Charges against naked walker dropped
By SARA ROSS, QMI Agency
Last Updated: November 19, 2010 10:31pm
ORILLIA, Ont. - The law has tried to stop an Ontario man from walking outside naked - but failed.
"It's like total freedom. You can just feel the breeze, the sun, unless you try it you have no idea what it feels like," says the 60-year-old naturalist who frequents a recreational trail on the shores of Lake Simcoe, north of Toronto.
"Other naturists are still fearful of being in the general public on out-of-the-way trails because of the fact they think they're going to get convicted."
On Monday, the man, who requested anonymity, went to trial for a charged of an indecent act.
Two off-duty police officers witnessed him walking naked in September 2009. The charge was dismissed because the man was not doing anything harmful - such as public masturbation, luring or flashing.
"[Some members of the community] might not think it's appropriate, or they might think it's not moral, but it's not indecent in the sense that it causes anybody any harm," said the man's Toronto-lawyer Gleb Bazov.
The man was initially also charged with nudity in a public place but that charge was withdrawn earlier this year.
Bazov said the court's 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."
But Charlene Ewanchuk, who's home backs onto the Uhthoff Trail in Severn Township, disagrees with the decision.
She told QMI Agency she has called police on the "naked man" several times.
"I find it offensive. If I catch him going by my house I'll call the cops.
"If it's so acceptable why isn't he doing it in downtown Orillia?"
Ewanchuk said she has encountered the man while walking on the trail with her children, aged 10 and 14.
"Turn your head the opposite way and just go by," Ewanchuk said she told her children. "Don't look, don't talk to him, just go by."
The township has also previously written a letter to the man "prohibiting" him from using the recreational trail while "improperly clothed."
"If the courts can't charge him, I guess he's within his (rights.) Personally, I don't think it's appropriate," said Severn Township Mayor Phil Sled.
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."
Deschenes, who also operates the Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park, says most naturists prefer to practice their lifestyle only in nudists resorts.
sross@orilliapacket.com
http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/weird/2010/11/20/16233271.html
"We are creatures of light; why cover our radiance with clothes?"
not sure id call it an "out of the way trail " if someones "home backs onto" it
Also notice the confusion of the editorial with naturalist:naturist ::)
Having a home backing onto a trail does not necessarily civilise it since there are many homes in Scotland that would be defined as 'wild country'.
The walker in question would seem to be applying the Steve Gough clause where he intentionally confronts the textiles in order to challenge the law. 😕
"We are creatures of light; why cover our radiance with clothes?"
The walker in question would seem to be applying the Steve Gough clause where he intentionally confronts the textiles in order to challenge the law. 😕
Yes but this needs to be done to set the precedent, which he has done, good on him i say, surely we all want the right to be naked without the fear of prossecution?[reason]Corrected quote tags[/reason]
If i'd known i was going to live this long i'd have looked after myself better!
Yes we need to raisde awareness and acceptance but there is no excuse for being inconsiderate to other people who may not share naturist ideals. We can't presume everyone is happy with it even if it is legal so the Steven Gough way is not the way forward as far as I'm concerned.
Yes we need to raisde awareness and acceptance but there is no excuse for being inconsiderate to other people who may not share naturist ideals. We can't presume everyone is happy with it even if it is legal so the Steven Gough way is not the way forward as far as I'm concerned.
While i agree up to a point with what you say, if we waited for everyone to be happy we would never do anything? plus how many things are there in everyday life that we as individuals may find unacceptable, but which we have no control over, so where do you draw the line?
If i'd known i was going to live this long i'd have looked after myself better!
I agree, if some Black folks hadn't upset some White folks and Women upset some Men; then Black people and Women would not have equal rights.
If you are wrapped up in yourself, then you are overdressed!
I am quite open to meeting other folks at organised nude venues that are within my reach financially and socially.
I agree, if some Black folks hadn't upset some White folks and Women upset some Men; then Black people and Women would not have equal rights.
Thats about what i'm saying, i think also that you need to push for a mile to gain an inch. I also believe that within the naturist community there is a huge discrepency between the long term desires & aims of different members, some want a quiet life & no rocking the boat, while others want equality with the rest of the world & the right to go about their everyday business without clothes.
If i'd known i was going to live this long i'd have looked after myself better!
Yes but there are ways to do it without being selfish. I play my part by talking to textiles I meet and explaining that I like to walk nude in the woods. Most are fine with it - some are uncomfortable with it. Should I ignore their feelings?
Personally, whist I would love to spend every minute of the day nude, I don't want to upset people by doing so. Prudes or not - eveyone has a right to their beliefs so I try to be considerate. If I am walking nude and bump into textiles it would be purely by accident and then I will apologise for any embarasment.
Spitting in the street is illegal but people that do it probably feel it is a natural and normal thing to do. Would you be happy if they made an effort to spit in very busy places just to get their point accross that they think it should be fine for everyone to do and if some people dont like it they should just put up with it?
The textiles that think we should not be allowed to walk nude in public are probably of the opinion that naturists are exhibitionists, flashers and perverts. If we care about their perception then isn't it up to us to prove that we care about their feelings and don't force our beliefs upon them before they are ready? By behaving militantly all we do is push those who need convincing, even further away.
Spitting in the street is illegal but people that do it probably feel it is a natural and normal thing to do. Would you be happy if they made an effort to spit in very busy places just to get their point accross that they think it should be fine for everyone to do and if some people dont like it they should just put up with it?
I agree entirely with the point you are making but you chose a bad example to illustrate it. The big difference between spitting in public and walking around naked in public (reflecting the fact that the former is illegal whereas the latter is not) is that spitting is a public health hazard (as is smoking, which is unfortunately not yet illegal in the vicinity of other people outdoors) whereas being naked is not. It might be the case, in some circumstances (such as extreme cold or fierce sunlight) that a naturist is a danger to himself, but that is an entirely private matter.
So yes. let's be more considerate than the public spitter or smoker, but let us also temper this by recognising the difference between those things which threaten people's health, through ears, nose or throat, and those things which some people simply do not like the look of. Sight is very directional. In most circumstances, one can simply look away. I see some horrible (textile) sights around Taunton, but they don't damage me. In the long term I'd like to see the same tolerance by textiles for us. And then, eventually, there'd be no textiles and no naturists!
But, as you say, any pushing or campaigning should be considerate and subtle.
I actually believe that the apparent decline in organised naturism is a sign that public nakedness is, indeed, becoming more acceptable. So I am optimistic.
I accept that wasn't a very good analogy but you understood the point so that's good.
The decline in organised naturism is interesting. Could it be the fact that social naturism attracts the very people that give naturism a bad name so the genuine naturists don't want to be associated with those places?
Really I have no idea - I wouldn't go there anyway.
...talking to textiles I meet and explaining that I like to walk nude in the woods. Most are fine with it - some are uncomfortable with it. Should I ignore their feelings?
This is an interesting point and is often made by naturists. In my view, the correct answer to your question is no you should not ignore the feelings of others, but you may choose on occasion not to give in to them.
I am not advocating confrontation, however sometimes naturists need to be a little more assertive. After all, if we always grant primacy to the feelings of textiles we effectively surrender our right to harmless enjoyment. Surely naturists feelings have as much validity as those of others? Or do you hold to the assertion that the majority is always right?
Ambrose Bierce famously defined democracy as "the tyranny of the majority over the minority". While that may be a rather cynical view, it is worthy of consideration before we surrender our right to enjoyment to those poor unfortunate souls who have not yet discovered that they were badly programmed by their parents and society.
Have fun,
Ian.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
A very interesting thread. Myself, I like to walk outdoors naked, but am very conscious that I may upset people. So I'm ever alert when I am naked. The best place does seem to be the beach, and in Norfolk we're very lucky to have such a lot of rural and less frequented beaches, so less likely to offend anyone.
...The best place does seem to be the beach, ...
That is OK for you beach bums but I am a creature of the woods so I inhabit said woods, get less sand in my tail. I only offend the odd hedgehog since few textiles walk in the wide open country more that about 2km from a main road.
"We are creatures of light; why cover our radiance with clothes?"
its an hours drive for me to get to a beach.... theres woods and open country right on my doorstep.... most people seem to stay close to carparks and marked paths...