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.

Censors and Sensibility

The Times has a thoughtful article on the Brooke Shields nude photo flap in London, and how the spread of the Internet has shifted our viewpoint, making us as a society tend to view all nude images of children as sexual. Why is it perfectly acceptable for the Tate Modern gallery to display "sex and gore", but unacceptable to exhibit a photograph of a young girl standing in a bath?

“If all art is doing is being provocative, that’s not very interesting,” said Matthew Kieran, professor of philosophy and the arts at Leeds University. “There is a kind of puerile tendency in some contemporary art where being shocking for its own sake is thought of as quite valuable.”

Purpose and context are vital, he argues. It would be morally repugnant to post a picture like that of Shields on a paedophile website because the intention would be to excite sexual interest. By contrast, argues Kieran, the same image in an art gallery invites the viewer to confront and explore issues of child sexuality and morality.

“It’s the visual equivalent of the novel Lolita,” he said. “Do we think Lolita shouldn’t be read? No. Do we think it is deeply morally troubling? Yes. Why is it so good? Because it is deeply morally troubling.

“It starts to explain it and then you have a much richer understanding.” Such understanding, he says, can be beneficial in our broader approach to the problem the art addresses.

“Instead of treating these people [with paedophile tendencies] like freaks and monsters — of course they are ill and it’s morally problematic — you start approaching them as human beings.”

That's going to be hard to swallow for the general public, who have been bombarded by the 24-hour news media with horrific stories of child abductions and murders, and programs which turn the capture of online predators into fodder for commercially paid entertainment.

According to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, while arrests of online predators is increasing, especially due to law enforcement stings, the Internet does not appear to be facilitating an epidemic of sex crimes against youth, victims are adolescents rather than young children, and "there was no evidence that online predators were stalking or abducting unsuspecting victims based on information they posted at social networking sites."

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute estimates that while 20% of girls and 10% of boys are sexually abused by the time they reach the age of 13, most of those will be abused by a family member or close friend, not a stranger. The institute also recognizes that 95% of the sex acts against youth are committed by people with an ongoing sex drive directed toward children.

So there is no evidence that a nude photo of a 10 year-old Brooke Shields, the sight of a toddler running nude on a beach, some family photos of naked children in the bath, or children at nudist resorts, contribute in any way to the pedophilia problem. Like airport security, which is designed more to make people feel safe rather than actually be safe, the removal of the Shields photo from the Tate is a public relations stunt to placate the masses into believing the problem of pedophilia is being properly addressed.

Making criminals out of artists, photographers and parents because of something someone else "might" do is the easy way to deal with the problem. You can't prevent rape by forcing women to wear birkas, you can't prevent shoplifting by outlawing malls, and you cannot prevent crimes against children by outlawing innocent nude photographs. Law enforcement officials and legislators are impotent to deal with the real problems, so in order to convince the public that they are doing their jobs, they tend to arrest victims, prosecute children, and pass unnecessary laws and ordinances to create a smokescreen for their own failures.

Such is the case in England, where some "horrific" recent cases of pedophilia have been in the news, and heightened public awareness of a problem in need of a solution, so authorities have gone after the Tate Modern gallery in order to put on a show for the media. Wag the dog.

Personally I find the Shields image to be discomforting, much in the same way I find these child beauty pageants to be creepy, exploitative and sexualizing. Check out the beauty pageant portfolio of photographer Colby Katz - his photographs of children being made up, dressed, spray-painted and displayed are bound to elicit a gut reaction from anyone who views them.

Sometimes we need to be confronted with the uncomfortable in order to maintain intellectual balance. Government censorship is tantamount to what happens to Alex in Anthony Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange", where his despicable criminality lands him in a scientific experiment designed to make him physically ill whenever the thought of murder or rape crosses his mind, rendering him ultimately into a human jellyfish, a piece of mechanized flesh, completely unable to function in society. Ultimately his conditioning is reversed due to political backlash, and society is forced to embrace Alex for his perversity.

Instead of dealing with the societal and cultural reasons for Alex's penchant for crime, the government opted for the easy fix, to sanitize his body and mind from the evils of society, while neglecting the fact that the evils of society were still flourishing.

Ironically, Stanley Kubrick's film of "A Clockwork Orange" was banned in Britain for 27 years because it was believed to have inspired real violence, but the truth of that claim remains unclear, and the film is now readily available in the UK.

So now it's a photograph of a nude 10 year-old girl in the bath which is endangering British Society. Perhaps the powers that be will determine that the image is not pornographic, and perhaps they will rule that it is indeed obscene. Whatever the outcome, censorship is rarely sensible.

Generous America, Scary America

Nobody is defending what Roman Polanski did with a 13 year-old girl in Los Angeles over 30 years ago. Nobody.

But this "sinister arrest" of the 76 year-old film director says more about the American obsession with sex than with the rule of law.

The arrest outraged the government of France, which has declined to extradite Polanski since he fled the United States in 1978, after a Los Angeles judge signaled he would scotch a plea agreement in the sex case. In France, Polanski is revered both as a filmmaker and as a martyr to American injustice and puritanism.

Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand issued a statement saying he "profoundly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already known so many during his life."

Mitterrand also charged that Polanski was "thrown to the lions," the Associated Press reported. "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face," he said.

The victim of Polanski's sexual advances, Samantha Geimer, is now 45 years old with a family, and has been trying to put this ordeal behind her for years.

"I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child," she said at the time. "I got over it a long time ago." Geimer said Polanski had paid, and she wanted to move on and stop reliving the details of the assault every time he made headlines.

"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said.

In 1997 Geimer is quoted as saying, "He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life." Now the US judicial system wants to ruin her life all over again.

The details of this case are well known to most, from Polanski's escape from Nazi Germany as a child, his mother's death in a concentration camp, the brutal murder of his wife Sharon Tate at the hands of the Manson family, to the publicity hungry judge who wanted to send Polanski a "stern message", forcing him to skip bail and leave the United States behind. This is a tragedy that keeps on compounding itself behind the blind and relentless search for justice at any cost to all involved.

The only real justice will be if Polanski appears in an American court, and the charges are dismissed as per the request of Samantha Geimer. Enough is enough.

Good Nipple, Bad Nipple

Just when you thought that the public was growing more tolerant of women's topfreedom, along comes this story from Washington state where the Grab 'N' Go Espresso bikini hut is under increasing scrutiny from a nearby business, and the Snohomish County sheriff's department. The Everett City Council is expected to propose changes to the "lewd conduct ordinance" to include coffee shops, which basically means more criminalization of women's bodies.

The proposed changes are part of a routine review of city codes that would bring the city's long-standing lewd conduct ordinance up to date, city spokeswoman Kate Reardon said. The changes would not prevent baristas from wearing bikinis, she said. In fact, under the proposed update it would still be legal for a woman to wear pasties or even a sheer undergarment in public as long as her nipples and areolas are covered. Just the possibility of toughening rules for bikini stands filled the seats at Wednesday's Everett's City Council meeting. In the last six months, the city has received about 50 calls from people furious about bikini huts, Reardon said.

What on earth would cause people to be "furious" about women wearing bikinis?

In the city of Lynnwood, one coffee shop located near an elementary school backed down when the police "negotiated" with them to have the baristas wear more clothing during hours when children were likely to be present. On what law was this "negotiation" predicated?

The biased story on this situation does not interview one person supportive of the coffee shops, even though the businesses appear to be thriving. Rhonda and Louis Bremond, owners of a nearby business which sells high school class rings and letterman's jackets, are interviewed extensively. Their "expertise" on the situation stems from an obsession with the Grab 'N' Go, which has involved constant monitoring, photographing, and emailing complaints to the sheriff like this one:

This morning over at the bikini hut, there was a red pick up truck that stayed around for around 1.5 hours. He would pull up and then when another car came, he would pull around to the other side. He left for about 10 minutes, then came back again and stayed doing the same thing … It was just really weird … Something was going on …

The class ring business must be very slow if these people have hours of spare time on their hands to watch girls in bikinis sell coffee. And so what if something is "going on"? Just maybe the reason police are doing nothing about the shop is because nothing illegal is taking place, or maybe the guy in the red pick up truck was a cop himself.

The Bremonds said this is about business, not morality. "There is more going on than bikinis in these huts that needs to be addressed publicly," said Louis Bremond, Rhonda's husband and business partner.

The Bremonds have contradicted themselves. Of course this is about "morality". This trend of enacting stricter regulations on dress and behavior based merely upon suspicions or anecdotal evidence is both dangerous and unconstitutional.

Municipalities face a number of challenges when it comes to regulating businesses such as bikini huts, said Rick Robertson, an assistant chief deputy prosecuting attorney for Snohomish County. Cities and counties may regulate and define "adult entertainment" differently, Robertson said. A bikini barista stand may or may not fall under a particular definition. To complicate matters, some may contend that the business has an expressive component that is protected under the First Amendment. Cities and counties also face potential lawsuits. "Many municipalities have endured legal challenges over regulations that govern the adult entertainment industry," he said. "Even when they have prevailed, many have found it to be quite costly."

Then leave these bikini huts alone. Enacting new or tougher ordinances which further criminalize the female body is not the answer.

And if you think that this does not affect naturism, think again. Any law which prohibits a women from exposing her nipples in public affects any efforts to secure lands for nude recreation. Washington state does have a state law which exempts breastfeeding women from being fined or arrested for indecent exposure, but this "good nipple/bad nipple" schizophrenic lawmaking is indicative of a very conflicted society. In effect, a woman can expose a nipple to feed a child, but not to serve coffee to a customer. And don't forget that a man has the right to expose nipples just about anywhere for any reason.

Chances are local lawmakers in Washington state will not be able to do much to extinguish the bikini hut phenomenon, aside from passing some band-aid ordinances which make the exposure of female nipples illegal inside public business establishments. It's easy to see the problem with the constitutionality of such ridiculous laws - what about hospitals, spas, nudist resorts and other venues where nudity or partial nudity is part of everyday routine?

Women should have the right to topfree equality without the government deciding where, when or how a nipple should or should not be exposed. Eventually someone will test the constitutionality of all these nagging nonsensical nipple laws.

UPI Picks Up San Onofre Protest Story

The story is now going international. Will the California Department of Parks and Recreation allow nudity during the protest? Is nude protest protected by the First Amendment as freedom of expression? Will the protest sway public opinion? Will the press coverage be positive?

This event could be a watershed for naturist rights.

Nude Model Arrested, Film at 11

More evidence of our stupid society.

A nude model posing for photographer Zach Hyman was arrested for stripping down at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. It appears to have been some sort of pre-arranged sting, with police ready to pounce at the moment of disrobing, and an NBC video crew on hand ready to roll.

Today 30 seconds wasn't enough time as police busted up the shoot -- an event, which was captured exclusively by a camera rolling for NBCNewYork.com. The footage will also be shown on News 4 New York at 11, so stay tuned for exclusive footage.

So, arrest the model, and then promote the event on television for mass consumption. Model KC Neill was charged with public lewdness.

Certainly Hyman has been expecting trouble since he carries around bail money and employs a lookout, but a lewdness charge seems extreme unless the model was making some sexually explicit poses.

No word on whether NBC news will be brought up on charges of distributing lewd images.

Hyman's web site is here.

Guns and Boobs

I'm sorry, but this is really one fucked-up country. I don't like to use expletives, but this issue requires it. An 18 year-old girl in Keene, New Hampshire, topless with a handgun holstered to her hip, was arrested for indecent exposure during a protest with other armed people affiliated with the Free State Project.

In an online video of Nicosia’s protest and arrest, she explains why she decided to go topless in public.

“I chose to do it because this is one of the most important issues to me is equality … men can walk down the street … and, you know, not get harassed at all but yet somehow this is dirty,” she says.

New Hampshire's state motto is "Live free or die". It's absolutely astounding that New Hampshire does not require residents to have permits on openly carried firearms, but the mere act of baring a breast can land a woman in jail. This is the heart of the topfree movement, it's not about getting women to take off their tops, it's not about immature males drooling over naked breasts, it's about the decriminalization of the femalel breast, and that if men have the right to take off their shirts, then a woman should have the same right. Arresting women for exposing nipples is misogynistic, irrational, cruel, unnecessary, and just plain stupid.

New Hampshire Courtroom Legal Opposition Group
Cassidy Nicosia's Twitter Account
Cassidy Nicosia's MySpace Account

The Legacy of Stephen Gough

Stephen Gough, Great Britain's "Naked Rambler", has been jailed once again for a breach of the peace.

Standing in the dock naked, Gough compared himself to other martyrs from the past.

He said: "People who have brought great change often have to go to prison first. People often have to go to prison for many years before others see the light."

However, Sheriff MacFarlane, after being told the bill for dealing with Gough was several hundred thousand pounds, said: "Would you like to estimate how much it has cost as a drain on the public purse to keep you in prison?

The sheriff offered Gough a chance to walk free on the condition he would simply put on clothes, but it was refused. It is reported that Gough has not worn clothes for six years.

British authorities need to take a deep breath and stand back from this situation. What possible purpose does it to incarcerate this man, who has done no harm to anyone, but simply wants to walk about nude? It's a classic case of law enforcement officials failing to serve the public interest, and the violating rights of the individual.

Take note that there is NO LAW AGAINST BEING NUDE IN PUBLIC IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. It is only illegal if the nudity is used to "harass, alarm or distress" others, and there is no evidence that Gough has used his nude body in such a manner. This is a clear case of persecution, there is no logic to spending vast amounts of money to "protect" the public from seeing something that they all witness when they get into the bath, or look into a mirror when changing clothes.

Gough has been painted as a kook and a menace to society. Yes, he's stubborn, committed to a fault to his cause, but there appears to be truth when he states that he is "becoming more sure of myself rather than the other way around."

Gough is becoming a symbol for how modern society views the human body. Something which should be embraced is now condemned, a symptom of centuries of textile culture, religious dogma, and archaic laws.

"Free Stephen Gough" should be a mantra for every citizen of the British Empire who value their own freedoms and rights. If they can jail a man indefinitely simply for being nude, they can do far worse to anyone who dares challenge other cultural norms.

The Other Side of Sanity

Wow. I just got finished reading this article by "Devvy", who basically wants the whole sexual revolution of the fifties and sixties rolled back to the Dark Ages.

Millions of mothers in this country condone their daughters walking around at the age of 13 dressed like hookers because they were part of the sexual revolution. Yesterday at PetsMart I was walking behind a mother and her daughter. This girl couldn't have been over 14, but the denim miniskirt she was wearing barely covered the bottom of her rear end. I thought: What is her mother thinking? Do these women ever turn on the news and see the almost weekly snatching of young girls in broad daylight; their raped and murdered bodies found a week later in some ditch or never found at all? Allowing a young girl to wear such promiscuous clothing is like a magnet to the sexual predators roaming the streets of our cities and towns. When my daughter was that age there was no way she was allowed to walk around looking like a working girl.

Devvy is basically blaming women for their own rapes.

Her rant goes on to attack pornography, "Bruno", Playboy, Kinsey, condoms, swimsuits, sexual education, eventually calling for a boycott of anything peddling "filth", and legislation against immorality.

People have spent thousands of years trying to bottle up sexuality. It doesn't work. You want to really protect "the children?" Talk to them about sexuality, teach them about their own bodies, warn them about the downsides of sexual excess. This is a parenting issue, not a case for more government intervention into our private lives.

While Devvy does not attack nudism directly, it's obvious that she supports modestly to the nth degree, calling swimsuits "nothing more than soft porn with the vagina and breasts barely covered." It is this irrational fear of sexuality which is behind the North Carolina attempt to regulate nudist resorts. Never mind the facts, never mind the freedoms entitled to all Americans, just forge ahead with fear-mongering and a self-righteousness to attack people who are doing no harm to anybody. These people are like the Taliban, willing to cover up women in birkas and murder homosexuals in order to further their own religious zealotry.

Devvy sums up with the following Nostradamus-like prediction: "Today's children are tomorrow's society." Yes, Devvy, they are. We believe that children are the future, the child is father to the man, teach your children well, etc. It's always about "the children", but there is only empty rhetoric in these Christianist attacks, using words and phrases like filth, danger, moral breakdown, sexual deviant, sodomite, perverts, predators, repulsive, scarred for life, and exploit, but not one fact or figure to support the argument, no research, no examples. Astoundingly, Devvy calls for legislation to change laws, but does not say which laws, or how they should be changed, or if such changes would be Constitutional.

The Christianists are losing the culture wars. Over the past few decades, gay and lesbian Americans have survived attempts to bar them from meaningful employment, and now same-sex marriage appears to be on the brink of national acceptance. Abortion is still a hot-button issue, but a woman's right to choose should be legally protected for the foreseeable future. About the only issue left with which rouse the rabble is sexuality, and it's perceived "dangers" to children.

When faced with legislation "protecting" children, such as the criminalization of teen sexting, age restrictions at nudist resorts, keeping sex offenders from living within a half-mile of a school, ordinances against public nudity, the closing of clothing-optional beaches, or the over-regulation of strip clubs, politicians will always err on the side of caution.

Beware this latest salvo in the culture wars.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Should We Teach Our Kids about SEX? (time.com)
• When the Cellphone Teaches Sex Education (nytimes.com)