Pushing the envelope does work

[Gary Naturist]

There has been some debate in these forums about whether pushing the envelope regarding public nudity does more harm than good to the cause of nudism. I've just realized that we have some excellent case studies that help answer the question.

In Toronto, there is a group of gay male nudists called TNT!Men (Totally Naked Toronto Men Enjoying Nudity). This group, through their convictions and commitment, has achieved ALL of the advances relating to public nudity in the city.

Note: This topic is not about gaydom, it's about public nudity. Please stay on the topic.

Case study #1

TNT!Men gets the majority of the credit for getting an official clothing-optional beach at Hanlan's Point, which is a short ferry ride away from the downtown core.

Hanlan's Point had been used by gays and others for many years for nude sunbathing, but was periodically visited by police, who gave out tickets.

TNT!Men started up a lobbying campaign and, supported to some extent by other nudist groups, made a proposal to City Council to make part of Hanlan's Point Beach officially clothing-optional.

Gays have quite a bit of political power in Toronto's downtown wards, and got the support of councillors in that area, one of whom is gay himself. Largely because of their political power and determination, their proposal was accepted accepted on a trial basis, then on a permanent basis. Toronto now has an officially accepted clothing-optional beach, available for use by everyone.

Case study #2

Several members of TNT!Men have "pushed the envelope" by marching nude in Toronto's Gay Pride Parade for several years. Toronto's parade is the second largest in the world, after San Francisco. It is a major tourist event, drawing hundreds of thousands of people to the parade route, most of them straight. Everyone has a good time.

This past summer, seven members of TNT!Men were charged by police with public nudity, an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. TNT!Men mounted a vigorous defence.

Eventually, the charges were dropped, because, as the Crown Attorney stated, "There was no reasonable prospect of conviction." Why so? In large part, because the men were wearing shoes, and the Supreme Court of Canada has previously held that "nude" means "completely bare", which means wearing nothing at all on the body, not even shoes.

Case study #3

This same group had been holding nude events in different gay venues around town. A bar called The Barn was charged under Ontario's Liquor Licence Act with permitting disorderly conduct, because many of its patrons were nude during a scheduled TNT!Men event. This group supported the owner of The Barn in mounting a vigorous defence, and the case was won, because: mere nudity cannot be considered as disorderly conduct.

Conclusion

Now, in Toronto, thanks to TNT!Men and their pushing of the envelope, it is legal to be nude
* At Hanlan's Point clothing-optional beach,
* In the Gay Pride Parade,
* In bars (with permission of the owners).

I am not aware of any other advances that have been made in Toronto in recent years regarding the right to be nude in public.

It appears that
* pushing the envelope works, and
* nudists will have to push the envelope to make gains.

Gary

[Gary Naturist]

There has been some debate in these forums about whether pushing the envelope regarding public nudity does more harm than good to the cause of nudism. I've just realized that we have some excellent case studies that help answer the question.

In Toronto, there is a group of gay male nudists called TNT!Men (Totally Naked Toronto Men Enjoying Nudity). This group, through their convictions and commitment, has achieved ALL of the advances relating to public nudity in the city.

Note: This topic is not about gaydom, it's about public nudity. Please stay on the topic.

Case study #1

TNT!Men gets the majority of the credit for getting an official clothing-optional beach at Hanlan's Point, which is a short ferry ride away from the downtown core.

Hanlan's Point had been used by gays and others for many years for nude sunbathing, but was periodically visited by police, who gave out tickets.

TNT!Men started up a lobbying campaign and, supported to some extent by other nudist groups, made a proposal to City Council to make part of Hanlan's Point Beach officially clothing-optional.

Gays have quite a bit of political power in Toronto's downtown wards, and got the support of councillors in that area, one of whom is gay himself. Largely because of their political power and determination, their proposal was accepted accepted on a trial basis, then on a permanent basis. Toronto now has an officially accepted clothing-optional beach, available for use by everyone.

Case study #2

Several members of TNT!Men have "pushed the envelope" by marching nude in Toronto's Gay Pride Parade for several years. Toronto's parade is the second largest in the world, after San Francisco. It is a major tourist event, drawing hundreds of thousands of people to the parade route, most of them straight. Everyone has a good time.

This past summer, seven members of TNT!Men were charged by police with public nudity, an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. TNT!Men mounted a vigorous defence.

Eventually, the charges were dropped, because, as the Crown Attorney stated, "There was no reasonable prospect of conviction." Why so? In large part, because the men were wearing shoes, and the Supreme Court of Canada has previously held that "nude" means "completely bare", which means wearing nothing at all on the body, not even shoes.

Case study #3

This same group had been holding nude events in different gay venues around town. A bar called The Barn was charged under Ontario's Liquor Licence Act with permitting disorderly conduct, because many of its patrons were nude during a scheduled TNT!Men event. This group supported the owner of The Barn in mounting a vigorous defence, and the case was won, because: mere nudity cannot be considered as disorderly conduct.

Conclusion

Now, in Toronto, thanks to TNT!Men and their pushing of the envelope, it is legal to be nude
* At Hanlan's Point clothing-optional beach,
* In the Gay Pride Parade,
* In bars (with permission of the owners).

I am not aware of any other advances that have been made in Toronto in recent years regarding the right to be nude in public.

It appears that
* pushing the envelope works, and
* nudists will have to push the envelope to make gains.

Gary

[nudeM]

Gary Naturist: Pushing the envelope could have it's advantages, but it could also be harmful as well. To my understanding, this group of men have been pushing the envelope for many years until all of a sudden, they finally got their agenda approved. This group was a well organized group within the Toronto vacinity, and as you stated, did eventually get a member on the council, or one that was very familiar with the group. If you have ever noticed, whenever an issue comes up on gay issues, they usually get most of what they seek, as far as organizational support goes. This is a powerful organization that is nation wide, and they are constantly lobbying for their cause.

I, personally, don't think that we nudists have that much support, especially when it comes to lobbying the city councils or directors. Sure, we are out there, but I don't think we are that well organized to push for our cause, unless there is a large chapter in a particular city or township.

I just hope that one day, we can get a well supported group together to lobby for nudists rights, and have some changes made in our favor. I would like to see the day when nudists are able to be nude anytime of the day without any reprocussions.

Thanks

[steevo]

Gary,
Very good point and good researching. If one group can do it, why can't any group do it? Great example,Thanks Gary
Steevo here /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Yes, pushing the envelope can work wonders. I knew a man who wanted publicity for his favourite cause so he encouraged some of his friends to fly aeroplanes into some tall buildings.

He got lots and lots of publicity for that.

So there you have it. If you want to change society you should break any laws you feel like breaking and upset as many people as you want and then folks will sit up and take notice.

Nice one!

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
He got lots and lots of publicity for that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously your analogy is likely to be offensive to many people but you're right of course, he certainly did get a lot of publicity for his cause which proves the point that activism can be effective.

You're beginning to see things our way aren't you?

Rik

"Obviously your analogy is likely to be offensive to many people.."

I hope not, Rik. It wasn't intended to offend. Mind you - some people here have told me that nobody has got the right to not be offended so at least they won't mind.

"..but you're right of course, he certainly did get a lot of publicity for his cause which proves the point that activism can be effective."

Yes, but that particular person isn't trying to win over the hearts and minds of those opposed to him. He isn't going to win this year's Mr Popularity competition in New York, is he?

"You're beginning to see things our way aren't you?"

Yes Rik. I've seen the light and this summer will be shedding all my clothes and inhibitions and letting it all hang out on Blackpool beach with all my nudie chums.

Or perhaps not. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[Snoboy]

We could have gone all day without the comments of 9/11. I understand what she is saying, but that was over the top. It is good that we have diverse opinions but lets not be offensive with them. It is better to agree to disagree than cause hard feelings with one another. More good is done with honey than it is with vinegar. In other words, play nice. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's many a true word said in jest so I am heartened that perhaps your attitude is softening. I realise of course that you'd want to go to an official beach but unfortunately there's none at Blackpool or the surrounding coastline. You'd probably have to go to Morfa Duffryn near Harlech on the Welsh Coast so I've gone to the trouble of finding you some information about this magnificent beach http://www.n-2.org.uk/nuff/pages/beaches/dyffryn.htm.

It'll be a long drive for you and when you get there it's a long walk to the nudist section but then part of the fun of being a nudist is having travel long distances just to get your kit off.

Rik

[Trailscout]

I think it is important to note this story does notprove that all one need do is march naked in the streets one day and we will win all the rights and recreation space we desire.
The public nudity and subsequent arrests were merely the most visible components of a long campaign to gain acceptance that including having someone quietly attain political office, having a network that could marshall large numbers of people willing to go nude on short notice, and the long cultural war that gained the necessary tolerance of a much larger "silent majority".
I think that the nude march probably was necessary, too, after all the tedious groundwork had been laid behind the scenes.

[Bob S.]

stu, that was totally unnecessary, off-topic, and insensitive.

You are now comparing public nudity activists to terrorists who have no problem killing thousands of innocent people. Is that how you see us now? Do you see Vincent as Osama Bin-Laden? Do you see the TNT as Al-Queda?

Really now, stu. Killing people to get your way cannot even remotely comapre to simply going naked in public. Gary gave you some actual, documented evidence that pushing the envelope can be successful and this is how you respond? We have now given you some polls, and many court cases and you have shot every one of them down. Can you give us anything other than your own anectdotal, conversational evidence that public nudity can't or shouldn't be accepted? If not, don't just outright dismiss our evidence or make such inflamatory statements such as the one you made here. I have lost a good amount of respect for you.

Bob S.

Bob,

"stu, that was totally unnecessary, off-topic, and insensitive."

I'm sorry if it was insensitive. It probably was over the top and I regretted it almost as soon as I'd hit the "send" button.

"You are now comparing public nudity activists to terrorists who have no problem killing thousands of innocent people. Is that how you see us now? Do you see Vincent as Osama Bin-Laden? Do you see the TNT as Al-Queda?"

Of course that's not how I see you. But the analogy - albeit insensitive and off topic - holds good. We live in a society in which we can influence the way we are governed and the laws we live by. The same can not be said for every society. To wilfully and openly break laws passed by democratically elected governments in the knowledge that some people will be caused upset by your behaviour merely because you don't like these laws can not be justified. Mr Bethell has a thousand and one ways to make his point lawfully and without annoying or offending anyone, but he wanted the publicity.

"Really now, stu. Killing people to get your way cannot even remotely comapre to simply going naked in public."

It's a matter of degree. I regard going naked in a busy public street as pretty extreme - nowhere near as extreme as what Al Qaida has done but extreme nontheless.

"Gary gave you some actual, documented evidence that pushing the envelope can be successful and this is how you respond?"

I'm agreeing with him, Bob. But does that mean the ends justify the means? And getting publicity by upsetting people can damage your cause in the long term.

"We have now given you some polls, and many court cases and you have shot every one of them down."

The last polls you showed me I agreed with. I would have voted with the majority in spite of my antithesis towards nudity. I asked you what that proved, but didn't get a reply. As I said - if you ask the right question you'll get the answer you want.

"Can you give us anything other than your own anectdotal, conversational evidence that public nudity can't or shouldn't be accepted"

No, but there again your polls don't tell me anything I didn't already know - i.e. one said that most people agree naturists should be allowed to be naked on designated naturist beaches. Hardly earth-shattering news, is it? The other poll you showed me had what was obvious to anyone a loaded and ambiguous question designed to get a particular answer. Am I supposed to just meekly accept that it proves what you say it proves when I don't believe it does?

Stu

[MaxUK]

Bob, you said

Can you give us anything other than your own anectdotal, conversational evidence that public nudity can't or shouldn't be accepted?

Look what are you ACTUALLY talking about here - please be more specific. Do you mean acceptance of unrestricted nudity anywhere in public, or the acceptance of nudity on beaches/clubs etc. or a general acceptance of nudity within the curtilages of ones property or what??

Max

[Bob S.]

"We live in a society in which we can influence the way we are governed and the laws we live by...To wilfully and openly break laws passed by democratically elected governments in the knowledge that some people will be caused upset by your behaviour merely because you don't like these laws can not be justified."

Al-Queda does not live in this society. They are not here to change any laws, only to kill.

And, stu, breaking laws that one sees as wrong can be justified. Otherwise, civil rights here would have taken a lot longer to come about than they did. Prohibition also made alcohol illegal but people still drank and because of constant law breaking, it was repealed. Sodomy was also illegal, but eventually, that too became legal (at least in most states). There is a term for protesting laws by ignoring them and that is civil disobedience. And that has worked a good number of times.

"Mr Bethell has a thousand and one ways to make his point lawfully and without annoying or offending anyone, but he wanted the publicity. "

He also wanted to prove a point, that nudity in public is not as bad as people think it is. And what Vincent really needs to do before he does something else is to organize a good sized group and get a PR man. That's what he's missing. By himself, he will be seen as an oddball, but with a group, they will get more attention, especially by the media.

"I'm agreeing with him, Bob. But does that mean the ends justify the means? And getting publicity by upsetting people can damage your cause in the long term."

Talking about the three cases that Gary brought up, yes, the ends justified the means as they all won their cases and the laws are now changed because of it.

"Do you mean acceptance of unrestricted nudity anywhere in public, or the acceptance of nudity on beaches/clubs etc. or a general acceptance of nudity within the curtilages of ones property or what??"

I'd go for all/any of the above. I am asking for actual scientific proof from stu that it shouldn't or can't be accepted. Not whether he (or you) believethat it should be kept in designated areas, but actual proof that acceptance should not be granted.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

This is ridiculous. I repeat what I said before:

Stu, you are hijacking many topics here and diverting attention from what could be good discussions among nudists.

It is definitely time for you to leave.

Gary

I am glad that you see that Gary. He's been leading us around in circles and I am tired of it myself. We don't need manipulative people here, especially ones that don't even accept what we are and what we do.

Stu please go away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Bob,

"stu, that was totally unnecessary, off-topic, and insensitive."

I'm sorry if it was insensitive. It probably was over the top and I regretted it almost as soon as I'd hit the "send" button.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Evidently not or you would have either edited it out or deleted it.

[MaxUK]

Gary, Cyndiann,

Oh grow up will you and stop throwing your toys out of your prams. Stu is here debating because he does not agree with your opinion - what is so wrong or threatening by that?? He has his views - you have yours. Fine. Deal with it.

If this board were full of people all patting each other on the back and cooing about how wonderful nudity is and how hard done by you all feel, then it would be a very boring, stale place. Because Stu, (and to a certain extent myself), do not agree with your frankly extreminst views and actually seem to live in the real world, you throw a tantrum and demand that Stu leave.

How very mature. How very understanding. So nudists are more tolerant of others are they?? Not on this evidence they are not.

Max

[luvnaturism]

"Stu, you are hijacking many topics here and diverting attention from what could be good discussions among nudists." ? Gary Naturist

"He's been leading us around in circles and I am tired of it myself." ? cyndiann

Stu isn't your problem. Your problem arises because you find it important to respond to his posts. If you and others simply stopped responding, Stu would be left talking to himself, taking up little space in the forum, and would probably soon grow bored and leave.

Personally I am one who thinks it's a good thing to welcome non-naturists here to see how we might add value to each other. However, it long ago became evident that Stu isn't a seeker of information about naturism; he just loves a good argument and is willing to spend large amounts of time responding to whoever is willing to debate.

That sort of endless argument-for-the-sake-of-argument bores me, so I dropped out of it early on. Generally I no longer even read his posts.

But that's just me. The fact is that there are quite a few people who are interested in keeping the debate going. One thread has now passed 450 entries. Chances are it wouldn't have gotten 1/20th of that response without Stu. More exactly, it wouldn't have gotten that response without people like yourselves who are willing to respond to him, whether positively or negatively. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Rik]

Luvnaturism

As one of the people who regularly respond to Stu I have to admit that smacking my head against a brick wall might be a less painful alternative.

I agree that his motive seems to be nothing more than having a good argument but I for one will confess that having a good argument back has given me the opportunity to articlulate views which otherwise might have remained vague thoughts in my head and as a consequence I now feel much more confident in being able to argue the case for naturism and, particluraly, activism (which is where it all started with Stu).

I have not been convinced by a single argument of Stu's - well I mean of course the single argument which is "me and my aquaintances don't like it so you mustn't do it where I can see you" and it doesn't get any more convincing for being repeated endlessly. Equally I don't believe he has shifted his position either - his views remain as prejudiced and self-righteous as ever.

However, this is a public forum. Stu has refrained from descending into personal abuse or advertising porn sites. He is entitled to contribute to any of the topics but, as you say, if you don't like what he says then just ignore him.

Rik

[Nude in the North]

I'd say that the Nudists on this forum have Proven they are more tolerant than most people.

After all Stu is still able to post here isn't he?

I see no reason why we can't allow him a few square yards of beach. Build a wall around him. And allow the rest of the world to live free from Oppression and Dictatorship.

The road to freedom is paved with Tolerance and Understanding.

Steve

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nude in the North:
I see no reason why we can't allow him a few square yards of beach. Build a wall around him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More fitting perhaps to allow him to bury his head in the sand. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Bob S.]

I also have to say that, despite the fact that stu doesn't want to reconsider his views of public nudity (as evidenced by his reluctance to exorcize his own demons) I still enjoy debating with him. Of course, that could be my sadistic side talking. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

And just like Rik, I have gained something from this debate, a better understanding of my own attitude of nudism and a greater ability to debate this on a larger scale. One thing that I believe has occurred because of this debate has been a tendency toward extremism in our views. That has occurred in me. My feelings about public nudity has altered slightly toward the side of total acceptance. And I am sure that stu, in trying to fight people whom he believes are extremists, has moved further to his side as well.

There is a middle ground that even stu has agreed to. So at least there is hope for him yet.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luvnaturism:
"Stu, you are hijacking many topics here and diverting attention from what could be good discussions among nudists." ? Gary Naturist

"He's been leading us around in circles and I am tired of it myself." ? cyndiann

Stu isn't your problem. Your problem arises because you find it important to respond to his posts. If you and others simply stopped responding, Stu would be left talking to himself, taking up little space in the forum, and would probably soon grow bored and leave. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree completely with you. I have only responded to one or two of Stu's posts in the past, and I don't respond to any of them now.

Gary

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
. . . . I for one will confess that having a good argument back has given me the opportunity to articlulate views which otherwise might have remained vague thoughts in my head and as a consequence I now feel much more confident in being able to argue the case for naturism. . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rik, this comment rang bells for me.

It brought up memories of college days. I arrived there as an active Christian with years of church involvement behind me. Soon I was participating in hours of debate with students of various denominations, plus a Jewish roommate, plus still others whose faith was that of the agnostic or atheist. That testing of myself against other viewpoints quickly showed me that I hadn't a clue as to why I was a Christian or what it meant to be one. It forced me to an immediate examination of my own beliefs that was healthy, and has served me well for many years.

I got past the stage where continuing debates were useful for me a long time ago, so I don't do that any more. However, your comment reminded me that there can be a good and useful personal benefit to debating someone who forces us to examine what it is that we are about.

The various responses to Stu began, I believe, with well-intentioned efforts to help one who seemed to be seeking to learn about naturism. Now it's clear that's not his motive, but you have reminded us that some of us can benefit ourselves by using Stu for practice. We'll be OK if we just hold that thought.

It's fair for us to remember that Stu entered our forum with graciousness. He identified himself immediately as a non-naturist, and offered to withdraw if his presence was not desired. Many posted to say that he should stay, and I may have been among them. He has stayed because he was invited to stay.

My view remains that he will continue to post as long as he gets responses, and that's OK. When people are no longer responding, he'll go away. And that will be OK too.

I haven't been posting on this thread for the past few days because I was asked to "Go away" - I don't intend to become a nuisance here. I said all I have to say on this particular issue. The last thing I want is to hijack Gary's thread or keep going around in circles. Usually when people respond to my postings they incorporate questions in their responses so it is a temptation to reply - and that can be a bit boring for onlookers.

I still read others' postings so please keep it going. Talk about what you usually talk about instead of discussing me - please!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu