The proposed UK bill

[Bob S.]

I saw this article : http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=388250 about the proposed new anti-nudity bill that would add simple nudity as a sexual offence and thus have the offenders add their name to the sexual offenders' list.

Well, it seems that it is very sexist as it would deem male nudity as worse than female nudity and therefore the punishment would be worse. Another reason to not allow it to pass.

Any reaction from the UK populace of this board?

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

I saw this article : http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=388250 about the proposed new anti-nudity bill that would add simple nudity as a sexual offence and thus have the offenders add their name to the sexual offenders' list.

Well, it seems that it is very sexist as it would deem male nudity as worse than female nudity and therefore the punishment would be worse. Another reason to not allow it to pass.

Any reaction from the UK populace of this board?

Bob S.

[Rik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob S.:
[qb]Any reaction from the UK populace of this board?[/qb]

---

This is not an anti-nudity law but the proposed Sexual Offences Act which was discussed at some length in the "Are You a Public Nudity Activist" thread.

The Act is intended to clarify and modernise sexual offences - no problem with that - but the section which is getting evetryone steamed up is section 70 (see below) which is entitled merely "Exposure" and is worded in such a way that simple non-sexual exposure of the genitals could result in people being prosecuted, imprisoned and placed on the Sex Offenders Register. For example it is feasible that someone sunbathing naked and asleep in their back yard could be convicted of a sexual offence even though they are clearly not engaging in any sexual activity.

In preparation for this legislation the UK govenrment stated that it was not intended to affect naturists (nor streakers for that matter)but rather to make it easier to convict flashers. Unfortunately there are no caveats in the proposed wording which support that intention.

Few people in the UK believe that nudity as practised by naturists is sexual and even the naked protests of Vincent Bethell and others are not generally considered lewd. Certainly streaking, which is almost a national institution, has absolutely no sexual element to it. The view being put forward by naturists is that an offence encapsulated by the Sexual Offences Act should be a sexual offence (which sounds pretty obvious!) and are therefore lobbying to have the wording changed, before it becomes law, along the lines of "the exposure should be sexual" or perhaps changing the word "exposure" to "indecent exposure".

The article in the Indepentent newspaper you referred to has caused a small amount of publicity for the cause and there were several debates on the radio yesterday although the media seem much more interested in the potential impact on a handfull of streakers than the impact on the million naturists in the country.

This is the proposed wording:

70 Exposure
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a)he intentionally exposes his genitals,
(b) he knows or intends that someone will see them, and
(c) he knows or intends that, or (unless subsection (2)
applies) is reckless as to whether, a person who sees them will be caused alarm or distress.

(2) This subsection applies where A is in a dwelling and does not know or intend that a child aged under 16 will see his genitals.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

Confused? Me too!

Rik

[missouriboy]

To learn more and address the confusion a bit, go to the web site that's linked to from this very INA site. It gives a good analysis of the bill, which is bad in its language, unfortunately, but doesn't discriminate based on gender. The analysis explains, for example, that in the venacular of the bill, the word "he" applies equally to male and female.

I don't remember which link takes you there, but there IS one somewhere. It's a good read, and the implication of the bill IS alarming. It also tells how citizens can lobby to influence the bill.

[Nude in the North]

The problem with the term "Indecent Exposure" is that it leaves things wide open for personal opinions. What I consider Indecent and what some Prude thinks is Indecent could be worlds apart.
I have had people comment that I shouldn't go topless in my yard. They think it's Indecent to expose any skin above the waist. What do you think they would do if I was nude?
They would have me arrested for Indecent Exposure. Even if I was simply nude and not engaged in any kind of sexual or Lewid behavior.

There needs to be a term to seperate Mere nudity from Sexual acts. Many laws use the word "Lewd" along with Exposure. But for most people simply seeing a penis is "Lewd" and they will call the police. And in this country the police Arrest First and ask questions later.
Just try to prove in court that exposing your penis to public view (even in your own back yard) isn't Lewd.

Why don't they write a law that explains when Nudity is legal, instead of such hard to define laws covering when it's not.

Steve

[Rik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nude in the North:
[qb]The problem with the term "Indecent Exposure" is that it leaves things wide open for personal opinions.[/qb]

---

I agree but, in the context of the proposed UK law, at least it implies something more than just exposure. In other words you can have 'exposure' or you can have 'indecent exposure' and you cannot argue that they are the same thing. (Well I'm sure someone could argue but they'd be wrong [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] )

Rik

[turkishnudes]

There is/was a group in the UK called "CORAL" (Clothing Optional Recreation and Leisure) whose members had more legal "power" than other naturist/nudists.

I don't know anything more about this. Perhaps those in the know could enlighten??

[Rik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by turkisnudes:
[qb]There is/was a group in the UK called "CORAL" (Clothing Optional Recreation and Leisure) whose members had more legal "power" than other naturist/nudists.[/qb]

---

I don't believe it exists anymore. If it did, it certainly would not have more legal power than other naturist groups.

Rik

[Dunsunnin]

I am sure there will be more in-depth subsections to this Bill when it finally hits us, I hope, simply because situations cannot be just drawn in black and white.
How will this Bill affect the following (not that I support one of them):
1) Nudity in theatre.
2) Modelling for artists.
3) Modelling for photographers.
4) Medical examinations and surgery.
5) Intimate tattoos.
6) Changing rooms.
7) Unfortunate loss of shorts in freak waves (!)
8) Bad timing if taking a leak behind a tree(!!)
The above are examples where exposing the genitals goes with the territory...whether you're a naturist or not. You only need someone with a grudge against you to twist the situation and land you in court.
If you are at a recognised/official naturist location, anyone hanging around there who finds nudity offensive, and complains, is obviously out to make trouble as it is their own choice to be there. Therefore whatever the wording said about 'should have known that it might cause offence' is surely not valid in their case.
People (clothed) have often walked in my direction at my favourite naturist beach, and upon seeing from a distance that I'm nude (I may be the only one there sometimes) have hesitated and made a very wide detour. They don't make a big song and dance about it because they know they're within an area that is set aside for nudists. I can't see how a law can be brought in confiscating this freedom which has been especially provided, or at least widely recognised, by the local authorities concerned.