Coherence and consistence of the law regarding public nudity

[Soleil Nu]

What people like Rocket and Stu don't seem to understand is that all we are trying to acheive is a rational, coherent and consistent set of laws that don't contredict themselves. I've submitted them a series of questions which specificaly emphasise these contradictions, questions that they judiciously chose not to answer. This is their prerogative of course, and some might say that this is because of my somewhat "passionnate" style of writing. But I prefer to believe that they chose not to answer because they have no answer. In fact, among all the people I've submitted these questions to in the last few years, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever been able to give me a coherent answer to ANY of these questions.

So, Rocket and Stu (and everyone else who's interested), here they are again. Feel free to ignore me once more... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

The reason most often given for the existence of anti-nudity laws is that most people find nudity offensive, and therefore there must be laws to protect them against inconsiderate people that would walk around naked everywhere. So be it.

In light of the preceding, explain this:

Most people also find very offensive a person which is grossly disfigured, yet no law exists to prevent such a person to be in a public place, or to hide his/her face behind a mask if he/she does. Why ? And if such a law was proposed, would you condone it ? And if not, why not ? You DO approve of a similar existing law to protect people from being offended, don't you ?

Now this next one applies to canadian law only. Most cities have regulations to prevent someone from becoming a public nuisance to other citizens. Play your music too loudly outside, mow the lawn at 3 am, grossly neglect your lot, or let your house fall to pieces, and you will get fined. But be nude in your backyard, and you will get arrested, trown in jail and accused of a criminal offense. Why ? Why is it that public nudity, which is nothing more than another public nuisance, is treated like a crime and deserves a criminal record ?

If "public decency" is such a natural and universal truth that it needs no explanation, why do laws which are supposed to reflect it vary so widely from place to place around the world ?

If relaxation of public nudity laws would undoubtably lead to people walking around naked, why don't we see women walking around topless on every street corner in Ontario, where women have had the right for years now to be topless wherever men can ?

If it's apparently ok for young iranians to campain for a change in the law so that women in Iran have the right not to wear the veil in public (right that they have obtained in many other islamic countries), then why is it NOT OK for people in the western world to campain for relaxation, or at least decriminilisation, of public nudity laws

And finaly (a question less related to the law, but pertinent nevertheless), why would anyone in his right mind WANT to transmit to their offspring an irrational and useless fear which they are not born with, knowing that this fear would provide absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever ?

P.S. By the way, I don't consider "because it's just the way it is" to be a coherent answer.

[Soleil Nu]

What people like Rocket and Stu don't seem to understand is that all we are trying to acheive is a rational, coherent and consistent set of laws that don't contredict themselves. I've submitted them a series of questions which specificaly emphasise these contradictions, questions that they judiciously chose not to answer. This is their prerogative of course, and some might say that this is because of my somewhat "passionnate" style of writing. But I prefer to believe that they chose not to answer because they have no answer. In fact, among all the people I've submitted these questions to in the last few years, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever been able to give me a coherent answer to ANY of these questions.

So, Rocket and Stu (and everyone else who's interested), here they are again. Feel free to ignore me once more... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

The reason most often given for the existence of anti-nudity laws is that most people find nudity offensive, and therefore there must be laws to protect them against inconsiderate people that would walk around naked everywhere. So be it.

In light of the preceding, explain this:

Most people also find very offensive a person which is grossly disfigured, yet no law exists to prevent such a person to be in a public place, or to hide his/her face behind a mask if he/she does. Why ? And if such a law was proposed, would you condone it ? And if not, why not ? You DO approve of a similar existing law to protect people from being offended, don't you ?

Now this next one applies to canadian law only. Most cities have regulations to prevent someone from becoming a public nuisance to other citizens. Play your music too loudly outside, mow the lawn at 3 am, grossly neglect your lot, or let your house fall to pieces, and you will get fined. But be nude in your backyard, and you will get arrested, trown in jail and accused of a criminal offense. Why ? Why is it that public nudity, which is nothing more than another public nuisance, is treated like a crime and deserves a criminal record ?

If "public decency" is such a natural and universal truth that it needs no explanation, why do laws which are supposed to reflect it vary so widely from place to place around the world ?

If relaxation of public nudity laws would undoubtably lead to people walking around naked, why don't we see women walking around topless on every street corner in Ontario, where women have had the right for years now to be topless wherever men can ?

If it's apparently ok for young iranians to campain for a change in the law so that women in Iran have the right not to wear the veil in public (right that they have obtained in many other islamic countries), then why is it NOT OK for people in the western world to campain for relaxation, or at least decriminilisation, of public nudity laws

And finaly (a question less related to the law, but pertinent nevertheless), why would anyone in his right mind WANT to transmit to their offspring an irrational and useless fear which they are not born with, knowing that this fear would provide absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever ?

P.S. By the way, I don't consider "because it's just the way it is" to be a coherent answer.

[Gary Naturist]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
[qb]Now this next one applies to canadian law only. Most cities have regulations to prevent someone from becoming a public nuisance to other citizens. Play your music too loudly outside, mow the lawn at 3 am, grossly neglect your lot, or let your house fall to pieces, and you will get fined. But be nude in your backyard, and you will get arrested, trown in jail and accused of a criminal offense. Why ? Why is it that public nudity, which is nothing more than another public nuisance, is treated like a crime and deserves a criminal record ?

[/qb]

---

Soleil nu: While I am usually in agreement with what you say, I have to disagree on the point above.

I live Toronto and am regularly nude in my back yard, and sometimes (early morning) in my front yard. Neighbors (including their kids), paper delivery guys, limo drivers and tradespeople have seen me nude, but I have never been charged. In fact, there has never been a complaint.

Also, I have been challenged twice by the police, once for cycling nude in a city park and once for pumping gas nude, but was not charged in either case.

It is rare for anyone to be convicted of public nudity in Canada. The laying of a charge requires the permission of the provincial solicitor-general, which permission is rarely given. In most cases, the police deal with public nudity by asking the person to cover up and maybe also issuing a warning.

I think that the police in Canada tend to distinguish between simple public nudity and nudity accompanied by lewd or threatening activity, which is just what we nudists want.

Gary

[Soleil Nu]

We may not disagree as much as you think Gary. I live in a house by a small lake. I have neighbours on both sides, and my backyard is not that secluded. Now I've been swimming in the lake and sunbathing in my yard nude for 11 years now, and my neighbours couldn't care less. I still have very good relations with them. In fact, my nudism has never been brought up between us. It's simply a non-issue. There hasn't been a single conviction in Canada under criminal code article 174 since 1953. So I agree with you that yes, we are somewhat privileged here in Canada as far as public nudity in concerned.

But the heart of the matter remains that article 174 still exists, and is still part of the criminal code, even though it is virtualy unenforceable. In these conditions, it's very existence can only be used for purpose of harassement and waste of public money. This happened recently in a parade in Ontario, where a topless woman was arrested, handcuffed and publicly humiliated, just to be released a few ours later when police had to admit that, according to a previous court case (Gwen Jacobs, 1996), she was not in violation of article 174.

Had this law not existed in the first place, it could not have been used as an excuse for such an obvious abuse of power. I say scrap article 174 and let provinces and municipalities deal with the issue of public nudity in their own way, at the civil level, providing they are not in violation of the constitution and the bill of rights.

[Guest]

Soleil Nu

I don't ignore you but sometimes I have to go away for a day or two or even longer and then pick up any threads when I get back. Invariably I miss some. The points you mention below, however, are ones I have answered several times.

"Most people also find very offensive a person which is grossly disfigured, yet no law exists to prevent such a person to be in a public place, or to hide his/her face behind a mask if he/she does. Why ?"

I do not accept that most people find the sight of a disfigured person offensive. They find them repulsive, yes, but not offensive. Apart from identical twins, everyone has a different face, some ugly, some beatutful, most somewhere in between. In our culture our faces and hands are essential tools in communication. Smiling, grimacing, eye contact, frowning, gesticulation are all as important communicative tools as language itself. We show our faces in public, no matter how ugly. Disfigurement is merely a form of ugliness and we react to it as such. Interestingly, if we have some form of severe skin disease, or a fresh injury, or some form of grotesque scarring, we frequently try to hide that.

"And if such a law was proposed, would you condone it ? And if not, why not ? You DO approve of a similar existing law to protect people from being offended, don't you ?"

No. People who are disfigured or ugly have no choice. They did not ask to be that way - and it is for that reason they deserve our tolerance and understanding. A person naked in public, however, is a different animal. In our present culture he is able to be almost naked in public - he can wear the skimpiest shorts on any British beach or in a park on a summer's day. He can choose to disregard those on naturist beaches or in private places. The chances are that the person wears shorts or some other attire for the great majority of the time anyway! Naturism is, for the vast majority of naturists, nothing more that a preferred state of dress (or undress) during certain climatic conditions. A personal preference can not be likened to a disfigurement.

"Why ? Why is it that public nudity, which is nothing more than another public nuisance, is treated like a crime and deserves a criminal record ?"

Public nudity should be treated as a nuiance and it usually is here in the UK. But here all offences against public law are technically "crimes" and therefore attract criminal records.

"If "public decency" is such a natural and universal truth that it needs no explanation, why do laws which are supposed to reflect it vary so widely from place to place around the world ?"

The strange thing is that, in spite of the huge cultural differences that exist, they don't vary that much. If you walk about openly exposing your sex organs in a street in the vast majority of cities around the world you would be arrested.

"If relaxation of public nudity laws would undoubtably lead to people walking around naked, why don't we see women walking around topless on every street corner in Ontario, where women have had the right for years now to be topless wherever men can ?"

The main reason for this is the simple fact that most women are far more reluctant to display private parts of the body than men are - and most women consider their breasts to be private parts to some degree. If you don't believe that statement, ask yourself why most naturists - and by far most contributors here, are male!

"If it's apparently ok for young iranians to campain for a change in the law so that women in Iran have the right not to wear the veil in public (right that they have obtained in many other islamic countries), then why is it NOT OK for people in the western world to campain for relaxation, or at least decriminilisation, of public nudity laws"

Who is stopping you campaigning? I'm not. I just don't want any such campaign to succeed because I don't want to encounter nudity in public - as I believe most other people don't. Unfortunately, people like Mr Gough isn't just campaignin - he's trying to impose his will on the rest of society and consequently he is in prison. And righly so IMO.

"And finaly (a question less related to the law, but pertinent nevertheless), why would anyone in his right mind WANT to transmit to their offspring an irrational and useless fear which they are not born with, knowing that this fear would provide absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever ?"

Wow! You have just won first prize for the most loaded question ever asked. Firstly we transmit our own cultural values to our offspring even though they are often based not on pure logic but upon tradition. Otherwise why do kids believe in Santa Clause? Or that it's wrong to tell lies? Or that we should be polite? Secondly, you use the term "fear". Most people aren't afraid of nudity - they encounter it in their work, or at home with their partners, and even in public in changing rooms or shower rooms at the gym or swimming pools etc. Similarly, regardless of how they are brought up, the vast majority of non-nudists have no problem about using shower rooms and changing facilities or letting the doctors see their private parts. So whilst there are no apparent "benefits" to bringing up children to "cover up" when not in their own bathrooms or bedrooms, there is no evidence that bringing them up that way does them any harm either.

Many or even most people, including many naturists, are repulsed by nudity in an out-of-context public place. Human beings are creatures who feel that there is a time and place for everything.

Gary

"In most cases, the police deal with public nudity by asking the person to cover up and maybe also issuing a warning."

So ignore the warning and see what happens. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Stu

[Rocket]

Stu,

Well said...I have nothing to add..

Sol Lo Nue,

Regarding Iran...their culture is Muslim. It's not applicable to your argument. Saudi Arabia does the same thing.

Women can't drive..have to be seated differently..

Go over there, and try to display Christmas lights..

It's a different culture..and not applicable to your argument.

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[namedun]

whoa, that was quite the message. I have to disagree with you stu, as usual. What's happening in Iran is, I think, caused by globalization. What you have is large western countries saying "come on, live like us, it's the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that you women have to wear those veils is goofy and sexist", to which the women, and some men, are saying "yeah ok, this way of life does seem outdated and inefficient". So change is slowly happening. Nudists don't have an equivilant situation. There isn't a more dominant, or at least more popular culture somewhere else in the world where everyone is naked. No large country exists where people are critisizing our cultures use of clothing.
And since when is Gough "imposing his will upon the rest of us"? Do you think that if a religious person comes to your door with a nice suit and a visible bible, that since you can automatically recognize what they are campaigning about, that they are imposing they're will on you?! Mr. Gough is not forcing anyone to be naked; he's not even forcing anyone to be subjected to long-term nudity. If you're "disgusted" by what you see, don't stare.
Personally, since becoming a nudist, I find it increasingly hard to be disgusted by anyone's body. As any real nudist will tell you, nudism is partly about body acceptance.

Namedun

[Rocket]

Not against the law to talk religion..but it is to walk naked in public. As well, Mr Gough decided to do this without public support, and the financial means to do so.

He's in jail now..I hope he gets some common sense. If not..he'll spend more time behind bars.

The law of the land simply doesn't want someone walking around in the nude looking for handouts.. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[namedun]

hmmm, you've got a point Rocket, I wasn't aware that Mr. Gough was walking around without money. I had assumed that he was not begging for food at peoples doorsteps. Other than that though, I support what he's doing.

Namedun

[Guest]

"What's happening in Iran is, I think, caused by globalization. What you have is large western countries saying "come on, live like us, it's the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that you women have to wear those veils is goofy and sexist", to which the women, and some men, are saying "yeah ok, this way of life does seem outdated and inefficient". So change is slowly happening." That's their culture and their choice. What happens in my country and culture is my choice and the choice of each citizen. If they want to have laws that require women to wear veils in public then they have every right to do so. "Nudists don't have an equivilant situation. There isn't a more dominant, or at least more popular culture somewhere else in the world where everyone is naked. No large country exists where people are critisizing our cultures use of clothing." That should tell you something. The whole of the civilised world accepts that clothing is the norm - and virtually every nation has laws requiring clothing to be worn in public places. Being naked in public has been unacceptable virtually everywhere for centuries and a small minority are seeking to change that. We must not let them. "And since when is Gough "imposing his will upon the rest of us"? Do you think that if a religious person comes to your door with a nice suit and a visible bible, that since you can automatically recognize what they are campaigning about, that they are imposing they're will on you?!" He's trying to because he's been brainwashed into believing a load of stuff that I don't buy - Christianity. "Mr. Gough is not forcing anyone to be naked;" That's like saying that a criminal isn't forcing other people to commit the same crime. "he's not even forcing anyone to be subjected to long-term nudity." He's forcing other people who are using public places that they have to use and have to pay for have to put up with something they find offensive and that makes their presence in that place either uncomfortable or downright unpleasant. "If you're "disgusted" by what you see, don't stare." I shouldn' have to put up with it anyway!!!! "Personally, since becoming a nudist, I find it increasingly hard to be disgusted by anyone's body". Good for you - that's your free choice to become a nudist and what we do changes us. I am not a nudist and neither are 98% of the population, and, unlike you, we are still "disgusted" by the sight of nudity in public. "As any real nudist will tell you, nudism is partly about body acceptance". OK. But as I said, most of us aren't nudists. Most of us accept nudity in certain contexts and find it unacceptable in others. Public streets, roads, paths and most beaches are not acceptable places for nudity for most people and the minority who enjoy naturist activities should confine their activities to places where people don't mind seeing it.

It seems as though you really couldn't care less if people find nudity offensive, and that attitude won't win you many friends in the textile ppulation.

Stu

[R.M. Greenman]

As I have mentioned in another thread, if public nudity is offensive to some and that is why it is illegal, vagrancy is also offensive and is tolerated to a point because people think that they have no choice. Homelessness is a choice and can be rectified quickly,yet I still see cardboard sign holding people standing on the off ramps, same people month after month, causing a major discomfort with anyone who has to sit there while this person stares at them, playing on their consciece until they give up some of their hard earned money, insuring that this person will be back, because it is easier than actully showing up to work and doing something.

I am sorry that I ranted a bit. I am just tired of working two jobs, to pay bills and keep my children in decent clothing,(when they need to wear something) and others WILL NOT! That makes me offended and disgusted and I am powerless to change it.

As far as wanting the laws relaxed on public nudity, Rocket and Stu, some of us feel the same way about getting dressed, just to check our mail or get the paper from the driveway, as you guys feel about putting on the most uncomfortable shoes to walk 1km or two.

I am tired of people that whine and protest about what they see on T.V. rather than just changing the channel or turning it off. If they let people be nude anywhere that is not a health issue, it would be no worse that a two foot, hot pink mohawk, on some teenagers head. It might draw attention, but most people would just shake their head and giggle. If you don't want to see a person nude, there is another 359 degree line of sight. Just don't look.

[namedun]

Stu, have you ever read a book called Ishmael? I highly recommend it. The author is Daniel Quinn.

Namedun

[Guest]

"vagrancy is also offensive and is tolerated to a point because people think that they have no choice. Homelessness is a choice and can be rectified quickly,"

Over here many activities of vagrants are actually illegal under the Vagrancy Act 1824. This law isn't enforced as rigourously as it ought to be, but people such as beggars etc are prosecuted from time to time if people complain.

"As far as wanting the laws relaxed on public nudity, Rocket and Stu, some of us feel the same way about getting dressed, just to check our mail or get the paper from the driveway, as you guys feel about putting on the most uncomfortable shoes to walk 1km or two."

You can do what you like, so long as it doesn't cause offence to others.

"I am tired of people that whine and protest about what they see on T.V. rather than just changing the channel or turning it off."

I agree. But you choose to turn on your TV and you choose what to watch.

"If they let people be nude anywhere that is not a health issue,"

No, it's a comfort issue. People have a right to feel comfortable when using public places.

"it would be no worse that a two foot, hot pink mohawk, on some teenagers head."

No. We have long accepted the fact that teenagers go through phases of wanting to look ridiculous - putting on the style. It's not offensive and we don't interfere with people's sartorial choices generally because that would be very problematic and possibly counterproductive.

"It might draw attention, but most people would just shake their head and giggle."

People here don't just shake their heads and giggle. They call the police.

"If you don't want to see a person nude, there is another 359 degree line of sight. Just don't look."

You could say the same for anything i public - people having sex, slaughtering pigs, undergoing surgery, defecating etc etc. How about a giant poster in the street near your house showing an erect penis, or a decapitated corpse? You could always look away! As I said, people have a right to feel comfortable using public places without experiencing alarm or discomfort or offence.

Stu

[Rik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb]No, it's a comfort issue. People have a right to feel comfortable when using public places.[/qb]

---

So you agree that people who find nudity comfortable have a right to be nude when using public places.

quote:

---

[qb]People here don't just shake their heads and giggle. They call the police.[/qb]

---

Not true. Only a tiny, tiny minority call the police as evidenced during Steve Gough's 750 mile walk.

quote:

---

[qb]You could say the same for anything i public - people having sex, slaughtering pigs, undergoing surgery, defecating etc etc. [/qb]

---

Ah there it is again - public defecation. But undergoing surgery's a new one - is there a web site where I can debate the rights and wrongs of public surgery? I feel outrage coming on and must make myself heard on this one!

Rik

[NUDKIWI]

Stu
You keep insinuating that a majority of people are anti nudity or as you put it "offended" by nudity.I disagree.There probably are a few narrowminded people who are offended,but generally i think Joe Public is fairly tolerant towards nudity.The fact there is a law against it doesn't necessarily mean a majority is against it.I personnally have never been asked to vote on the matter.Have you???In fact i remember reading the results of a poll once{and no it was not on a naturist site}that stated over 80% of the people polled had skinnydipped in mixed company.Looks like a majority there Stu!

Rocket
"Not against the law to talk religion,but it is to walk naked in public."Exactly Rocket you have just highlighted the hypocrisy that exists in this anti nudity law,thank you.
I am sure there are as many people,if not more,offended by total strangers knocking on their doors,talking religion,as there are people offended by a naked{natural} body.So why is one illegal and the other not.What harm does a nude body do.To my knowledge a naked body has not started any wars.On the other hand history is full of instances where religion has been the catalyst for conflict or persecution.
You also find it fit to attack Steve Goughs common sense for hiking naked.Where i ask is the common sense in prosecuting an individual for the thoughts in another individuals mind.For this is what any prosecution against a nudist/naturist is.Where is the common sense in getting dressed to swim.What function does the swimming costume perform,does it keep you warm? Does it keep you dry?Or do they just prevent others from looking at your body with unclean thoughts.God help us.These anti nudity laws are a prime example of common sense giving way to heavy handed self righteousness.

Naturally KIWI [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]