Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

[Drip_Torch]

Thanks Donald, yes I earned my bald spot honestly - it's not genetic.

Fluffy, there does seem to be some confusion and I would suggest it's on your end. If you review the map I placed above, I think we can quickly agree that the land to the right of the property line is private property. The area to the left of the property line is crown land - Yes?

Another way to describe it might be; the area to the left of the line is not private property - Yes/no?

I don't believe the property line floats on the top of the lake, instead I believe when the land was registered there was a survey done and legal lot lines were established, much like every other piece of property in BC. I suspect, if this were not true, especially in a jurisdiction such as Penticton, there would be excavators working around the clock to push land into the lake to create the next new and exciting lakefront development opportunity.

I'm find myself hoping that the woman recently charged on the public beach is hoping to make an issue of this, to encourage the courts into setting putting some real definition to what has to date been an area of some confusion.

While I'm unsure of what charge recommendation the RCMP forwarded in this particular case, I understand that the Kelowna incident is being pursued under section 173. Perhaps, the Penticton case will be forwarded under section 174 and between the two cases there will be a definitive set of guidelines developed.

If, a charge under section 174 is being pursued in Penticton, then I assume there is also the opportunity for the AG's office to review existing case law and determine whether, or not, such guidelines may already exist. (I understand, a 174 charge approval is contingent on the AG's approval before being pursued by the crown prosecutor.) I assume there is the opportunity for the AG's office to attempt to put this matter to rest, through this approval process, and the AG may, in her wisdom enumerate those decisions back - thus, and in effect creating the guidelines that many seem to think don't currently exist.

It's 2015 - you might be surprised at how cut and dried this really is. (IMHO) ... and by that, I don't mean drop your shorts and enjoy your day at skaha (although, I'm quite sure a few people will get away with it today) What I'm saying is that Section 174 is valid only as it's written and upheld through case law. The current and popular parsing by the no nudes cult doesn't really weigh into it anymore.

It's a shame this has gone on, as long as it has.

[fluffy]

If you review the map I placed above, I think we can quickly agree that the land to the right of the property line is private property. The area to the left of the property line is crown land - Yes?

Another way to describe it might be; the area to the left of the line is not private property - Yes/no?

I don't believe the property line floats on the top of the lake, instead I believe when the land was registered there was a survey done and legal lot lines were established, much like every other piece of property in BC. I suspect, if this were not true, especially in a jurisdiction such as Penticton, there would be excavators working around the clock to push land into the lake to create the next new and exciting lakefront development opportunity.

The line on your picture is questionable at best, in that much depends on the time of year the picture was taken. Property lines are fixed at the high water mark, which if your picture is accurate would show that it was taken at a period of low lake level. It is also entirely possible that the line was subjectively placed for illustrative purpose and may be different from the actual legal boundaries. Riparian development regulations exist to prevent the land creation of which you speak.

If, a charge under section 174 is being pursued in Penticton, then I assume there is also the opportunity for the AG's office to review existing case law and determine whether, or not, such guidelines may already exist. (I understand, a 174 charge approval is contingent on the AG's approval before being pursued by the crown prosecutor.) I assume there is the opportunity for the AG's office to attempt to put this matter to rest, through this approval process, and the AG may, in her wisdom enumerate those decisions back - thus, and in effect creating the guidelines that many seem to think don't currently exist.

It's 2015 - you might be surprised at how cut and dried this really is. (IMHO) ... and by that, I don't mean drop your shorts and enjoy your day at skaha (although, I'm quite sure a few people will get away with it today) What I'm saying is that Section 174 is valid, as it's written, not as its being parsed by the "no nudes cult".

There have been a number of widely publicized challenges to Section 174, and judgements have gone both ways. The law appears to be quite clear on the subject of public nudity, but the way it has been enforced is anything but decisive. The vagueness of what constitutes a "lawful excuse" allows the AG to approach each case individually, which may well be the underlying intent. Who knows ?

[Drip_Torch]

The line on your picture is questionable at best, in that much depends on the time of year the picture was taken.

Again, from the city web mapping service, with the legal lot lines option checked. If it is at all questionable - it certainly isn't by me, I'm not a surveyor.

So what changes with the fluctuations in the lake?

Not the property line.

Not the definition of a beach.

Not the property location.

Not the definition of crown land.

Not the definition of private property.

...

Is it possible the only thing that really changes, with the lake level fluctuations, is the rationalizations behind the movement towards criminalization, of a recreational activity that has been enjoyed at this location for decades?

[fluffy]

The size of the beach changes with lake level. When the lake is high the beach shrinks, bringing the waters edge closer to the high water mark and the legal property line. This is what the property owner's complaint was, as the lake rose beach users were making use of land above the high water mark. Land on private property.

[Drip_Torch]

The size of the beach changes with lake level. When the lake is high the beach shrinks, bringing the waters edge closer to the high water mark and the legal property line. This is what the property owner's complaint was, as the lake rose beach users were making use of land above the high water mark. Land on private property.

On that point, I would agree with you to some extent. So, can we finally dismiss the notion that the "nudists" were previously using a private beach?

[fluffy]

On that point, I would agree with you to some extent. So, can we finally dismiss the notion that the "nudists" were previously using a private beach?

Semantics. The issue was and is trespass. And yes, they were trespassing. Even when there was usable beach space below the high water mark they accessed the area by a path over private property.

[Drip_Torch]

Semantics. The issue was and is trespass. And yes, they were trespassing. Even when there was usable beach space below the high water mark they accessed the area by a path over private property.

The propagation of false facts.

Another example is "they were trespassing". By they, I assume you are making another generalization focusing in on the "nudists".

There's been one actionable instance of trespass, that I'm aware of at Three Mile Beach, and it was a contractor trespassing on crown land with a fence and a sign. Promptly dealt with by Natural Resource Officers and documented by Global TV - that's a fact. Perhaps there are other facts that I'm not aware of, or perhaps other facts might come to light, but "they were trespassing"; in my opinion, based on my observations, is not likely to ever be one of them.

"The issue was and is trespass". Hardly, I went to the city meetings, so, perhaps I can refresh your memory. The property owner wanted to see a bylaw banning nudity, and when the beach committee made their representation the signs in the crowd, opposing them, read "no nudes"... not no trespassing.

[fluffy]

Am I missing something ? Have not a number of people been named in a court action for trespass and willful damage ? Public nudity may have been the underlying complaint but I do believe the legal issue in play at the moment is trespass.

But all this is academic, the naturists have been driven out of the area and that was the property owner's aim. While personally I am neither here nor there regarding public nudity I do support the property owner's right to make that choice for himself. This was the same principle that I saw as central to the issue when the naturists tried to appropriate a section of the public beach for their use, in this case the traditional non-naturist users of that area were having exposure to a practice they may not have agreed with, as is their right, forced upon them. Really it couldn't have turned out any other way in my mind, not without lawful rights being trampled somewhere along the way. What of the naturists rights you ask ? Well, they had basically been squatting for decades but that doesn't hold any water in court. The naturists had the use of a secluded area for years but only because they had the "permission" of the owner. Now both permission and beach access are gone. Too bad, so sad, time to move on.

[Drip_Torch]

Am I missing something ? Have not a number of people been named in a court action for trespass and willful damage ? Public nudity may have been the underlying complaint but I do believe the legal issue in play at the moment is trespass.

But all this is academic, the naturists have been driven out of the area and that was the property owner's aim. While personally I am neither here nor there regarding public nudity I do support the property owner's right to make that choice for himself. This was the same principle that I saw as central to the issue when the naturists tried to appropriate a section of the public beach for their use, in this case the traditional non-naturist users of that area were having exposure to a practice they may not have agreed with, as is their right, forced upon them. Really it couldn't have turned out any other way in my mind, not without lawful rights being trampled somewhere along the way. What of the naturists rights you ask ? Well, they had basically been squatting for decades but that doesn't hold any water in court. The naturists had the use of a secluded area for years but only because they had the "permission" of the owner. Now both permission and beach access are gone. Too bad, so sad, time to move on.

Missing something, you ask? No, no, not at all, and if in fact it turns out you are, I'm sure you more than made up for it with the extras you've thrown in.

Thanks for straightening this all out and I'm glad to hear it's over.

[fluffy]

Thanks for straightening this all out and I'm glad to hear it's over.

You're welcome. Still, I wonder how close to "over" it really is. Do you think the public nudity charge recently laid was approved by the Attorney General as stipulated in Section 174 ? Maybe we'll see some of the vagueness and ambiguity in that law cleared up a bit.

[Drip_Torch]

You're welcome. Still, I wonder how close to "over" it really is. Do you think the public nudity charge recently laid was approved by the Attorney General as stipulated in Section 174 ? Maybe we'll see some of the vagueness and ambiguity in that law cleared up a bit

Oh, it's over. (No brakes and this train doesn't make anymore stops.)

I wonder what would be acceptable to you and the property owners? How about a simple set of guidelines that the RCMP, and others, can use to judge the "so clad as to offend public....blah, blah, blah,"

Personally, I think the guidelines should be less than 5 pages; perhaps, a relatively simple equation that factors in age, weight, height and social economic status? How about you, what do you think would protect society?

(Incidentally, you do realize there has never been a study published to suggest that nudity harms children in any way - right? In fact, "others" that take it upon themselves to assess and judge peoples attire at higher learning institutions, such as UBC, might find themselves in some trouble - anything more than an uninvited 3 seconds can be considered leering - a form of bullying.)

[fluffy]

I wonder what would be acceptable to you and the property owners? How about a simple set of guidelines that the RCMP, and others, can use to judge the "so clad as to offend public....blah, blah, blah,"

Wouldn't that be preferable than to leave it open to personal interpretation of those making the determination ? Who knows what level of objectivity those people possess ?

(Incidentally, you do realize there has never been a study published to suggest that nudity harms children in any way - right? In fact, "others" that take it upon themselves to assess and judge peoples attire at higher learning institutions, such as UBC, might find themselves in some trouble - anything more than an uninvited 3 seconds can be considered leering - a form of bullying.)

I think there has to be a degree of personal choice available. As is obvious here sentiments toward public nudity are varied, and quite polarized in some aspects. But is there any law, written or unwritten, that says I have to agree with your opinions ? Is it not a matter of personal choice ? Legality aside for a moment, is it wrong to expect that one could attend a public beach without exposure to a practice that they are philosophically opposed to when that beach has, to date, been free from that practice ?

[Drip_Torch]

Legality aside for a moment, is it wrong to expect that one could attend a public beach without exposure to a practice that they are philosophically opposed to when that beach has, to date, been free from that practice ?

Oh fluffy, what's the point of even trying to answer that question? You'll just enter into another round of private beach, invisible outcropping that obscured view.

For the last 30, 50, 80, 100 years three mile beach has been known, at times promoted, as a place tolerant of clothing optional beach use. 30 years ago when I first walked on the beach, from the bottom of the stairs, I could see nude people... as a matter of fact, I expected to see nude people when I decided to drive out there. Throughout all of this, people have had a far better chance of happening across unexpected nudity while TV channel surfing, then they ever could have possibly had by stumbling onto three mile beach. (Last count - 52 published articles, provincially, nationally and internationally.)

What is wrong, in my view, is that a speculator can purchase property in the neighbourhood, knowing full well what's going on, and then decide the community standards don't at all apply to him; and that his judgement, that the people using the public facilities are "unsavory" should reign supreme. What's also wrong, in my view, is a patently obvious campaign to promote intolerance through the use of bullying tactics.

NBC called... turns out they have one complete Betamax box set of the final season of "All In The Family" and they are wondering if anyone at three mile could find a use for it.

ETA: A few contemporary ideals to promote respect and understanding.

A respectful environment is a climate in which the human dignity of
each individual is valued, and the diverse perspectives, ideas and experiences of all members of
the community are able to flourish.

Bullying or harassing behaviour includes cumulative demeaning or intimidating comments,
gestures or conduct; verbal aggression or yelling; threats to a person’s employment or
educational status, person or property; persistent comments or conduct, including ostracism or
exclusion of a person, that undermines an individual’s self-esteem so as to compromise their
ability to achieve work or study goals; abuse of power, authority or position; sabotage of a
person’s work; humiliating initiation practices; hazing; calling someone derogatory names;
spreading of malicious rumours or lies; or making malicious or vexatious complaints about a
person.

Bullying or harassment does not include... constructive
criticism; respectful expression of differences of opinions;
correction of inappropriate behaviour; instructional techniques such as irony,
conjecture, and refutation, or assigning readings or other instructional materials that advocate
controversial positions; and single incidents of thoughtless, petty or foolish words or acts that
cause fleeting harm.

Source: http://www.hr.ubc.ca/respectful-environ ... t-2014.pdf

[fluffy]

So that one single resident is the only one who would like to see the naturists relocate ? I heard more than the one making noise in the media, local residents and beach-goers alike. The speculator you speak has received his share of notoriety mostly due to the court action but I can assure you he is not alone among the local residents. Where are the rights that go with property ownership for these people ?

And you seem ready to dismiss the opinions of the traditional users of the public beach. What's up with that ? Do they not get a voice in this ?

[Drip_Torch]

So that one single resident is the only one who would like to see the naturists relocate ? I heard more than the one making noise in the media, local residents and beach-goers alike.

I haven't singled anyone out - that's something that a bully would do. (Sure, I'm aware of where, how and when this all blew up).

The media polled the immediate neighbourhood a number of times last year - they (and by they - I mean the media) all seem reluctant to make a definitive statement, one way or the other.

The speculator you speak has received his share of notoriety mostly due to the court action but I can assure you he is not alone among the local residents

Nope, again... I didn't say he had anything to do with it at all - it blew up long before he arrived on scene.

And you seem ready to dismiss the opinions of the traditional users of the public beach. What's up with that ? Do they not get a voice in this ?

Of course they do - what are they saying? I can't hear the whispers.