbour might be walking his dog. And how do you handle nude public statues and nude religious paintings? Genitals are genitals.

Canada has laws against public nudity, but the intention must be to offend someone, not whether some one is offended. With the 'freedom of belief' as well as the 'freedom of religion' in our constitution, one day even that may be found unconstitutional.

In parting, you can only change a person's view with rational arguments if they arrived at their point of view rationally. You didn't so we can't change it.

Until the next Stu installment,

MoonShadow

07-11-2008, 09:11 AM

. ... and we would lose your entertainment value.

[B]Until the next Stu installment,

LOL MissionNudists ------ that statement is hilalrious! I am rolling. Thank you for the wonderful laughter!

Stu2630

07-13-2008, 02:31 AM

MissionNudist

Hey folks, we've made a break through, topfree is OK.

If I have to tolerate topless women, I will. I recognise that many European beaches allow toplessness and some women take advantage of that - fin. So long as that's not extended, I'll accept that but I will do anything I can do to resist its expansion.

But, as nudists, this shouldn't concern you because we are talking toplessness in textile places, not nudist ones.

Stu, You weren't born nude? That might explain you attitude.

I was born nude. I was also born a dribbling, incontinent bundle of confused babyness and covered in blood. I don't determine how I will live my adult life by the state I was in at the moment of birth.

The people are naturally nude, just like being black is natural.

Being black isn't a chosen state. Being nude is.

I agree that, individuals and businesses (including religious organizations) should have the right to set dress codes for areas under their control, but not public or common areas. But, you want to control all areas.

I want there to be public areas where it's OK to be nude and public areas where it's not OK to be nude. That way, everybody's preference is catered for because some people like being nude (or don't mind others being nude) while other people like to live in a nudity-free environment. So I'm for segregation and that's pretty much how things are right now.

Objections to nudity usually come from religious beliefs, and you have the right to your beliefs, but you have indicated that the majority should have the right to impose their beliefs on all, and that is wrong in a free society.

My views on nudity have nothing to do with religion. In my experience, most people who object to the nudity of others aren't doing so because they know that some religious scripture says they should. BTW - I'm not aware of ANY religion which says nudity is wrong, so this argument doesn't stand up. The objection to nudity is cultural, not religious.

You are in a minority on this forum, maybe we should decide that to post you must be nude. I don't think that we would, it wouldn't be right, and we would lose your entertainment value.

You certainly would.

Siting the dress code in Islamic countries, tells us something about you view of free society.

I support the right of ANY country to impose dress standards which reflect the country's culture where to flout such cultural boundaries would cause real offence to a significant proportion of the population.

Hitler had the minority Jewish population wear the star of David, no problem, it's just a dress code. Right?

Of course that's not right. That wasn't an issue of respecting cultural sensibilities; it was a considered method of highlighting that one section of society was inferior and breeding hatred towards them.

If you're so opposed to seeing genitals, stay off the street, the neighbour might be walking his dog.

I don't mind the sight of dogs' genitals.

And how do you handle nude public statues and nude religious paintings? Genitals are genitals.

I dislike representations of genitalia in art. I think genitals are somewhat unattractive parts of the human anatomy and, as most people spend the vast majority of their lives wearing clothes, that is how they should be depicted. Having said that, there is a massive difference in a statue or painting of a nude, and a living nude human being. You may not think that is logical, but such values and emotions aren't based on logic - they are cultural phenomena.

Canada has laws against public nudity, but the intention must be to offend someone, not whether some one is offended. With the 'freedom of belief' as well as the 'freedom of religion' in our constitution, one day even that may be found unconstitutional.

I don't know about Canada, but here in the UK, nudity which is intended to cause offence is indecent exposure but behaviour which is simply likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" constitutes a public order crime. Inappropriate nudism can be charged under this provision.

In parting, you can only change a person's view with rational arguments if they arrived at their point of view rationally. You didn't so we can't change it.

My views are perfectly rational. Of course, anything which has to do with "feelings" isn't rational. Love isn't rational, nor is grief, nor is the appreciation of beauty. Offence isn't strictly rational either so there is no reason why anyone should ever be offended by anything. But human beings are not computers, or relatives of Mr Spock from the planet Vulcan. We are not just cognitive beings - we have an affective domain of experience, too, and our acculturation and socialisation play a major part in that. It's why we say please and thank you and why we don't break wind at the dinner table. It's also why we have formed unwritten rules as to when it is, and is not, appropriate to be naked. Sometimes these rules are so ingrained into us that we feel that our sensibilities have been violated if they are broken, and inappropriate nudity, like inappropriate sex, or obscene language, has the power to evoke such a negative reaction. So we need to keep the public sphere as benign and pleasant as possible for as many people as possible, and that's why I support the law intervening to deal with inconsiderate nudists.

Stu

Bob S.

07-13-2008, 07:09 PM

Stu:" But, as nudists, this shouldn't concern you because we are talking toplessness in textile places, not nudist ones."

Stu, you have a long way to go in fully comprehending nudism. Not understanding why female toplessness is a nudist issue shows your willing ignorance as we have explained it to you plenty of times.

A Muslim woman being able to not wear a burkha is as much a nudist issue as gaining nude beaches. It is all about allowing people freedom to expose as much or as little of their skin as they want. Toplessness is a step in the right direction. Mandatory textile beaches where no toplessness is allowed is going in the wrong direction. Topfreedom in nudist venues is redundant.

Bob S.

Stu2630

07-14-2008, 03:00 AM

BobS

It is all about allowing people freedom to expose as much or as little of their skin as they want.

What "people", Bob? You can wear as much or as little as you want by going to a nudist or C/O beach. Anyone can use these beaches. Most people, however, are content to abide by the dress norms which exist within our culture, and seem to be happier using places where others are also abiding by those norms.

As nudists, you have every right to determine the norms and rules of nudist places, but you should no more interfere with the operation of textile places than I should try to dictate the behaviour on a nudist beach. Your ambition is that all public places will become clothing-optional but that is both unrealistic and also disrespectful of the feelings of the vast majority of people who are textiles and who prefer things to stay as they are.

Also, be careful what you wish for. It could be a retrograde step for some nudists because, if everywhere was clothing optional, there would be no further need for the authorities to allocate you nudist beaches and many nudists would be less than comfortable being the only naked people on a beach full of textiles (including those who were either gawking or antagonistic).

Toplessness is a step in the right direction. Mandatory textile beaches where no toplessness is allowed is going in the wrong direction.

I think it's a step in the RIGHT direction. I welcome the fact that female toplessness on European beaches (etc) is becoming less and less fashionable and is, very gradually, waning. I look forward to its complete demise in a decade or so. That doesn't affect you, though, because, as you point out, nudist women will always have facilities to go topless. I just want to be able to use beaches where I can avoid seeing it and, slowly but surely, this seems to be happening in the places I go to.

Stu

eaglepeakpete

07-14-2008, 04:12 AM

Stu2630

07-14-2008, 05:00 AM

Pete

Would you walk naked through the centre of Madrid? If so, please do so and post a picture on here.

Stu

Sanslines

07-14-2008, 08:55 AM

The best thing is to let Stu stew in his own thoughts and views.

He is convinced he is right and so am I , I live here in Spain and have no experience of hassle by the police over nudity, why go on about it, after all it will never be a problem for most of you, and it is not for me in Spain.

Pete,

Stu is here to just provoke others into response. He must know fully well that posting statments such as "I recognise that many European beaches allow toplessness............but I will do anything I can do to resist its expansion........" is clearly anti nudity and anti nudist.

He makes such statements only to provoke respose and is only playing games with us. Don't you know that Stu ALWAYS has the last word???

Until the next Stu installment...............stay tuned..........

Stu2630

07-14-2008, 10:05 AM

Stu is here to just provoke others into response. He must know fully well that posting statments such as "I recognise that many European beaches allow toplessness............but I will do anything I can do to resist its expansion........" is clearly anti nudity and anti nudist.

Stopping textile beaches going topless has nothing to do with nudism.

He makes such statements only to provoke respose and is only playing games with us.

It has nothing to do with provoking a response - it shouldn't provoke a response because this is about TEXTILE beaches which you do not use. How would you like it if a textile demanded that all women on nudist beaches had to cover their breasts?

Stu

Pete Knight

07-14-2008, 10:11 AM

Stopping textile beaches going topless has nothing to do with nudism. Oh but it does!

It has nothing to do with provoking a response - it shouldn't provoke a response because this is about TEXTILE beaches which you do not use. How would you like it if a textile demanded that all women on nudist beaches had to cover their breasts?
We would like to see this discrimination ended and the ideal compromise is that ALL beaches are clothing optional.

Now you have openly admitted to "do anything I can do to resist its expansion" I think we now know that you've been trying to pull the wool over our eyes, misrepresenting information, twisting words and statistics, pretending to be our friend while all the time you had only one motive, to stop nudism from spreading, and deny all you want but topless is the first step in the liberation of women from clothist oppression.

Pete Knight

MoonShadow

07-14-2008, 10:28 AM

Now you have openly admitted to "do anything I can do to resist its expansion" I think we now know that you've been trying to pull the wool over our eyes, misrepresenting information, twisting words and statistics, pretending to be our friend while all the time you had only one motive, to stop nudism from spreading, and deny all you want but topless is the first step in the liberation of women from clothist oppression.

Pete Knight

Oh yessss, that is what Stu has been about from the get-go. He is no friends of ours.

We come on the forum after a weekend which I hope was a good one for all and here we read his anti-ness and even with some heat behind his "politeness" and "niceness". What you stated above, Pete, is the real deal with Stu. He gets enjoyment being on this forum spouting his anti-ness. He is not a nice and polite guy; he hides behind his vebage to do what he really wants to do and that is to flaunt his textile-way-of thinking and anti-nudity comments.

Stu2630

07-14-2008, 10:45 AM

Pete

We would like to see this discrimination ended and the ideal compromise is that ALL beaches are clothing optional.In other words, it's fine to discriminate against those of us who want to live in a nudity-free environment: we have no rights in your world. That's no compromise. It's just as intolerant as no the extremist religious textiles who think nudism should be banned everywhere.

Nudists have long been credited with showing consideration to those of us who are less comfortable with nudity that they are and respected for that. Sooner or later the wider society will realise that there is a rather ugly faction in nudism which has no respect for their sensibilities and does not believe that they should be protected. And that this minority wants to start by dictating to them how their own textile beaches should be regulated.

Now you have openly admitted to "do anything I can do to resist its expansion" I think we now know that you've been trying to pull the wool over our eyes, misrepresenting information, twisting words and statistics, pretending to be our friend while all the time you had only one motive, to stop nudism from spreading, and deny all you want but topless is the first step in the liberation of women from clothist oppression.I am a friend of moderate, responsible nudism. I am no friend of nudism which seeks to interfere with the way textile beaches are run. I also abhor the attitude which, while demanding more nudist beaches for themselves and squealing like tortured pigs when they are threatened, then have the brass neck to express an ambition to put an end to the existence of textile-only beaches.

You see, Pete, you want it all. You want there to be lots of lovely nudist beaches and resorts which you can regulate as you see fit while, at the same time, denying the right of textiles to enjoy a nudity-free environment. You demand respect and consideration for your minority preferences while being contemptuous of those of us who choose to live differently to you. It is regrettable you can't see the basic injustice of your position.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-14-2008, 11:03 AM

You see, Pete, you want it all. You want there to be lots of lovely nudist beaches and resorts which you can regulate as you see fit while, at the same time, denying the right of textiles to enjoy a nudity-free environment. You demand respect and consideration for your minority preferences while being contemptuous of those of us who choose to live differently to you. It is regrettable you can't see the basic injustice of your position.

No I don't want it all, but I am fed up to the back teeth with having to make do with the stony beach or the beach furthest away from the car park or both, then there's constant harassment by councils and police and I only show contempt for those that feign offence at something that couldn't possibly offend a tolerant person.

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-14-2008, 11:18 AM

Pete

No I don't want it all, but I am fed up to the back teeth with having to make do with the stony beach or the beach furthest away from the car park or both, then there's constant harassment by councils and policeI agree. Fair points. You should have decent and accessible beaches and you should be able to use those beaches free from harassment by the police, the council and everybody else. That's a good and just cause and I'm 100% on your side about that.

and I only show contempt for those that feign offence at something that couldn't possibly offend a tolerant person.Now you are showing the lack of empathy again. I'm am not feigning anything - I am genuinely offended by nudity and I don't want to have to see it when I'm using public places. I would be outraged and disgusted if my wife and/or daughter were with me when I encountered it. OK, that's not something you can relate to - just as I can't relate to your desire to expose your private parts in the presence of others. But I can accept our differences in that way and I will support you in your case to enjoy more and better beaches free from harassment. Yet you can't return the respect and simply accept that some of us are different to you.

Pete, you are an intelligent bloke. Please try to understand that, while you may regard a revulsion to nudity outside of certain contexts to be both illogical and inexplicable, that doesn't mean that you can dismiss our feelings and deny us any rights while, at the same time, demanding rights for yourself.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-14-2008, 11:20 AM

Oh yessss, that is what Stu has been about from the get-go. He is no friends of ours.

We come on the forum after a weekend which I hope was a good one for all and here we read his anti-ness and even with some heat behind his "politeness" and "niceness". What you stated above, Pete, is the real deal with Stu. He gets enjoyment being on this forum spouting his anti-ness. He is not a nice and polite guy; he hides behind his vebage to do what he really wants to do and that is to flaunt his textile-way-of thinking and anti-nudity comments.
Yes MoonShadow, you've got it in one (You haven't been following me have you?), I had a great nude weekend, on Saturday morning I went to Abbey House Gardens (http://www.abbeyhousegardens.co.uk/) where we mixed with textiles, and I noted that the mix was about 50/50 this time, then I went to Splashdown (http://www.british-naturism.org.uk/pages/pages.asp?page_ID=365) in Poole for a naturist swim in the evening, the following morning we (Barebum (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/member.php?u=6025), Solarsid, Rob and I.) went to Studland for the British Naturism (http://www.british-naturism.org.uk/default.asp) Beach Day where hundreds of naturists enjoyed a sunny day in peaceful coexistence with textiles, we played volley ball, chatted with friends old and new, thanks to Running Bear (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/member.php?u=18379) there was yoga and a beach run too!

I saw nothing but acceptance for naturism all weekend, no hostility, no anti-ness, nothing until I came back to CFI and Stu.

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-14-2008, 11:39 AM

Pete

Nobody is disputing that there are textiles who will gladly co-exist with nudists and it's great that you can share the same environment and have fun together. But there are many textiles who don't want to be around naked people, and we should be able to live according to our preferences, too.

A parent of my daughter's friend phoned up Abbey Gardens last year while on holiday in the Cotswolds to ask about prices and opening times. She was immediately warned that one day she had in mind was a clothing-optional day and so she went on a different day. Some people wouldn't mind that - she did, as I would, and so we are able to make a choice and avoid the nudity. The ability to make such choices is all I'm asking for.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-14-2008, 11:47 AM

The ability to make such choices is all I'm asking for.

Yep, we nudists would like some choices too, but sadly we are denied that, and this is what we are fighting for, not to be confined to the worst beaches and the 'fenced in' ghetto's, why can't gymnophobes have the little weekend retreats where they can be guaranteed freedom from nudity instead of the other way round, we nudists outnumber gymnophobes, and even if you insist that you outnumber us the deciding vote goes to those who aren't at all concerned about nudity, like the ones I met at the weekend, thats a result for freedom from oppression then isn't it.

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-14-2008, 12:02 PM

Pete

this is what we are fighting for, not to be confined to the worst beaches and the 'fenced in' ghetto's,If you only get the worst beaches, then that's a fair reason to complain (although, from what I have read, the nudist part of Studland has the cleanest sand and water of the entire facility). The fact that there are fences doesn't make a place a "ghetto", it simply acts to protect the non-nudists from seeing naked bodies and the nudists from being gawked at.

why can't gymnophobes have the little weekend retreats where they can be guaranteed freedom from nudity instead of the other way round, we nudists outnumber gymnophobes,That depends how you define "gymnophobes"! The vast majority of people choose to take their holidays at non-naturist resorts. In my experience, most people are less relaxed about nudity than nudists are: even your own famous nudist survey showed that most people would "walk on quickly" if they inadvertently came across a nudist beach! As for the people who don't seem to care either way - they can't be counted one way or the other any more than a person who isn't willing to express a preference in an election would have a vote counted. Not being bothered to vote against something is not the same thing as actively endorsing it.

You see, people may well be OK around you while you are nude because they don't mind nudity themselves in that particular situation. BUT they may very well know people who would object to it, perhaps in their own families, and they would NOT support you being naked in the presence of these people if they thought it might upset them. In other words - I'm OK with you being nude here on this clothing-optional beach (etc) but don't get naked in my local park where my Granny takes her dog for a walk because that would upset her - and therefore ME TOO! You see, you are choosing to imbue these people with motives and attitudes which you are presuming they have to suit your own ideology and you are ignoring the possibility that your assumptions may be off target.

Stu

Pete Knight

07-14-2008, 12:07 PM

you are indifferent to the possibility that your assumptions may be wrong.

Not assumptions, personal experience matey!

To exclude the 'don't cares' is only convenient for your massaging of the statistics, lets put it another way, the area of nude acceptance can be divided into two categories, the complainers and the non-complainers, twist that one then.

Pete Knight

simonsebs

07-14-2008, 12:31 PM

Sunday was the Day Without Bathing Costume in Spain (http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_17379.shtml)

I found this and since it kind of goes along with the original topic I'll put it here.

Boreas

07-14-2008, 12:57 PM

Interesting simon.

You see, you are choosing to imbue these people with motives and attitudes which you are presuming they have to suit your own ideology and you are ignoring the possibility that your assumptions may be off target.

That seems to be the perverbial pot calling the kettle black.

MoonShadow

07-14-2008, 05:50 PM

Spot on, Boreas!

Boreas

07-14-2008, 06:21 PM

Spot on, Boreas!

Thanks Ma'am! :hippy:

Bob S.

07-14-2008, 08:19 PM

Stu:"What "people", Bob? You can wear as much or as little as you want by going to a nudist or C/O beach."

I am talking about everyone, Stu. You still seem to not understand that the freedom to wear or not wear as much or as little as you want. Most people in the US, heck most people in the world, are nowhere near nudist beaches or any kind of nudist venue. That means that most of the people in the world do not have the freedom to wear as much or as little as they want. Then there is the very sketchy status of most nude beaches, even official ones.

Stu:"Also, be careful what you wish for. It could be a retrograde step for some nudists because, if everywhere was clothing optional, there would be no further need for the authorities to allocate you nudist beaches and many nudists would be less than comfortable being the only naked people on a beach full of textiles (including those who were either gawking or antagonistic)."

Oh yes, not being arrested for going naked on a beach really has its downside. What would happen is that the number of nude-use beaches would explode and the textile-use beaches would have to be relegated to traditional use status. It would be the citizens deciding on their own which beaches would be favored by nudists and that is how it exists today except the fact that most of the nude beaches are out-of-the-way spots that can quickly become textile based on police patrols and enforcement.

Stu:"I welcome the fact that female toplessness on European beaches (etc) is becoming less and less fashionable"

Ah but Stu, that is how it should be. It is not the government that is stopping the topless use but the topless beachgoers are just becoming less and less for now. In the US, in most places, the government is mandating the dress code, which is just as wrong as a government mandating that women cover their faces, arms, or legs. Breasts are no different than faces when it comes to dress codes. The people should decide what is right by voluntary mores, not the government by restrictive laws.

Bob S.

NudeAl

07-14-2008, 09:08 PM

Ultimately segregation is marginalizing a segment of society. Which is the crux of Stus' argument. Segregation whether it be due to race, religion or clothing preference is wrong. However due to the abysmal state of nude friendly venues in the US it is actually a step in the right direction. I would be encouraged if there were REAL substantial concessions towards nudists, e.g., legalization of portions of public beaches legally set aside for nude recreation. This however is as much a pie in the sky dream as fully legalizing all beaches for nude use and indeed all public areas for nudity. Now fast forward to the situation in Spain. They Currently have no laws prohibiting nudity as I understand the situation. That being the case the next logical step is to take it to the next level where segregation, or discrimination, is removed and each individual is allowed to decide how they feel comfortable dressing. That my friends is called FREEDOM, and that is the ultimate goal in my opinion. The FREEDOM to decide how one will dress, or not. I refuse to live in a world that is constantly afraid of giving offense. Our system of laws was not designed to protect those things which the masses find offensive it was designed to protect the FREEDOMS of the individual.

Agde

07-14-2008, 10:51 PM

After a few sunny naturist days, I am just catching up a bit here.

Stu2630: Would you walk naked through the centre of Madrid? If so, please do so and post a picture on here.

Just like Barcelona, anyone who wants to can walk about Madrid without clothes and not get arrested. If you need photo evidence, it's not pretty, but here is a photo of Esteban (http://www.adn.es/politica/20071024/NWS-3180-Barcelona-Multan-nudista-euros.html) happily walking about the streets of Barcelona.

On Monday, during the Día Sin Bañador (http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_17379.shtml) ("day without the bathing costumes"), quite a few naturists were out and about. The theme of the day was to end textile/nudist segregation and beaches were indeed shared in an integrated (not segregated) way without fuss.

Stu2630: I read very little Spanish, but from what I can read, [your link] doesn't appear to relate to the case of Mr Esteban Te at all. He isn't mentioned. Rather, it seems to relate to someone called Jacint Ribas Dei...

Oh, gosh, sorry Stu, wrong link. :D Thank you for noticing that the link was to another case in Barcelona where a guy was cycling nude in-town when the police also asked him to dress up. The man said no. The judge, noting that the law does not prohibit nudity, dismissed the case in toto. (I will get you the official judgment in the case of Esteban T.E. as soon as makes it to the web.) But there does seem to be a pattern emerging... :)

OK, now its time to head for the beach! :vacation:

Stu2630

07-15-2008, 04:50 AM

Pete

Not assumptions, personal experience matey!

You go to a clothing-optional event and find the textiles there are accepting of your nudity. Hardly surprising, is it?

To exclude the 'don't cares' is only convenient for your massaging of the statistics, lets put it another way, the area of nude acceptance can be divided into two categories, the complainers and the non-complainers, twist that one then.

Imagine the government had a referendum on something - say Britain's continued membership of the EU. And they said that people could vote YES to stay in or NO to leave, but all those who didn't vote would be counted as "we don't mind staying in", so their numbers are added to the YES count. Would that be right? As for only counting "complainers",. that is equally ridiculous. Last year in my area, the police reported eight complaints of dog-fouling in the park. Considering that there are thousands of people who use the park, does that mean that people are generally fine with this?

BobS

You still seem to not understand that the freedom to wear or not wear as much or as little as you want.

I don't accept the premise that this is, or should be, an unassailable right any more than there should be a right to have sex wherever you like.

Most people in the US, heck most people in the world, are nowhere near nudist beaches or any kind of nudist venue....Then there is the very sketchy status of most nude beaches, even official ones.

But I have consistently agreed that there should be far more provision made for nudism - beaches, areas within parks and so on.

Ah but Stu, that is how it should be. It is not the government that is stopping the topless use but the topless beachgoers are just becoming less and less for now.

Indeed. But given time, as people become less and less accustomed to seeing topless women, the sight of toplessness will become less acceptable and the laws will eventually start to reflect that. I'm all for there being topless beaches - I just don't think toplessness should be acceptable on all beaches.

NudeAL

Ultimately segregation is marginalizing a segment of society. Which is the crux of Stus' argument. Segregation whether it be due to race, religion or clothing preference is wrong.

Segregation on the basis of immutable characteristics such as race is wrong, but segregation based on chosen behaviour or activities at the material time is perfectly acceptable. That's why you wouldn't hold a rock concert next to a nursing home for the elderly, and why certain beaches don't allow people to play loud music.

However due to the abysmal state of nude friendly venues in the US it is actually a step in the right direction. I would be encouraged if there were REAL substantial concessions towards nudists, e.g., legalization of portions of public beaches legally set aside for nude recreation.

And that's precisely what nudists should be directing their efforts towards addressing!

Now fast forward to the situation in Spain. They Currently have no laws prohibiting nudity as I understand the situation.

They have no national laws, but local authorities are free to make their own laws which prohibit nudity and many have done so.

That my friends is called FREEDOM, and that is the ultimate goal in my opinion. The FREEDOM to decide how one will dress, or not.

How about the FREEDOM to live in an environment which one finds comfortable and to be FREE of things one finds unacceptable?

Agde

Just like Barcelona, anyone who wants to can walk about Madrid without clothes and not get arrested.

You think so? So how about someone taking me up on my challenge to walk through the centre of Madrid naked - and show us some pictures. Barcelona is known for being a particularly liberal city, a sort of Spanish equivalent of San Francisco, but that didn't prevent Mr Te from being fined, did it? Madris is a different place and a long way away from Barcelona, both geographically and culturally. According to the translator, the article you cited says this:

"The denounced one has believed erroneously that it is he who has the right, in this case to go completely naked, forgetting that the others also have the right not to see him without clothes ", points the judge.

What is infringed, since, is not the Penal Code referred to the nudism, which does not contemplate it at present as crime, but a civic ordinance that does not make it allowed " to preserve the proper coexistence and the respect to others ".

Seems pretty conclusive.

As for the other article you cited, it's not in a text format which can be electronically translated, so I have tried to make sense of it with my very limited Spanish. It does appear full of legal complexity, but nowhere on it could I see any assertion by the court that nudity in public is some kind of right in law.

From the case of Mr Te, and also the response I got from the Ministry of Justice, it is evident that statement which forms the title of this thread is plainly wrong. And that's the point I am making. :D

Stu

Pete Knight

07-15-2008, 06:03 AM

You go to a clothing-optional event and find the textiles there are accepting of your nudity. Hardly surprising, is it?
You know I was referring to my general experience.

Imagine the government had a referendum on something - say Britain's continued membership of the EU. And they said that people could vote YES to stay in or NO to leave, but all those who didn't vote would be counted as "we don't mind staying in", so their numbers are added to the YES count. Would that be right? As for only counting "complainers",. that is equally ridiculous. Last year in my area, the police reported eight complaints of dog-fouling in the park. Considering that there are thousands of people who use the park, does that mean that people are generally fine with this?

So ignoring the grey area, which you now claim to do, we can ONLY count the complainers against the nudists, so there you have it, a victory for nudity and common sense.

Thanks Stu

Pete Knight

Stu2630

07-15-2008, 06:18 AM

Pete

So ignoring the grey area, which you now claim to do, we can ONLY count the complainers against the nudists, so there you have it, a victory for nudity and common sense.

No, look at my example of dog-fouling in the park. Many people object to it but few go to the trouble of complaining. Silent acquiescence can not be taken as evidence of approval or disapproval - you have to find a way to establish the numbers of people who positively agree with something and compare it to the number of those who are opposed to it.

Your experience of being nude at clothing-optional events is hardly surprising. I wouldn't go to such an event and, if I happened to stumble across one by accident, I would leave, but I wouldn't complain about it. Those who are not bothered would stay. So of course your "personal experience" is going to be that the textiles who hang around are in that category.

Stu

Sanslines

07-15-2008, 06:42 AM

Oh yessss, that is what Stu has been about from the get-go. He is no friends of ours.

We come on the forum after a weekend which I hope was a good one for all and here we read his anti-ness and even with some heat behind his "politeness" and "niceness". What you stated above, Pete, is the real deal with Stu. He gets enjoyment being on this forum spouting his anti-ness. He is not a nice and polite guy; he hides behind his vebage to do what he really wants to do and that is to flaunt his textile-way-of thinking and anti-nudity comments.

Amazing how we all see the master anti-nudist for who he really is. He is absolutely no friend of nudists. He continues to play with us in a ridiculous and ludicrous attempt to con us into believing that he is a friend of nudists. He is a 'friend' ONLy if you agree to his demands and severe limitations on real nudism. Dare to step outside his clearly defined bounds and he becomes your worst nightmare. Is this any sign of a friend of nudism? I think not! Hiding behind 'politeness and niceness' may have some fooled, but others are clearly not. We see the man for who he really is - and that is NO friend of nudists!

Case in point........on one hand he claims that toplessness is a form of nudism when it is convenient for him to do so. On the other hand, he claims that toplessness has nothing to do with nudism when that is convenient for him to do so. How can anyone reason with someone who constantly contradicts himself. You can't! It's just that plain and simple!

Sanslines

07-15-2008, 06:47 AM

I saw nothing but acceptance for naturism all weekend, no hostility, no anti-ness, nothing until I came back to CFI and Stu.

Pete Knight

Yes Pete, we all came back to the usual 'anti-ness'. It's a shame really. We do need a few textile only beaches for the likes of Stu but the majority should be clothing optional. Stu, on the other hand, wants to give us a few beaches but keep the vaste majority for the likes of those like him. Doesn't sound very fair now does it? But then again, Stu is not a fair person. He only wants to protect his own selfish interests.

Pete Knight

07-15-2008, 06:48 AM

Your experience of being nude at clothing-optional events is hardly surprising. I wouldn't go to such an event and, if I happened to stumble across one by accident, I would leave, but I wouldn't complain about it. Those who are not bothered would stay. So of course your "personal experience" is going to be that the textiles who hang around are in that category.

I'll repeat this as you chose to ignore it "You know I was referring to my general experience" yet you still try to connect it to a particular event.

Stu
I walk naked with groups and on my own, I have numerous friends across the world who cite cases of naked walking, their experience suggests that most people aren't upset by nudity.
Several cases of nude walkers stopping to talk to textile walkers are the norm, very often people say they thought it must be very liberating and they wish they had the nerve to do the same, of course the thing that stops them are the complainers claiming to be offended by nudity.

I said I was going to stop this silly game that Stu plays, and I will before he winds me up any more.

Pete Knight

Sanslines

07-15-2008, 06:56 AM

I'll repeat this as you chose to ignore it "You know I was referring to my general experience" yet you still try to connect it to a particular event.

Stu
I walk naked with groups and on my own, I have numerous friends across the world who cite cases of naked walking, their experience suggests that most people aren't upset by nudity.
Several cases of nude walkers stopping to talk to textile walkers are the norm, very often people say they thought it must be very liberating and they wish they had the nerve to do the same, of course the thing that stops them are the complainers claiming to be offended by nudity.

I said I was going to stop this silly game that Stu plays, and I will before he winds me up any more.

Pete Knight

Stu is indeed trying to wind up all of us with his nonsense. He knows very well that there are degrees of so called annoyance yet he continues to promote annoyance in absolute terms. Why does he do this? He does this to support his nonsensical rants against nudism. He also knows very well that his so called 'research' is very slapdash indeed, and he won't let up on his barrage of non stop tommyrot. Half the time I am totally gobsmacked at the absurdity of his statements but also know that he only does it to wind us all up in very lucid attempts to solicite response.

Stu2630

07-15-2008, 07:28 AM

Sanslines

We do need a few textile only beaches for the likes of Stu but the majority should be clothing optional. Stu, on the other hand, wants to give us a few beaches but keep the vaste majority for the likes of those like him.

I have said again and again that you should have a reasonable share of the beaches. Bearing in mind that you constitute about 5% of the population, I said previously that I would have no objection if you were allocated 10% of the beach space for nudist use, plus a further 10% as clothing-optional. That would increase the existing nudist facility several-fold! And then you say I'm not a fair person!

No. You are the one who is not a fair person. You have now stopped addressing me directly, but rather snipe about me to others with whom I am exchanging responses, rather like Nacktman used to do. When I say something positive about nudism, you accuse me of trying to creep up to others: when I suggest dialogue between nudists and the outside world, all you do is remind me that I am not like other textiles, and when I propose that nudism should have limitations on where it can be practised, you accuse me of being anti-nudist even though I advocate a massive increase in the venues and opportunities for nudism. Sometimes I take a step back - concede a point and change my views because someone on here has persuaded me that I'm wrong. You never concede a point as you clearly see it as some sort of weakness. This is a shame because I know that you are capable of more than that. Instead of behaving like a bad-tempered terrier snapping at my heels, why don't you take a step back, look fairly at the points I a making and try to cultivate a bit of empathy for the non-nudist view as I have done for the nudist perspective? And then try to engage with me constructively about a way forward so that nudists can have a better deal and people like me can have the protection we feel we need.

Pete

Just because people are friendly towards you doesn't mean they are comfortable with what you are doing or generally approve of it. People are generally shy of confrontation and they are also fearful of any suggestion that they are so "uncool" as to be affronted by nakedness - so they smile and tolerate it knowing that their encounter is going to be extremely brief. But you interpret that as approval - you shouldn't!

Several cases of nude walkers stopping to talk to textile walkers are the norm, very often people say they thought it must be very liberating and they wish they had the nerve to do the same, of course the thing that stops them are the complainers claiming to be offended by nudity.

I'm sure some people feel that way - they would love to have a go at it but have yet to find the courage. That's why I suggest you should have a far greater proportion of beach space etc than you have now. But most people really don't feel that way: most people have limits as to their tolerance of nudity and really don't want other people's nakedness to be a common sight when they are using the public domain. And that's my "general experience".

Stu

Sanslines

07-15-2008, 08:35 AM

Sanslines

I have said again and again that you should have a reasonable share of the beaches. Bearing in mind that you constitute about 5% of the population, I said previously that I would have no objection if you were allocated 10% of the beach space for nudist use, plus a further 10% as clothing-optional. That would increase the existing nudist facility several-fold! And then you say I'm not a fair person!

No. You are the one who is not a fair person. You have now stopped addressing me directly, but rather snipe about me to others with whom I am exchanging responses, rather like Nacktman used to do. When I say something positive about nudism, you accuse me of trying to creep up to others: when I suggest dialogue between nudists and the outside world, all you do is remind me that I am not like other textiles, and when I propose that nudism should have limitations on where it can be practised, you accuse me of being anti-nudist even though I advocate a massive increase in the venues and opportunities for nudism. Sometimes I take a step back - concede a point and change my views because someone on here has persuaded me that I'm wrong. You never concede a point as you clearly see it as some sort of weakness. This is a shame because I know that you are capable of more than that. Instead of behaving like a bad-tempered terrier snapping at my heels, why don't you take a step back, look fairly at the points I a making and try to cultivate a bit of empathy for the non-nudist view as I have done for the nudist perspective? And then try to engage with me constructively about a way forward so that nudists can have a better deal and people like me can have the protection we feel we need.
Stu

Stu,

First and foremost, Nacktman is no longer part of this forum and has nothing to do with this conversation and no way to speak for himself. Trying to bring him or anyone else who is no longer part of this forum and who can not speak for themselves is patently unfair. You have just demonstrated how low you will go!

Secondly, you are anti nudist and you know it. You continue to play games and always try to provoke others with your nonsense. You always use vague words and phrases that have little if any meaing to anyone. You also promote pie in the sky nonsense about nudists beaches and clubs without even having a basic understanding that in many cases your so called 'fair share' of beaches is impossible. How do you expect anyone to respond to such nonsense? Most ignore you now. I just do not believe that you can be direct, upfront, and say what you mean and mean what you say about nudism. You constantly contradict yourself and play word games with people here. Yet, you accuse others of being unfair. You want constructive dialog and yet YOU make this impossible and you know it.

You have a problem with a woman's bare nipples or body........then stay away from it but allow others the freedom to do what they chose. No one demands that you remain clothed. Yet you demand to control others dress behavior based upon your own phobias and control issues.

I have NEVER told a woman to be clothed or nude. What I strongy advocate are two things concerning women:

1) Women have the freedom to be topfree or nude if they so chose.
2) Women can enjoy this freedom without being criticized or abused by other men or women for chosing to do so.

You clearly are an old fashioned chauvenist and want to dictate to women what they can and can not wear. Men like you need to grow up and stop controlling women and exploiting their bodies. Let women decide for themselves what is appropriate for them.

You don't like nudism or nudity, fine! Then look away, stay away, and leave nudists alone! You want protection from nudity, then either stay home or go to some officially designated prude beach that mainstream society has allocated for you and your segregationist kind! Stop accusing me of that which you are clearly and plainly guilty of doing and that is to refuse to concede any point and to constantly obfuscate and reduce the level of discourse here to a nonsensical level.

My God man! With all of the very serious problems that this world faces do you have nothing better to do then focus upon something that is really so minor, inconsequential, and unimportant in the grand scheme of things ie nudism? Obviously you just can not see the big picture and understand how utterly childish it is for people to go around complaining because they caught a glimpse of someone's bare behind. Such people need to face homelessness or hunger and then they might finally wake up and put things in their proper perspective.

How many more years do you plan to be here saying the same thing over and over again????

One final thing.........you came into this thread that I initiated and stated that the topic heading is false. Fair enough. You should expect to be challeneged on your assumption and you were many , many times and by many, many people. Instead of acknowledging and engaging in intelligent debate, you conceeded nothing and promoted nonsense based upon one sketchy case with virtually non existent details. You claim to be this academic type and yet you must know fully well that any graduate student who presents a thesis based upon one source will be flunked. You know this and yet you continue to promote slipshod and slapdash research, contradictions, and more word games. Yet you want intelligent discourse? When you wake up and are finally ready (if ever) to engage in intelligent and sensible discourse, then others might be willing to engage. Until then...........play on as you see fit but don't be surprised by the replies that you receive. So far you have only demonstrated how impossible it is for anyone to engage in constructive dialog with you. You know it so now admit it and be done with it!

You want consideration from us? Then start giving fair consideration to us! Stop constantly reminding us of what we need to do for the textile world (with all of their abuses) and start reminding the textile world of what they need to do for us!

Stu2630

07-15-2008, 09:59 AM

Sanslines

Trying to bring him or anyone else who is no longer part of this forum and who can not speak for themselves is patently unfair.

I wasn't criticizing him, I was criticizing YOU for doing what he did. At least now you are talking to me rather than just about me, so that's a start.

Secondly, you are anti nudist and you know it. You continue to play games and always try to provoke others with your nonsense.

I am not anti-nudist and I'm not playing games. I have been consistent in that I support and encourage responsible nudism.

You also promote pie in the sky nonsense about nudists beaches and clubs without even having a basic understanding that in many cases your so called 'fair share' of beaches is impossible.

It's far more realistic than your ambition that everywhere in public should be clothing-optional!

I just do not believe that you can be direct, upfront, and say what you mean and mean what you say about nudism.

What do you want me to say? I have been straight and up-front ever since I started coming here. I think nudists get a raw deal and I want to see them provided with more places and opportunities, and better and more accessible beaches. But I don't want nude to become a dress option in my environment. That's what I have always said and it's what I always mean. What part of that don't you understand?

You have a problem with a woman's bare nipples or body........then stay away from it but allow others the freedom to do what they chose.

I prefer there to be beaches where I don't see women going topless. Is that a crime?

I have NEVER told a woman to be clothed or nude. What I strongy advocate are two things concerning women:

1) Women have the freedom to be topfree or nude if they so chose.
2) Women can enjoy this freedom without being criticized or abused by other men or women for chosing to do so.

OK. That's your point of view. I prefer not to be around topless women because I think it looks gross. Consequently, I will voice my preferences if and when I get chance. That's not anti-nudist because I will ONLY seek to affect regulation of textile places - never nudist ones. You, on the other hand, want to have your nudist places while dictating to textiles what we should accept.

Men like you need to grow up and stop controlling women and exploiting their bodies. Let women decide for themselves what is appropriate for them.

Many, if not most, of the objections of toplessness come from women themselves!!!

You want protection from nudity, then either stay home or go to some officially designated prude beach that mainstream society has allocated for you and your segregationist kind!

I already do. I want to protect my textile beaches from encroachment by nudists. In return, I'm happy to have nudists allocated beaches of their own - which I can assure you I will stay well away from!

My God man! With all of the very serious problems that this world faces do you have nothing better to do then focus upon something that is really so minor, inconsequential, and unimportant in the grand scheme of things ie nudism?

So you think nudism is "minor, inconsequential, and unimportant"? Good! So why are you here? And why are you fighting to keep your nudist beaches if they are so unimportant? You can always use those same beaches while wearing a pair of shorts.

Obviously you just can not see the big picture and understand how utterly childish it is for people to go around complaining because they caught a glimpse of someone's bare behind. Such people need to face homelessness or hunger and then they might finally wake up and put things in their proper perspective.

I could say the same for you. In the scheme of things, and having regard to the major problems the world is facing, why are you worrying about the right not to have to cover your genitals with a small piece of cloth?

One final thing.........you came into this thread that I initiated and stated that the topic heading is false. Fair enough.

The topic heading IS a false statement. That has been demonstrated beyond any doubt and it serves no-one to credit it with any veracity whatsoever. Any nudist reading that headline and believing it could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, just as Mr Te did. So it's fair and proper for me to challenge it.

You claim to be this academic type and yet you must know fully well that any graduate student who presents a thesis based upon one source will be flunked.

I now have TWO sources, thanks to Agde!!! :laugh: Besides, this is not a matter of academic research - it is a simple matter of relating an event, namely a court case. The unarguable fact is that a man was fined as a direct result of him being naked in the street - and the judge asserted the right of people not to see him naked. We now have TWO independent, yet identical, reports showing this and they give a lie to the statement which heads this thread.

You want consideration from us? Then start giving fair consideration to us! Stop constantly reminding us of what we need to do for the textile world (with all of their abuses) and start reminding the textile world of what they need to do for us!

I am happy to tell the textile world what they should be doing for you: I will tell them they should be allocating you more places to enjoy. The problem is that what YOU want is for prudes to be utterly disregarded and to live in a clothing-optional world. That is both unreasonable and, thankfully, unattainable.

Stu

Sanslines

07-15-2008, 01:05 PM

Sanslines
I wasn't criticizing him, I was criticizing YOU for doing what he did. At least now you are talking to me rather than just about me, so that's a start.

Did I ever say that you were criticizing him? I clearly did not and made it clear that you were mentioning an individual who is no longer part of this forum and not able to respond to anything that you might say about said person. If you read slowely and carefully, I hope that you might be able to understand the difference between what I have said and what you believe that I said. This is a problem. You have an entirely different understand and interpretation of what I and others say. This is one reason why it is so difficult to communicate with you. Perhaps language is a problem for you. This appears to be the case and there is not much that I can do about that other then to become very redundant, crystal clear, and direct in what I say. I have attempted to do this and yet you still misinterpret what I say!

I am not anti-nudist and I'm not playing games. I have been consistent in that I support and encourage responsible nudism.

You are anti nudist and I have used your own words in previous post(s) to clearly demonstrate that you are. You are again playing games in that you are using a vague word such as 'responsible' when you know fully well that responsible means something different to different people. This is another major problem with you. You continue to 'take the piss' over and over again by using very nebulous words. When challenged about your use of such words, you contradict yourself and play even more word games. You only demonstrate that it is impossible to have a meaning ful conversation with you. Can't you see any of this?

It's far more realistic than your ambition that everywhere in public should be clothing-optional!

You actually have no clue as to what I believe or do not believe about nudism. One thing that I will tell you is this. You have demonstrated over and over again how impossible it is to reason with you in an upfront and honest manner. You continue to play word games and use very nebulous words. As such, you are one of those individuals who will get nudists to sign their rights away to some document that you created full of nebulous words so that you can twist and turn and basically stab nudists in their backs by reneging on your promisses and further limiting their enjoyment of nudism. You have demonstrated that you can not be believed or trusted. Hence why you are a prime example of someone who should never be negotiated with. There are too many individuals who sincerely will negotate in good faith. You are not one of them. You are driven by phobias and control issues and only want to control nudists to satisfy your own hatred of nudity. This is hardly a sound basis for fair minded negotiation.

What do you want me to say? I have been straight and up-front ever since I started coming here. I think nudists get a raw deal and I want to see them provided with more places and opportunities, and better and more accessible beaches. But I don't want nude to become a dress option in my environment. That's what I have always said and it's what I always mean. What part of that don't you understand?

Let's talk about the weather Stu. Why not as you constantly miss the point that I make over and over again. You just do not get it and I don't think that you ever will. What you say is a bunch of meaningless nonsense. You claim that there are 5 percent of nudists in the population and want to allocate 10 percent of beaches to nudists. Neither you or I know how many nudists are in society. I admit it. You will not. Furthermore if I bring up the point that if there are legal nude beaches, that it might turn out that 70 percent of society will go to legal clothing optional beaches, you will not accept this as a legitimate possibility but will refute it for your phobias will never allow you to admit that nudism is not as unpopular as you wish to believe.

I prefer there to be beaches where I don't see women going topless. Is that a crime?

I stated that we need to provide some segregated textile beaches for prudes and other assorted phobics.

OK. That's your point of view. I prefer not to be around topless women because I think it looks gross. Consequently, I will voice my preferences if and when I get chance. That's not anti-nudist because I will ONLY seek to affect regulation of textile places - never nudist ones. You, on the other hand, want to have your nudist places while dictating to textiles what we should accept.

I think that you must know that you are the one who has come to a nudist forum and dictated to nudists what they should and should not accept. You again accuse me of something that you are clearly guilty of.

Many, if not most, of the objections of toplessness come from women themselves!!!

If a woman objects to being topfree, then that is fine. She does not have to be topfree. However, she does not have the right to condemn other women who chose to be topfree. Everyone has rights.........including topfree women. This simple concept is something that still seems to escape you.

I already do. I want to protect my textile beaches from encroachment by nudists. In return, I'm happy to have nudists allocated beaches of their own - which I can assure you I will stay well away from!

Again, we provide a few secluded and isolated textile beaches for those prudes who wish to avoid nudism. For the rest of society, building walls and segregating people is NOT the answer. Building trust and sharing based upon factual understanding is the answer.

So you think nudism is "minor, inconsequential, and unimportant"? Good! So why are you here? And why are you fighting to keep your nudist beaches if they are so unimportant? You can always use those same beaches while wearing a pair of shorts.

You clearly are twisting what I have said in an attempt to suiut your own devious purpose. I really wonder about you now and your ability to understand what I or anyone else has posted. Twisting what others have said to suit your own purposes is clearly game playing and this is something that you continue to do. Yet you deny game playing. Perhaps you really have convinced yourself of this but everyone else sees exactly what you are doing. Futhermore, when you play such games, you demonstrate your inability to engage in meaningful dialog. You again show just how futile it is to attempt to reason with you and you only demonstrate that nudists are better off spending their time reasoning with sincere, non game players then someone who only wants to 'take the piss' over and over again.

I could say the same for you. In the scheme of things, and having regard to the major problems the world is facing, why are you worrying about the right not to have to cover your genitals with a small piece of cloth?

It is NOT about me. You are playing the oldest game in the book which is to point a finger back at the person who initially pointed it at you. Instead of engaging in sincere and honest dialog, you resort to more games such as this. You again demonstrate your inability to engage in unambiguous conversation and rational discourse.

The topic heading IS a false statement. That has been demonstrated beyond any doubt and it serves no-one to credit it with any veracity whatsoever. Any nudist reading that headline and believing it could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, just as Mr Te did. So it's fair and proper for me to challenge it.

This is ONLY your belief and nothing more based upon your own hatred of public nudity.

I now have TWO sources, thanks to Agde!!! :laugh: Besides, this is not a matter of academic research - it is a simple matter of relating an event, namely a court case. The unarguable fact is that a man was fined as a direct result of him being naked in the street - and the judge asserted the right of people not to see him naked. We now have TWO independent, yet identical, reports showing this and they give a lie to the statement which heads this thread.

You dishonour the legal profession with such slapdash statements based upon your own tommyrot. You form your own conclusions not based upon real facts but upon immaginary allegations that you have convinced yourself to believe in. All of this is driven by your phobias and control issues that are seated in your deep hatred against nudity. You clearly are anti nudist and yet will never admit to it. It is again impossible to have a rational conversation about nudity with someone who has such a deep seated hatred towards nudity. Because of your hated, you will never be fair or unbiased and will only promote your control (issues) of nudity in order to demand that the rest of society conform to your demands rather then change yourself to conform to society.

I am happy to tell the textile world what they should be doing for you: I will tell them they should be allocating you more places to enjoy. The problem is that what YOU want is for prudes to be utterly disregarded and to live in a clothing-optional world. That is both unreasonable and, thankfully, unattainable.

You are free to tell the world whatever you wish and the world is free to ignore you. The rest of us are also free to promote nudism in the real world as best we can and that is in a very positive light so that the rest of the world can see us for who we really are ( no threat to society ) and the rest of the world can see that your only interest in nudism is to control nudists and con them into signing their rights away so that you can protect your own selfish interests.

Again I clearly and unambiguously say that you are NO FRIEND OF NUDISTS! You simply can NOT be trusted and are only here to play games based upon your own hypothetical and imaginary scenarios.

Personally, I will continue to fight for the rights of nudists and to promote nudism in a very healthy and positive way. Nudism, in my experience, is a very normal and healthy activity that can and will add years to a persons life and bring more joy and relaxation to a person during their lifetime.

nimrod

07-15-2008, 02:16 PM

Segregation on the basis of immutable characteristics such as race is wrong, but segregation based on chosen behaviour or activities at the material time is perfectly acceptable.

Stu

So then your are saying it is OK to segregate on the basis of religion. You realy are showing just how bigoted you truely are.

nimrod

07-15-2008, 02:22 PM

But I have consistently agreed that there should be far more provision made for nudism - beaches, areas within parks and so on.

I want to protect my textile beaches from encroachment by nudist.

Stu

Does anyone but me see the contradiction of Stu's words.

Sanslines

07-15-2008, 03:27 PM

Stu,

You really need to write a book entitled: " 365 Ways To Be An Anti Nudist Without Most People Knowing It!"

MoonShadow

07-16-2008, 06:25 AM

LOL Sanslines. But you know he would come up with more!

Well, wasn't going to say this again, but ------ the whirring continues unabated!

Sighhhhhh!

missouriboy

07-18-2008, 09:10 AM

13 pages? Wow... when a topic gets that long you just gotta know it's all about Stu, not about what the title says. :(

Stu2630

07-18-2008, 09:22 AM

I have a translation of the judge's decision from the report:

http://www.adn.es/politica/20071024/NWS-3180-Barcelona-Multan-nudista-euros.html

This translation is not MY translation, but the translation of a Spanish-speaking nudist on the "go bare" website:

Civilised societies since time immemorial wear clothes in public, and the
criteria sanitary, aesthetic, moral and religious have convinced civilised man to go about clothed. Well now, to go without clothes throughout all of the city of Barcelona, as does the accused, there is in this matter an unbridgeable gulf. Few people can remain indifferent" in the presence of the practice of nudism on the streets and public places, which exhibits a deed "annoying and antisocial" which commits an outrage against the rights of the rest. The accused believes wrongly that he alone has the right, in this case to go about totally naked, forgetting that the rest of us also have the right not to see him unclothed.

That which is contravened, then, is not the (national) Penal Code referring to nudism, which it does not actually regard as a crime, but a civic ordinance which makes it (ie nudism) impossible in order to protect appropriate coexistence and respect for others.

So that's it, people - the statement that "Nudity is not punishable in Spain but a Constitutional right" is blown out of the water by this and it's time to accept that and move on. It clearly IS punishable as a civic ordnance and that is the only point I was making. I really hope that puts an end to this and nobody will be foolish to try to defend the ridiculous and palpably false statement which is the title of this thread.

Stu

Sanslines

07-18-2008, 09:40 AM

I have a translation of the judge's decision from the report:

http://www.adn.es/politica/20071024/NWS-3180-Barcelona-Multan-nudista-euros.html

This translation is not MY translation, but the translation of a Spanish-speaking nudist on the "go bare" website:

So that's it, people - the statement that "Nudity is not punishable in Spain but a Constitutional right" is blown out of the water by this and it's time to accept that and move on. It clearly IS punishable as a civic ordnance and that is the only point I was making. I really hope that puts an end to this and nobody will be foolish to try to defend the ridiculous and palpably false statement which is the title of this thread.

Stu

Stu,

You are so anti nudist that you will convince yourself of anything and believe and say anything that promotes your personal phobias against nudism. You have posted a judge's OPINION who appears to be personally against nudity in Barcelona and has (mis) used other laws to punish a man for an activity for which there is no clear and direct law against. Judges can and always will find laws (whether they directly apply or not is another matter) to punish anyone for any reason. That's the way it is. The judge applied an 'umbrella' law to punish this man. The umbrella law actually has nothing specifically to do with nudism but was force fit to punish someone who, IN THE JUDGE"S OPINION, commited an offense. If truth be told, there are just as many judges who would not pervert the law by applying 'one law fits all' to a alleged crime.

You go right ahead and rejoice in finding one man who was punished by one judge and incorrectly extrapolate this one verdict to an entire nation. You only show just how dodgy, slapdash, and intolerant you are towards others who do not conform to your demands. Once again, you continue to promote your anti nudist agenda and demonstrate just how anti nudism you really are.

If only you would spend 1/100 of the time that you spend here (abusing us with your distortions) admitting to, facing, and dealing with your anti nudity phobias you would have been cured 100 times over.

Sanslines

07-18-2008, 09:56 AM

Stu2630

07-18-2008, 09:59 AM

Agde

07-18-2008, 11:00 AM

...I prefer not to be around topless women because I think it looks gross.

Having been enjoying the stretch of good weather, I got to reflecting on Stu's revulsion about nudity. Just a preface that, overall, I think his steady well-written contrariness, while disturbing, is not unhealthy for this forum since his views, perhaps in less extreme form, are not uncommon. The basic thought was that, unlike Stu, I am not the least bit disturbed by nudity -- I just take others' looks as part of the general scenery, like umbrellas or rocks or buildings or shrubs, some of which works asthetically better than others, but overall just of momentary regard.

In Thailand, there is a standard phrase, used for occasions such as when someone has accidently broken your favourite vase or done something lacking in social polish -- "mai pen rai" -- which roughly translates as "oh, well, never mind" and involves the feeling of letting go the emotional pain because what can you do about it now anyway? Outside Thailand, we in fact do something similar every day when dealing with certain work colleagues, shop clerks or various forms of administrative nuckleheadedness. We may not have such a handy stock phrase, but we just let it go as part of life. Perhaps, as a replacement for the reflex to call the cops, "mai pen rai" could be usefully imported to help Stu and others to cope with instances of bare breasts and public nudity.

...I now have TWO sources, thanks to Agde!!! :laugh:
No need to point out here again the invalid extrapolation from selective quotations to "conclusive" misinterpretation. Esteban T.E. crashed a religious festival, dis-sed the police, got fined, and now continues his normal ways. And? Sheesh! Meantime, next time I am in Madrid, I will be happy to be normal, not dis the police and send photos. Stu will of course discount this anyway as not proving anything -- mai pen rai, the point is simply enjoying the right to casual nudity in casual situations with common sense and mutual respect de la manera española inteligente y progresista.

Sanslines

07-18-2008, 11:08 AM

Sanslines

All judicial decisions can be attributed to the "opinion" of the judge and this case is no different. All laws have to be interpreted by judges, as happened here. This judge has not been dismissed or rebuked for his decision, nor was it overturned on appeal, so his judgment stands. My point is that it is misleading to say that public nudity can not be punished in Spain: it is clear that it CAN be punished in Spain, whether you agree with the decision of the judge or not is immaterial - a man WAS punished in Spain for being nude. The same could happen if someone here read that incorrect claim, believed it, and decided to walk the streets of Barcelona or some other Spanish city while naked. They, too, could have been arrested and fined. By pointing out the inaccuracy of the title of this thread, I am being honest and constructive and, hopefully, will prevent a nudist here from going to Spain and ending up on the wrong side of the law.

Because I am correcting misinformation on a factual issue, you seem to think that gives you grounds for calling me anti-nudist. That's infantile.
Instead of doing that, why don't you face reality that people CAN be punished for being nude in public in Spain and advise people going there to exercise caution?

And yes, I do rejoice in this man being punished. It was, rightly, a mild punishment but it established a principle which I support. It means I will be less fearful of visiting the historic city of Barcelona and that, if I do
and I encounter nakedness, I can report the matter to the police, tell them I consider that my rights not to see nakedness have been violated, and show them this judgment if they are unaware of it. I will support nudists rights to enjoy and keep decent places allocated for their use, but I have rights, too, and those include being able to use public streets without being affronted by nakedness.

Stu

Stu,

I just don't think that you have much practical experience with the legal process and system. The fact is that ANYONE can be punished for ANYTHING. The article bases it's premisses upon the fact that there are no constitutional laws which outlaw nudity in Spain. You can not argue that this is NOT correct for it is. You therefore search for indirect use of periphery laws to punish nudity and attempt to claim that since one man was punished by indirect use of another law for being nude, that nudity can be punished and that the article is NOT correct. One case does not speak for the entire country of Spain let alone the entire city of Barcelona. Furthermore, your so called 'altruistic' attempts to 'warn' nudists about the perils of running afoul of the law fools no one. You clearly only want to promote your anti nudist agenda by shoving into the faces of nudists something that you take extreme delight in - and that is when a nudist is punished for violating one of your anti nudity beliefs.

I know that as much as you wish that free range nudity would be outlawed in Spain, deliberately misleading others by willful selective presentation of partial information is dodgy and disingenuous.

As for being anti nudity, you have made very clear that you are with your paragraph beginning with "And yes, I do rejoice in this man being punished......."
It is not my exxageration that you are anti nudity........your own words and postings clearly indicate that.

Stu2630

07-18-2008, 12:04 PM

Agde

No need to point out here again the invalid extrapolation from selective quotations to "conclusive" misinterpretation. Esteban T.E. crashed a religious festival, dis-sed the police, got fined, and now continues his normal ways.

I didn't select the quotations - the newspaper did. The quotations from the judge left us in no doubt that Mr Te's public nakedness was not acceptable and people had a right not to have to see it. Unless you can show that the judge went on to say that it was legally acceptable, but that he was to be punished for "crashing a religious festival" or "dissing the police", then we have to take his words at face value. Read what he said again:

"Civilised societies since time immemorial wear clothes in public, and the
criteria sanitary, aesthetic, moral and religious have convinced civilised man to go about clothed. Well now, to go without clothes throughout all of the city of Barcelona, as does the accused, there is in this matter an unbridgeable gulf. Few people can remain indifferent" in the presence of the practice of nudism on the streets and public places, which exhibits a deed "annoying and antisocial" which commits an outrage against the rights of the rest. The accused believes wrongly that he alone has the right, in this case to go about totally naked, forgetting that the rest of us also have the right not to see him unclothed."

Sanslines

I just don't think that you have much practical experience with the legal process and system. The fact is that ANYONE can be punished for ANYTHING.

Only 33-years experience in the legal field working with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. And then there's my law degree...

The article bases it's premisses upon the fact that there are no constitutional laws which outlaw nudity in Spain. You can not argue that this is NOT correct for it is.

There is no Constitutional laws in Scotland against nudity, but that didn't stop Steve Gough getting locked up for the last 2-years. There is no Constitutional laws in most countries againt nudity: there doesn't have to be because nudity (like swearing, public sex etc) tends to be dealt with under other legislation and you can be punished for it - as was shown in the case of Mr Te.

One case does not speak for the entire country of Spain let alone the entire city of Barcelona.

Quite right. As nudity is punished by local ordnances, it's a matter for each legislative area to make it's own rules and enforce them as they see fit. But the blanket statement that nudity can not be punished in Spain is clearly false because Barcelona is in Spain and Mr Te was punished for public nudity there.

You clearly only want to promote your anti nudist agenda by shoving into the faces of nudists something that you take extreme delight in - and that is when a nudist is punished for violating one of your anti nudity beliefs.

I'm simply correcting a false statement.

I know that as much as you wish that free range nudity would be outlawed in Spain, deliberately misleading others by willful selective presentation of partial information is dodgy and disingenuous.

Nice try - BUT - what I gave was a direct quote from "go-bare" - another nudist message board. It was a straight lift of a posting by a nudistwho can read Spanish and translated the judge's words - so there is nothing "disingenuous" about it.

As for being anti nudity, you have made very clear that you are with your paragraph beginning with "And yes, I do rejoice in this man being punished......." It is not my exxageration that you are anti nudity...

Er...yes..that's right. I have always been against nudity in non-nudist public places. I have hardly made a secret of that, have I? And this is a case of a man being naked in a city centre - so yes, I am am pleased he was punished.

Stu

Boreas

07-18-2008, 12:50 PM

Nudity may be punishable in Spain. It is not always punishable. If it were totally against the law, it would be punishable every time it is seen. Clearly that is not the case.

As for the anit-nudity label, I consider Stu anti-nudity after several years of discussion. I do not come to this conclusion based on this thread.

I suspect I am not alone in this.

Stu2630

07-18-2008, 02:02 PM

Boreas

Nudity may be punishable in Spain. It is not always punishable. If it were totally against the law, it would be punishable every time it is seen. Clearly that is not the case.The title of this thread is "Nudity is NOT punishable in Spain but is a Constitutional right". You have just said "Nudity may be punishable in Spain..", therefore the title of the thread is a statement which is, semantically, untrue.

I am quite happy to accept that it is not always punishable - I have explained that the punishment occurs not because it is a national law, but through local ordnances. In some areas, they may not have enacted such ordnances, so nudity may be lawful. So that's not in dispute. My issue is with the blanket statement that: "Nudity is NOT punishable in Spain but is a Constitutional right", which is demonstrably false.

As for the anti-nudity label, I consider Stu anti-nudity after several years of discussion. I do not come to this conclusion based on this thread.

I suspect I am not alone in this.I'm not sure why you are saying this because it is patently incorrect. As I said to Sanslines, I am anti public nudity in places other than nudist locations or places which are very remote. I have said this consistently. You must know that I have never expressed anything but support for nudity in private, or at nudist places.

You are a nudist. That's great! I envy you that you can gain so much pleasure in something so simple and I admire your independence of mind that you don't allow social norms to prevent you enjoying this pastime/lifestyle. I want you to have many more nice places where you can enjoy your nudism; you are taxpayers, citizens and, generally, nice and decent people and you have a RIGHT to such places. But I want my environment, and that of my family, to continue to be nudity-free. Is that so unreasonable?

Stu

Sanslines

07-18-2008, 02:07 PM

Only 33-years experience in the legal field working with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. And then there's my law degree...

Sorry but I have to believe that this is all a fantasy allegation for absolutely NO ONE that I know who has even a miniscule amount of experience with any legal system would come up with the balderdash that you do. NO ONE! You may very well have some kind of law degree for that might explain your double talk and inability to directly and succinctly answer direct questions.

There is no Constitutional laws in Scotland against nudity, but that didn't stop Steve Gough getting locked up for the last 2-years. There is no Constitutional laws in most countries againt nudity: there doesn't have to be because nudity (like swearing, public sex etc) tends to be dealt with under other legislation and you can be punished for it - as was shown in the case of Mr Te.

Stu are you for real? Do you even have a clue how the legal system works? Do you have any idea why new laws are written? According to your train of though, there are no needs for new laws to be created for all that a judge has to do is (mis)apply an existing umbrella law. Even a first semester law student knows better then that.

Quite right. As nudity is punished by local ordnances, it's a matter for each legislative area to make it's own rules and enforce them as they see fit. But the blanket statement that nudity can not be punished in Spain is clearly false because Barcelona is in Spain and Mr Te was punished for public nudity there.

Mr Te could have been punished for jay walking for all I know. You are so hung up on one man being punished for alleged nudity (no you won't admit that there might have been additional circumstances or that the laws were misapplied) because it serves your clear anti nudity agenda. It's just as simple as that no matter how many times you keep repeating the same old distortions and misrepresentions.

I'm simply correcting a false statement.

You are simply promoting your anti nudity agenda and think that we are all too stupid to see it.

Nice try - BUT - what I gave was a direct quote from "go-bare" - another nudist message board. It was a straight lift of a posting by a nudistwho can read Spanish and translated the judge's words - so there is nothing "disingenuous" about it.

Stu you really need to find a better way to utilize your time other then to come to a nudist forum and annoy the forum members. Why don't you go out and find yourself a textiled golf buddy and take up golf.

Er...yes..that's right. I have always been against nudity in non-nudist public places. I have hardly made a secret of that, have I? And this is a case of a man being naked in a city centre - so yes, I am am pleased he was punished. Stu

Yes, I know 'it's' right. I know that you are anti nudity and continue to promote your anti nudist agenda in a nudist forum to no avail. Stu, wake up and get a clue. No one cares about your diatribes and rallys against nudity - no one! No please do us all a favour and go out and find a new hobby.

Stu..........15 pages and counting of his endless entertainment...........how many more pages to go?? Anyone want to take any bets???

Stu2630

07-18-2008, 02:25 PM

Sanslines

Sorry but I have to believe that this is all a fantasy allegation for absolutely NO ONE that I know who has even a miniscule amount of experience with any legal system...

Then there is no point in discussing it. It's obvious from the statements you make that you are the one with no basic grasp of legal and Constitutional processes or the pillars of western jurisprudence.

According to your train of though, there are no needs for new laws to be created for all that a judge has to do is (mis)apply an existing umbrella law. Even a first semester law student knows better then that.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Government (in our case, Parliament) makes laws but these laws are interpreted through the judiciary. These interpretations are either "case stated" (if they form part of the ratio decidendi) or a statement "said by the way", is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision (the obiter dictum). In the case of Mr Te, I would doubt that the court in question was of a high enough level to set precedent, although I confess to little knowledge of the Spanish legal system. Judges in European countries generally do not mis-apply laws because if they do, they are likely to be subject to appeal. Judges dislike having their decisions overturned on appeal and where a judge makes frequent erroneous judgments, his career is in jeopardy. I don't claim to know how it works in your country, but over here it is like I said it is.

Mr Te could have been punished for jay walking for all I know. You are so hung up on one man being punished for alleged nudity (no you won't admit that there might have been additional circumstances or that the laws were misapplied) because it serves your clear anti nudity agenda.

You really are in denial about this one, aren't you? Jay walking indeed? :laugh:

READ THE JUDGE'S WORDS!

Stu you really need to find a better way to utilize your time other then to come to a nudist forum and annoy the forum members.

If it's annoying you then why do you persist in reading, and responding to, my posts? What's really annoying you on this thread is that you know I'm right.

Stu

nimrod

07-18-2008, 02:48 PM

READ THE JUDGE'S WORDS!

Stu

That which is contravened, then, is not the (national) Penal code refferring to nudism, which it does not actually regard as a crime, but civic ordinance which make it (ie. nudism) impossible in order to protect appropriate coexistance and respect for others.

I do believe that the judge even says it there, he his not punishing the man for being nude but rather for not being respectful to others. The judge is of the opinion that it is impossible for a nude person to coexist respectfully with others. Does that include other nude people?

Well that is the way it reads to me.

Sanslines

07-18-2008, 02:57 PM

If it's annoying you then why do you persist in reading, and responding to, my posts? What's really annoying you on this thread is that you know I'm right.

Stu

Stu,

You are wrong on many accounts. First and foremost, I am not annoyed. I am entertained for I don't take your misinterpretations seriously. You have an axe to grind here and you keep presenting your anti nudist agenda over and over again. You would have far more credibility if you would stop assuming that this forum is too stupid to see through you and clearly understand your real motives. You are NO friend of nudists. You are here to promote the same old tired anti nudist messages over and over again like a broken record. You do this year after year. This is NOT normal behaviour. It is NOT normal to spend year after year repeating the same old message when you must know that we just don't care. We will do whatever we see fit and do not need you to constantly remind us of our limitations vis a vis nudism in the real world. We have enough of that rubbish to deal with in the real world and we do not need you to constantly remind us of it.

No matter how many times you ignore what any of us say and keep repeating the same old tired rubbish over and over again, we will not give in. It is just as simple as that. Get a clue, Stu. Go out into the REAL world and find yourself a textiled golfing buddy and entertain yourself that way. Your tired anti nudism diatribes are old and worn out!

Sanslines

07-18-2008, 03:00 PM

That which is contravened, then, is not the (national) Penal code refferring to nudism, which it does not actually regard as a crime, but civic ordinance which make it (ie. nudism) impossible in order to protect appropriate coexistance and respect for others.

I do believe that the judge even says it there, he his not punishing the man for being nude but rather for not being respectful to others. The judge is of the opinion that it is impossible for a nude person to coexist respectfully with others. Does that include other nude people?

Well that is the way it reads to me.

Yes that is the way that it is but Stu deliberately twists and manipulates what was actually said to fit his anti nudism agenda. For Stu to admit what you, I , and everyone else read would weaken Stu's anti nudism stance and that is something that he just can not tolerate! Stu is just too biased and intolerant and will never accept anything that any of us say to the contrary. Take Stu for what he is.........pure fictional entertainment.

Stu's pattern is to entertain us all with his outrageous statements and deliberate misinterpretations and balderdash and then leave for a few days to give us all a break. Stu has now returned so stay tuned for more of the "Stu Channel"..........same Stu time...........same Stu channel.........so stay stu-ned for more ridiculous and outrageous nonsense from Stu!

Stu2630

07-18-2008, 03:49 PM

Nimrod

That which is contravened, then, is not the (national) Penal code referring to nudism, which it does not actually regard as a crime, but civic ordinance which make it (ie. nudism) impossible in order to protect appropriate coexistence and respect for others.

Precisely.

I do believe that the judge even says it there, he his not punishing the man for being nude but rather for not being respectful to others.

This is how much European law is framed. There is no law against swearing, but people who use obscene language in public are guilty of "abusive or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". The particular behaviour which the judge said was disrespectful was his nudity.

The judge is of the opinion that it is impossible for a nude person to coexist respectfully with others. Does that include other nude people?

Without a doubt. So that fact makes the statement which is the title of this thread untrue.

Sanslines

You would have far more credibility if you would stop assuming that this forum is too stupid to see through you and clearly understand your real motives.

I have made no secret of my "real motives".

You are NO friend of nudists.

I am no friend of people who want to get naked in places I'm likely to go to. Most nudists have no intention of doing that and, for that reason, I will support their laudable aims to gain more and better nudist opportunities in places and events set aside for nudism.

This is NOT normal behaviour. It is NOT normal to spend year after year repeating the same old message when you must know that we just don't care.

You are repeating the same tired old messages to me time and time again, so that means you're not normal either.

We will do whatever we see fit and do not need you to constantly remind us of our limitations vis a vis nudism in the real world.

I won't need to remind you of them so long as you remember them yourself and don't come out with patent nonsense such as that public nudity is a Constitutional right in Spain. It isn't.

Go out into the REAL world and find yourself a textiled golfing buddy and entertain yourself that way.

I have no interest in golf. I like discussion and debate.

Stu

Sanslines

07-18-2008, 04:46 PM

I won't need to remind you of them so long as you remember them yourself and don't come out with patent nonsense such as that public nudity is a Constitutional right in Spain. It isn't.

Stu,

You continue to twist this topic to suit your own anti nudist agenda. The Spanish Constitution does NOT specifically (or otherwise) prohibit nudity. There are MANY rights guaranteed under the Spanish Constitution and many of these basic rights also apply to nudists and nudism. Let us make this very simple for you.........Repeat after me...........the Spanish Constitution DOES NOT prohibit nudity. Again......the Spanish Constitution DOES NOT prohibit nudity. Dredging up one case in Barcelona is NOT a national precidence. Ignoring all other pertinent case factors such as whether the man was disruptive or not only means that you are determined to prove something and have no hesitation to ignore and twist facts to suit your agenda. This is wrong, and misleading and you have been taken to task over and over again for your biased anti nudist agenda. You base your entire argument on one local case which has NOTHING to do with the Spanish Constitution - NOTHING! Again based upon your anti nudist agenda you continue to promote the faulty concept that one local case where a judge's opinions were clearly biased against someone who was nude, and who used an umbrella law to allegedly punish someone for nudity when this judge knew fully well that there is no clear and direct anti nudity law, does NOT say anthing about the Spanish Constitution, or the fact that there is NO law which specifically prohibits nudity. NO matter how many times or how many ways that I or anyone else explains anything to you doesnt matter. You are determined to force a conclusion based upon slapdash premises. You, who claims to be some kind of legal professional, should know better. All I can say at this point is that if you represent the legal system in England, then God Save The Queen and God Save England (from you!)! You also really need to try harder then continue to play the oldest game in the book and that is to accuse me of that which I originally accuse you of. I suppose you do this again and again because you have no real defence of your actions.

I have no interest in golf. I like discussion and debate.

You refuse to discuss or debate. YOu seem to have no other interests in life other then spending your life in a nudist forum annoying nudists with your endless negative diatribes against nudism - how sad! You also continue to take the piss on all of us and are not intereted in anything other then to promote your endless anti nudist agenda and nonsense over and over again year in and year out.

Stu............366 Ways To Promote Anti Nudism With The Hope That No One Suspects It ........and counting!.........

Stu2630

07-19-2008, 02:27 AM

Sanslines

Why do you keep harping on about the Spanish Constitution? A Constitution establishes the law-making processes and the powers of state institutions and offices and, sometimes, guarantees certain rights to the citizen. A Constitution does not define what behaviour is criminal and what behaviour is not - the criminal law does that. The Spanish Constitution does not outlaw public nudity any more than it outlaws possession or heroin or drunken driving or armed robbery. Nor does it guarantee a right to public nudity.

In most countries, including your own, there is national law and local law. On the same level as your Federal laws, the Spanish have the Penal Code and where you have state laws and city ordnances, Spain has local ordnances. I have been told, by the Spanish Ministry of Justice, that public nudity in Spain is not contrary to the Penal Code, but that it is contrary to many local ordnances. This is borne our by the case of Mr Te. That's not "twisting" anything - it is simple fact.

I can relate to local ordnances because I know how they work. I have participated in drafting byelaws (the UK version of local ordnances) and advising on how they must be framed to comply with the primary enabling legislation which empowers the relevant authority to enact them. I have been instrumental in the prosecution of people who have offended against them. I have taught the provisions of byelaws to other professionals. It is obvious to any objective reader of this thread that you don't have a basic grasp of this subject and that, by arguing with me, you are out of your depth and you are making yourself look ridiculous. (Either that or you are just fooling around with me and trying to be annoying - but if that's the case I can tell you that I have endless patience and will repeat myself until I drop dead.)

You may be used to the format of North American laws which are very precise in specifying and defining behaviours which are unlawful to a high degree of precision and which then become the subject of semantic arguments by lawyers. Some European laws work that way, too, but many don't. Many of our laws, especially local laws and public order laws, are framed in a way which is very wide and open to a great deal of interpretation. The simple fact is that a man in Barcelona was fined for behaviour which did not respect the rights of others, specifically their right not to have to see him naked. That fact alone proves that the statement which forms the title of this thread is a lie because somebody was punished in Spain for being nude in public.

Stu

Sanslines

07-19-2008, 04:17 AM

Stu,

You don't seem to have a clue what anyone of us have been saying and you clearly do not wish to understand it. It is obvious that you do not want to debate and only wish to continuously promote your agenda. Have at it. Your diatribes have gone on and on for 15 pages now and it is clear that you will continue to go and on 'until you are dead'. Have fun. You only demonstrate how futile it is to attempt to engage in conversation with you for you are clearly not interested in what others have attempted to tell you. No wonder people stop replying to you - it is totally pointless to do so. No doubt you will come back with more provocations and will keep provoking until others reply. Good luck to those who chose to reply as whatever they say to you will fall on deaf ears.

I honestly gave up trying to have a sensible conversation with you a long time ago. You have demonstrated that your only interest is to keep promoting your agenda even when others clearly have proven the flaws in your so called logic. It has been entertaining, to a point, but it is past time to move on to more productive things and engage in positive nudism rather then dwell upon your non stop, negative, anti nudism promotions.

Stu.......367 Ways To Be Anti Nudist Without Others Suspecting A Thing....and counting.........

Stu2630

07-19-2008, 04:37 AM

Sanslines

You are 100 percent correct.

At last!

None of us in this forum know anything abuot laws. You are the only one who understand anything and everything about it.

I don't know about others, but you don't understand how the law works in Europe.

Now will you go away and leave us alone?

Now you have accepted that I am correct and that, contrary to what the title of this thread claims, nudity CAN be punished in Spain and is NOT a Constitutional right, I think we can move on.

Stu

Sanslines

07-19-2008, 05:14 AM

Now you have accepted that I am correct and that, contrary to what the title of this thread claims, nudity CAN be punished in Spain and is NOT a Constitutional right, I think we can move on.
Stu

I have not accepted that you are correct and was being patronizing and sarcastic. You certainly must know this but you again demonstrate how you will only hear what you want to hear, and selectively pick and chose other's words and manipulate them to suit your own agenda. You will believe what you wish to believe in spite of what everyone else has told you. If you wish to selectively read any topic and pick and chose that which suits your anti nudist agenda so that you can promote your negative attitudes towards nudism, then so be it. You have only demonstrated how futile and pointless it is to engage or debate with those like you (of which there are too many in this world)..It is far, far better for nudists to reach out and work with moderate and open minded people rather then somoene who only wishes to promote his own intolerant, self serving interests which include controling and limiting nudism based upon irrational fears and phobias.

Many people have contributed their thoughts and ideas concerning this issue. You have refused anything and everything that others have said.
As you have stated before "They peddle this nonsense in the hope that, if you tell a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it." this so clearly applies to you. Well, no one believes you based upon your anti nudism motives and objectives.

You might as well continue your selective extraoplations and state that nudity can be punished on Planet Earth because some section of Barcelona is part of the entire city of Barcelona, Barcelona is part of Spain, Spain is part of Europe, and Europe is part of Planet Earth! Amazing - how can anyone have a rational discussion with such an individual!

Stu2630

07-19-2008, 06:14 AM

Sanslines

I have not accepted that you are correct and was being patronizing and sarcastic.Really? Gosh, I hadn't realized that. :laugh:

(You see, I can be patronizing and sarcastic, too)

It is far, far better for nudists to reach out and work with moderate and open minded people rather then somoene who only wishes to promote his own intolerant, self serving interests which include controling and limiting nudism based upon irrational fears and phobias.I'm very moderate. My only objection to public nudity is when it occurs outside of places designated for that purpose, otherwise, I am very supportive of nudism. I will vehemently oppose any move to make nudity mainstream because I don't want it in my environment, but I am prepared to allocate a fair share of public spaces so that nudists can enjoy their own environments - sans moi. :)

As you have stated before "They peddle this nonsense in the hope that, if you tell a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it." this so clearly applies to you. Well, no one believes you based upon your anti nudism motives and objectives.No. You are in denial about this. My aim was to show that the statement which heads this thread is untrue. I have shown that beyond the doubt of any reasonable and objective observer.

You might as well continue your selective extrapolations and state that nudity can be punished on Planet Earth because some section of Barcelona is part of the entire city of Barcelona, Barcelona is part of Spain, Spain is part of Europe, and Europe is part of Planet Earth! Amazing - how can anyone have a rational discussion with such an individual!It would be preposterous for someone to say that 'nudity is not punishable on earth but rather is a Constitutional right' for many reasons. Firstly, the planet doesn't have a universal Constitution and secondly it is untrue - nudity can be punished in many, if not most, countries.

By this last comment you have shown that, aside from law, there is something else you have no understanding of, namely formal logic and, in particular, the semantic theory of truth. This time I'm not patronizing you because this is a very specialized field which most people have never heard of, but it is briefly explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth

With regard to the issue in hand, it is false to state that "nudity is not punishable in Spain" for the simple reason that people have been punished in Spain for being nude in public. Whether that punishment comes about through the Penal Code or through local ordnances is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant whether the judge was unfair, or that he was prejudiced against nudism. The simple and unarguable fact is that being naked in Spain can give rise to being punished by a court of law. The second part of the statement, that public nudity is a Constitutional right in Spain, is even more fanciful. Aside from the case of Mr Te, and the correspondence I received from the Spanish Ministry of Justice, nobody here can show me anywhere in the Spanish Constitution where nudity even gets a mention!

I have not disputed that Spain has an exceptionally high tolerance of nudism and even public nudity when compared to other modern countries. I am perfectly willing to believe Eaglespeakpete when he says that he can walk around his town in Spain naked and the police make no issue of it. But that blanket statement that public nudity in Spain is not just 'not punishable', but is actually a Constitutional right, is a grotesque distortion of reality and an assertion which can not be substantiated by the facts.

Stu

Sanslines

07-19-2008, 07:25 AM

Sanslines

Really? Gosh, I hadn't realized that. :laugh:

(You see, I can be patronizing and sarcastic, too)

Stu

But you weren't and are trying to hide your embarrasment now. It's rather obvious what you are doing so you might as well give it up.

Sanslines

07-19-2008, 07:47 AM

[quote]No. You are in denial about this. My aim was to show that the statement which heads this thread is untrue. I have shown that beyond the doubt of any reasonable and objective observer.

You aim was to spread anti nudism and in your mind you think that you have done so. even those who actually live in Spain disagree with you but then again you must know better then those who actually live there.

It would be preposterous for someone to say that 'nudity is not punishable on earth but rather is a Constitutional right' for many reasons. Firstly, the planet doesn't have a universal Constitution and secondly it is untrue - nudity can be punished in many, if not most, countries.

But you are preposterous and nothing is beyond you. You will go to any extreme and use any misrepresentation and distortion just to prove that you are right (in your mind only).

By this last comment you have shown that, aside from law, there is something else you have no understanding of, namely formal logic and, in particular, the semantic theory of truth. This time I'm not patronizing you because this is a very specialized field which most people have never heard of, but it is briefly explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth

I think that you need to look up the theory of self convincing and theory of self delusion before you offer anyone any advice. Your so called logic is patently unobjective and it is twisted and self serving that is used solely to justify your hatred of nudity. The rest of us here know it but sadly you are also in a state of denial so you might as well look up 'denial theories based upon irrational phobias'.

With regard to the issue in hand, it is false to state that "nudity is not punishable in Spain" for the simple reason that people have been punished in Spain for being nude in public. Whether that punishment comes about through the Penal Code or through local ordnances is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant whether the judge was unfair, or that he was prejudiced against nudism. The simple and unarguable fact is that being naked in Spain can give rise to being punished by a court of law. The second part of the statement, that public nudity is a Constitutional right in Spain, is even more fanciful. Aside from the case of Mr Te, and the correspondence I received from the Spanish Ministry of Justice, nobody here can show me anywhere in the Spanish Constitution where nudity even gets a mention!

I have not disputed that Spain has an exceptionally high tolerance of nudism and even public nudity when compared to other modern countries. I am perfectly willing to believe Eaglespeakpete when he says that he can walk around his town in Spain naked and the police make no issue of it. But that blanket statement that public nudity in Spain is not just 'not punishable', but is actually a Constitutional right, is a grotesque distortion of reality and an assertion which can not be substantiated by the facts.

Stu

You obviously have not either read or care to understand the basic behind the claims that nudity is constitutional in Spain. There is nothing in the constitution which prohibits nudity in Spain. Furthermore, the Spanish naturists have indicated specific laws within the constitution that indirectly support the rights of nudists. You chose to ignore all of this and based upon one biased claim in a small section of Barcelona make a claim that nudity is punishable in Spain. Since you are so anti nudist, you won't even consider that the single case either was based upon a variety of evidence including nudity or that the case was incorrectly tried and should have been appealed but for whatever reason was not.

Good judges try cases based upon objective facts. The fact that you are driven by irrational phobias against nudism goes to clearly show your motives and disposition and that you will slant anything and everything to discredit nudists. You are anti nudist but continue to be in denial. It's all part of your irrational phobias about the human body. Nothing that anyone here can or will change this. You have to admit it and work to change it.

Your claim now is that you believe that Pete can walk around his town naked and without any police problems. This 'fact' clearly shows that nudity may very well be tolerated, allowed, or legal in Spain because Pete's town is part of Spain. You instead chose to focus upon one small part of a major city and use one sigle case to incorrectly extrapolate that nudity can be punished in Spain. Of course everyone clearly sees the contradiction that you have just made, but then again you are full of self contradictions. You will no doubt come back with more double talk and twist what I just said into something that accomodates your agenda. This is why it is impossible for I or anyone else to discuss in a logical manner with you. You are illogical and yet you accuse others of that which you are clearly guilty of. You maey very well be allowed to dance around the laws in England but you certainly would not be able to do that here. As someone who has just won another court room case, I have demonstrated ability to research and present logical arguments to the point of winning a case. You allegations of my failure to understand law or logical argument are laughable at best. Perhaps I understand it too well and see right through you. Perhaps I understand fully well how you manuver, self contradict, twist, manipulate, and otherwise present contemptuous and baseless arguments that would have you held in contempt of any court in the USA. Consider that!

Consider that you have also been shown over and over again to be an anti nudist who is driven by irrational phobias and choses not to admit to them or deal with them. Instead of dealing with them, you chose to take your anti nudist nonsense out on us in this forum. We have grown tired of it.

Boreas

07-19-2008, 08:53 AM

So, Stu is right. The title of this thread is wrong. The concept that people have been discussing has veered off the exact title and into greyer areas. Stu has remained fixated on the title, and none of us has really seemed to have noticed.

Stu gives the impression that nudity is a punishable crime. It is not. It is in a grey area because of the constitution and by-laws. Canadian women can be topfree anywhere in Canada men can because of such a set up.

When someone is so opposed to, and repulsed by nudity, it is difficult to see any reason to believe he would support nudists in any way.It is also very difficult to imagine why such a person would wish to spend so much time on a nudist board. I have heard your responses to this before Stu, and could probably even write them myself.

The world is not black and white, right or wrong.......I am sure that is how you would like it to be Stu. Fortunately, there are some changes happening, even in the us vs them court system. Canada is now using more restorative justice methods which can produce far more satisfactory results for all......well except perhaps for the folks who thrive on black and white issues.

Stu2630

07-19-2008, 09:16 AM

Sanslines

But you weren't and are trying to hide your embarrasment now. It's rather obvious what you are doing so you might as well give it up.

Yeah OK, whatever. You're funny! :laugh:

You aim was to spread anti nudism and in your mind you think that you have done so. even those who actually live in Spain disagree with you but then again you must know better then those who actually live there.

My aim was to correct an untruth. Someone who lives in Spain only lives in one tiny bit of Spain. Mr Te also lives in Spain, as do the police and the judge in his case, and as do the people in the Spanish Ministry of Justice.

You will go to any extreme and use any misrepresentation and distortion just to prove that you are right

I don't need to go to any extreme or distortion here because the facts speak for themselves.

The rest of us here know it but sadly you are also in a state of denial so you might as well look up 'denial theories based upon irrational phobias'.

Most regular contributors here, including those who have no time for me, haven't contributed to this debate between you and I. And it's obvious why. You have lost the argument and you are now just flogging a dead horse. If you want to suggest that the judge in this case was prejudice against nudists - fine - that's a valid opinion (albeit not one I share). If you want to claim that, in many parts of Spain, public nudity is not an issue with the authorities - I would not feel qualified to give an assessment on that. But to persist with this ridiculous defence of the statement that nudity can not be punished in Spain in the face of crystal clear evidence that it can be and it has been just makes you look rather sad.

There is nothing in the constitution which prohibits nudity in Spain.

Of course there isn't. There is nothing to prohibit public nudity in the American Constitution, either, but try walking around the middle of most US cities naked!! Constitutions don't exist to prohibit undesirable behaviour but to provide a framework under which laws can be made and people can be governed.

Furthermore, the Spanish naturists have indicated specific laws within the constitution that indirectly support the rights of nudists.

I have read the Spanish naturists' claims and they are patent nonsense: they are not an accurate reflection of Spanish law but rather a wish-list.

You chose to ignore all of this and based upon one biased claim in a small section of Barcelona make a claim that nudity is punishable in Spain.

The fact that somebody was punished in Spain by a lawful court means that nudity can be punished in that country. I didn't say it is ALWAYS punished, but that it CAN BE punished. And it's your opinion that the judge was "biased" (prejudiced) but you have no evidence that his judgment was contrary to the current legal position on this in Spain.

Also, to dispose of your argument that this was a "single case", I wrote to the Ministry of Justice and they confirmed my belief that the Spanish legal position was similar in that regard to the English system of subordinate legislation empowering local authorities to proscribe certain behaviours they believe to be antisocial.

you won't even consider that the single case either was based upon a variety of evidence including nudity or that the case was incorrectly tried and should have been appealed but for whatever reason was not.

I have no (legal) grounds to form such beliefs so I have to take the case at face value - especially as it accords with what the ministry told me.

You are anti nudist but continue to be in denial. It's all part of your irrational phobias about the human body.

I am anti public nudity in places other than locations designated for nudism. That's a fact and I'm not in denial about that. I have NEVER said a word against responsible nudism as one finds at nudist beaches and resorts.

Your claim now is that you believe that Pete can walk around his town naked and without any police problems. This 'fact' clearly shows that nudity may very well be tolerated, allowed, or legal in Spain because Pete's town is part of Spain.

I have never said anything else. If you could be bothered to read what I actually say, you would see that I have said time and time again that different rules apply to different parts of Spain. In other parts there are express laws saying it is not allowed - while in others still (like Barcelona) the authorities will use more general laws where they consider nudity is occurring where it is not appropriate. This is the whole point of there being byelaws - individual districts make up their own laws to suit their particular circumstances.

You instead chose to focus upon one small part of a major city and use one sigle case to incorrectly extrapolate that nudity can be punished in Spain.

It can be punished in Spain. The fact that there are places in Spain where it can not be punished does not make that last sentence false because I did not ever assert that nudity can be punished EVERYWHERE in Spain. I could use the same statement about the USA. Nudity can be punished in the USA. The fact that there are places in the USA where it can not be punished does not make that last sentence false because I did not ever assert that nudity can be punished EVERYWHERE in the USA. But nobody would be foolish enough to suggest, as the title of this thread does, that "NUDITY IS NOT PUNISHABLE IN THE USA, BUT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT"

You may very well be allowed to dance around the laws in England but you certainly would not be able to do that here.

I wouldn't need to do that in your country because you have tough and very explicit laws against public nudity in most towns and cities and you can get ticketed or even arrested for it.

Stu

Boreas

07-19-2008, 09:20 AM

Most regular contributors here, including those who have no time for me, haven't contributed to this debate between you and I. And it's obvious why. You have lost the argument and you are now just flogging a dead horse.

It is not just Sanlines that people are avoiding in this discussion between the two of you. Stu, you are doing your share of flogging yourself.

Stu2630

07-19-2008, 09:31 AM

Boreas

So, Stu is right. The title of this thread is wrong. The concept that people have been discussing has veered off the exact title and into greyer areas. Stu has remained fixated on the title, and none of us has really seemed to have noticed.

Thank you! Sweet reason at last! My issue throughout this discussion was that the statement which comprises the title of this thread is untrue (or, as I said in my first post, bunkum).

Stu gives the impression that nudity is a punishable crime. It is not. It is in a grey area because of the constitution and by-laws.

It is in a grey area and, in some localities, it is treated as, and punished as, a crime. Which is all I was saying.

When someone is so opposed to, and repulsed by nudity, it is difficult to see any reason to believe he would support nudists in any way.

I can understand that - but think about it for a minute. Many heterosexuals may be repulsed by thinking what homosexuals actually do with each other in private, but that does not stop them from supporting equal rights for gays.

It is also very difficult to imagine why such a person would wish to spend so much time on a nudist board. I have heard your responses to this before Stu, and could probably even write them myself.

That's easy. I enjoy discussion and debate and I find it here. I also find the subject matter quite interesting.

The world is not black and white, right or wrong.......I am sure that is how you would like it to be Stu. Fortunately, there are some changes happening, even in the us vs them court system.

Sometimes black-and-white is the best way forward because everyone knows where they stand and there is certainty. For instance, I think there should be a clear delineation between where nudism is allowed and where it is not allowed. That would be good for responsible nudists because they would be less likely to fall foul of the laws and they would be bothered less by gawkers, perverts and other pests. It would be good for textiles because we could be certain we wouldn't encounter nudity. The only people likely to object would be exhibitionists, and extremist nudists who have no empathy for the sensibilities and feelings of the more prudish end of the textile community.

Canada is now using more restorative justice methods which can produce far more satisfactory results for all......well except perhaps for the folks who thrive on black and white issues.

I don't have a problem with restorative justice - so long as it works for all involved. I don't believe that this development will have any impact on either the liberalization, or the suppression, of nudity in public.

Stu

Sanslines

07-19-2008, 05:37 PM

It is not just Sanlines that people are avoiding in this discussion between the two of you. Stu, you are doing your share of flogging yourself.

Boreas,

People are avoiding this discussion because they realize that it has degraded to utter lunacy. Stu MUST prove himself right at all costs. He is fixated upon one small case where a judge made anti nudist comments and has incorrectly extrapolated this one small case to include the entire country of Spain. He has lost sight of what this topic was all about long ago as his primary objective is to keep throwing into our faces over and over again how a naked man walking down the street was legally punished and how this demonstrates that free range nudism is not permitted in (the entirety of) Spain. If someone who takes delight in the misfortunes of another human being is not only a sign of anti nudism but also a sign of not a very nice person who hides behind polite words, then nothing will convince others.

The problem with Stu is that he has serious issues with nudity and nudism. He is not at all typical of the majority of people. He will never acknowledge that his hatred of nudity is what drives him to utter madness. He can rant and rage on and on but he knows absolutely nothing of real world nudism and how most textiles and nudists can coexist together. He also seems to know nothing about human relations and how to coexist with those who are different from him.

Honestly, there are far too many decent and reasonable people in this world to be bothered with the Stu's of this world. Stu demands respect yet he ignores when individuals from this forum ask for his respect. In life, respect is a two way street and Stu is clearly not willing to give respect to nudists. His ONLY interest in nudists is to control them so that he can protect his own self interests. Yes, his own self interests. In all honesty, he could give a rat's behind about nudists. Yet many are fooled by his polite words just as they would be by any con man who has ulterior motives.

There is a place around here where nudity is officially against the law. Yet the community is tolerant and accepting of nudists and only asks that nudists respect them. They don't care about the nudity aspect and only ask that nudists act in a responsible manner and not use their nudity coupled with other activities to create an offensive scene. Nudists frequent this area and the park ranger has made clear that he doesn't care about nudity. He has asked us to respect his other rules and the nudists are more then willing to do so. Hence, even though nudity is prohibited by law, it is tolerated because there is a mutually respectful understanding between the nudists and textiles. Yes, nudists and textiles can and do coexist in peace. Stu would know nothing about such arrangements, and he is too wrapped up in his phobias to ever be able to comprehend that there is absolutely nothing offensive about simple basic human nudity. He would rather hide behind laws and abuse nudists with his anti nudist agenda then leave them alone. He would rather demand all accomodations from nudists then do real accomodating himself.

Honestly Stu is unimportant to me for there are far too many reasonable people in this world who only need to be informed as to what social nudity is all about and that nudists are no threat to them. I would rather concentrate my time and efforts on such reasonable people that waste it with the Stu's of the world who will never open their minds and change their attitudes towards others.

Everyone should clearly understand by now, based upon Stu's words, that Stu is actually very intolerant and contemptuous towards nudists.

In short, Stu has been and will continue to be NO FRIEND OF NUDISTS.

Do not let his polite words fool you! He wants to keep us all in our secluded ghettos. Yet, we all should know that we are better than some kind of society scum that needs to be separated from the rest of society and can and will coexist with the rest of normal society. Topfreedom and simple harmless social nudity is nothing to be ashamed of and we do not need to be continuously put down and kept isolated from the rest of society. Let those with phobias isolate and seclude themselves from society instead.

nimrod

07-19-2008, 06:49 PM

I have participated (againt my better judgement) in this thread and showed the errors in Stu's words, and of course he was able to twist it to his own prejudicial views.

Just because a man was punished in Spain that happened to be nude does not mean that nudity is a punishable crime. The nudity was only a fascilatator for his punishment, the judge's own words say that nudity is not a punishable crime, he was legally punished for another infraction. The judge's oppinion is that nudity is disrespectfull to those that do not want to see it, so the man was cited for being disrespectfull, not for being nude.

Stu wishes not to see this because he would then have to admit that he was wrong and his emense ego just cannot allow this, or his prejugices will not let him to regonize it, because then he might have to admit that nudity is more accepted in the world then what fits his narrow views.

Bob S.

07-19-2008, 07:54 PM

From Stu's posting of the judge's decision (translated):
"The accused believes wrongly that he alone has the right, in this case to go about totally naked, forgetting that the rest of us also have the right not to see him unclothed."

What I want to know is where, in the laws of Spain, the right not to see someone naked exists? If nowhere, then the judge was practicing activism by making a decision that cannot be supported by any law. A law regulating dress code does not indicate a right not to see another person naked.

Bob S.

Boreas

07-19-2008, 09:14 PM

Stu2630

07-20-2008, 02:40 AM

Nimrod

Just because a man was punished in Spain that happened to be nude does not mean that nudity is a punishable crime.

That statement is an oxymoron. :laugh:

The nudity was only a fascilatator for his punishment, the judge's own words say that nudity is not a punishable crime, he was legally punished for another infraction.

No. The judge made it clear that nudity is not contrary to the Penal Code. It does, however, constitute behaviour which is punishable as a breach of a local byelaw. The Spanish Ministry of Justice made that clear to me in the email I posted on here.

The judge's oppinion is that nudity is disrespectfull to those that do not want to see it, so the man was cited for being disrespectfull, not for being nude

That's nonsensical! It's like saying you don't smack your child for swearing at you but for being disrespectful - and , when they swear, they are being disrespectful.

But, OK, if you prefer it, Mr Te was punished for being disrespectful (i.e. by being nude). So long as he is punished as a direct result of being nude, then I'm happy. Same result in the end.

BobS

"What I want to know is where, in the laws of Spain, the right not to see someone naked exists? If nowhere, then the judge was practicing activism by making a decision that cannot be supported by any law. A law regulating dress code does not indicate a right not to see another person naked."

I have little knowledge of the laws of Spain, but I would suppose they are similar to those in the UK, another European nation.

Here in the UK, there is a Common Law presumption that all people are able to "use any highway, byeway, footpath or bridleway, street, square, common or other place of public resort without assault upon his person or his senses". This comes from a judgment made a very long time ago and can guide judges, and even legal draftsmen. As to what behaviour is likely to "assault" a person's "senses", is a matter of some conjecture. In order to determine that, our judges use a fictional template which is supposed to be objective, namely the "man on the Clapham omnibus", by which they mean a typical citizen with typical sensibilities for the times we live in and the place where the alleged offence occurred. In other words, could "offence" reasonably be expected? So what sort of behaviour would offend the man on the Clapham omnibus? We know from caselaw that using obscene language can do that, as can displaying pornography and inappropriate nudity could also. In most cases, of course, this isn't an issue here, because the judiciary would simply use their common sense to determine whether the a person used insulting behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. But where there was a legal argument made that such behaviour was unlikely to have such consequences, the courts could be asked by either side to determine whether a typical citizen (e.g. the man on the Clapham omnibus) would be likely to suffer an "assault" upon his "senses".

As I said, I am not qualified to comment upon Spanish law, but where I have looked at the laws of other European states, I find them to be astonishingly similar to ours.

People in this forum are on very shaky ground second-guessing the Spanish authorities. To my knowledge, no-one here is an expert on Spanish law, but presumably the police have some knowledge of the law, as does the prosecutor who took the case to court. Unless the contrary is proved, we have to make a working assumption that the judge in the case is something of an expert on Spanish law because it would be stupidity to do otherwise. So when determining the legality of this man's arrest and conviction in Spain, on my side there is:

The Spanish police
The Spanish State Prosecutor
A Spanish judge of the criminal court, and
The Spanish Ministry of Justice

versus

Some nudists in America and the UK.

Sorry, Bob, no contest!

Stu

Two Metre Man

07-20-2008, 05:27 AM

Isn't it about time to dis-engage from this? There are two (well, one and Stu's) opposing schools of belief. Patently, they are never going to align, so why flog this poor old dead horse any more. Can we bury it?

To Stu, I would quote this:

It is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society.
-- J. Krishnamurti (1895-1986)

In peace, and with love and laughter...

TMM

Sanslines

07-20-2008, 06:28 AM

Sanslines, I was sort of saying the same thing. Stu was accusing you of keeping people away, when his actions have been a big factor. I totally agree with you about his views of nudity.

nimrod, you are also bang on.

I also look forward to any response, if it is possible, to Bob's request!

Boreas,

People may post or not post as they see fit. This discussion (if you want to call it that) had drifted away from the main topic a long time ago and basically reduced to a pro nudism versus anti nudism "discussion". I will always stand up for nudism and will not have anyone continue to put down nudists with indirect inuendos about them being some kind of second class citizens. Nudists can and will coexist with mainstream society in peace. We don't need to accept otherwise from those with phobias and control issues.

The anti nudist crowd will only care that a person was charged with an 'offending others' charge that was allegedly and indirectly used to punish a man for nudism. There are far too many details about this case that we do not know. We do not know whether the man followed the advice (given in the main article) as to how to react and respond to authorities, or if he was defiant. We also do not know if his charge could have been overturned upon appeal for he was only charged 80 euros (which is a very small amount of money) versus the thousands of euros that it might have cost him to overturn the decision upon appeal. How many people have been incorrectly charged with an offense and yet decided that it was far more cost effective to just pay a fine then incure enormous additional monetary charges and time commitments? There just are too many unknown factors and there is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Of course, if a person is anti nudist, that that person will dismiss each and every point brought up by others and continue their one track approach to promoting anti nudism with the subtle inuendo that 'hey you nudists better watch out and stay in your segregated ghettos for mainstream society does not want to deal with you, and if you step out of your ghettos then you will be arrested'. This topic is just another example of how nudists are mistreated by those who honestly find nudists disguisting and want to keep them 'put down'. Hiding behind "polite words" may fool some, but others see the real intentions masked behind the smoke. Using polite words in an honest and genuine manner is one thing. However, con men always attempt to create false images of themselves by hiding behind polite words. It's all part of the con. Stu's motives have been made clear over and over again and they are not genuine motives. Again ........and again......and again..........Stu is NO FRIEND OF NUDISTS. He only seeks to control them with his anti nudist rhetoric and distortions and protect his own self interests based upon untreated phobias and control issues. He does not care one bit about nudists but continues to try and fool them into believing that he is someone that has their interests at heart. Heck, would you befriend "Jack the Ripper"? (who would not doubt smile to your face then stab you in your back at the first opportunity). As so many have said to me in PM, the BEST thing to do is just ignore Stu. Stu will no doubt continue to hijack threads and promote his sole mission, which is to promote his anti nudist agenda. He has done so with this thread and he will not doubt do so in future threads.

You and others can continue to 'debate' Stu but you must realize that whatever you post will be summarily rejected by Stu as he ALWAYS has a reason or excuse ( no matter how bizzare) to reject them. It's his anti nudist agenda at work again driven by untreated phobias and control issues! Just remember that you are posting to the rest of the forum and forget Stu.

Now, let's all get on with having a great nudist Summer and forget Stu and his endless anti nudist diatribes. He has nothing to offer nudists except his constant negative promotions of nudism. Who needs that when Summer is too short and too nice to waste it on 'anti nudist' Stu.

Stu2630

07-20-2008, 07:09 AM

Sanslines

This discussion (if you want to call it that) had drifted away from the main topic a long time ago and basically reduced to a pro nudism versus anti nudism "discussion".

The discussion was about whether it is true that public nudity can not be punished in Spain. I have shown that it can be.

I will always stand up for nudism

I will always stand up for considerate and responsible nudism, like that which I'm sure is practised by most naturists, but unlike the variety exhibited by Mr Te, or advocated by the Spanish Naturist Association.

and will not have anyone continue to put down nudists with indirect inuendos about them being some kind of second class citizens. Nudists can and will coexist with mainstream society in peace.

There can be places where nudity is expected, places where it is permitted and the space shared by nudists and non-nudists, and places where nudity is not allowed. The latter should include all public streets and most beaches and parks, IMO.

The anti nudist crowd will only care that a person was charged with an 'offending others' charge that was allegedly and indirectly used to punish a man for nudism.

Irresponsible nudism.

There are far too many details about this case that we do not know. We do not know whether the man followed the advice (given in the main article) as to how to react and respond to authorities, or if he was defiant.

I don't really care about whether he was given advice or whether he followed it. The bottom line is that his nudity was determined to be unacceptable by the police and by the judge because it disrespected people's rights not to see nudity.

We also do not know if his charge could have been overturned upon appeal

If he had appealed to the regional court, you would say that he could have appealed to the national court, then the supreme court, then the European Court of Human Rights. How far has it got to go before you would accept the verdict? The point is that he contested that charge but was convicted in a court of law. That situation stands and must be regarded as the de facto legal situation in Barcelona unless and until someone takes the case to a higher court. We know what happened and we know what the judge said. Accept it with grace.

with the subtle inuendo that 'hey you nudists better watch out and stay in your segregated ghettos for mainstream society does not want to deal with you, and if you step out of your ghettos then you will be arrested'.

The term "ghetto" is pejorative and misleading. Does everything which occurs out of the public view occur in a "ghetto"? I have been for several holidays here:

http://www.centerparcs.co.uk/villages/whinfell/index.jsp

It lies behind high fences and is out of the public's view. Does that make it a "ghetto"? Do you really regard Cape d'Agde as a "ghetto"? Ridiculous!

This topic is just another example of how nudists are mistreated by those who honestly find nudists disgusting and want to keep them 'put down'.

Responsible and considerate nudists are certainly not disgusting. Foisting the sight of nakedness on people who don't want to see it certainly is.

Hiding behind "polite words" may fool some, but others see the real intentions masked behind the smoke.

Using polite words is common decency and shows respect for the readership. Implying motives which do not exist is neither polite nor respectful. Nor is it fair and just.

Stu