Saturday, November 20, 2010

Canadian Freehiker Beats Indecency Charge

The law did everything in its power to prevent a man from hiking nude in Orillia, Ontario, Canada, but this week indecency charges were dropped, thus potentially making this a landmark case for nudists and naturists in the Great White North.
Gleb Bazov, a Toronto-based lawyer who represents the man, believes the decision sets an important precedent.
"It is a landmark case in the sense that the law has been applied to nudists and naturists. Now there is a clear pronouncement that a naturist is not engaging in an indecent act." 
The reason for the dismissal was due to the fact that the man's naturist activity was determined to be of no harm to the public.

Reactions from residents are typical, ranging from expressions of personal offense to allegations of harm to children for seeing a nude man, but these are fears and misconceptions based upon centuries of societal restrictions and religious dogma, and have nothing to do with reality.

Congratulations to this unnamed man who has been freehiking in Canada for years, and who can now practice his naturist activities without fear of further harassment from the police. It might take time for the general public to become accepting of freehikers, and hopefully many others will exercise their freedom and experience nature without the unnecessary restrictions of clothing.

UPDATE: Another story on the dismissal is here.
Stephane Deschenes, director of the Federation of Canadian Naturists, says naturists are just embracing their “natural self” and shouldn't "have to fear being out in the public.
"We, as a society, have a real phobia about our own body. We are so incredibly uncomfortable that we find our own image embarrassing, shameful and offensive."
This story was covered by us previously here.


Rick said...

It's great that a court has determined that naturist activity is not harmful to the public. It's unfortunate that a court of law had to make this determination, one that, as a former supervisor used to day, should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

I maintain that to be offend by nudity (or anything else) is a personal choice. I suspect that those who choose to be offended often do so based on their shame and lack of acceptance of their own bodies.

Elton said...

And cultural upbringing. I find that worldly people and religionists usually agree with each other on this issue. Which is strange:

1. if you are an Atheist, why believe that nudity harms someone?

2. If you are a Christian and believe that the Son of Man erased the effects of the Fall, why believe that nudity is dangerous?