Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

[twobits]

And so it begins.

[In the period leading up to Monday, there were complaints of nude sunbathers at Three Mile Beach as well as rear plate thefts, including from School District 67.

"Wrigglesworth said there have also been reports of drunks swimming out to the Wibit Water Park after hours, when it is closed."

But what the public really wants to know......Were they neked?

[Donald G]

To twobits ...

The complaint on ten mile beach came in as a possible "beached whale" ...

[twobits]

To twobits ...

The complaint on ten mile beach came in as a possible "beached whale" ...

*bleep*! I thought me and the missus were safe in the dark. We could be mistaken for Orca's. Tanned backs and appendages with white bodies.

[XT225]

Perhaps some of the Three Mile Naturists have moved North to Kelowna. A great place for them to "hang out".

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#142803

[Anonymous123]

Perhaps some of the Three Mile Naturists have moved North to Kelowna. A great place for them to "hang out".

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#142803

That to will be short lived. People are not going to stand by and let a small group run rough shod over property owners.

[Treblehook]

I often wonder how this stuff gets so convoluted. If the man owns the property and doesn't want anybody using it for nude sun bathing, it should be the end of the story. Kind of: "My property and your use of it is in conflict with my use for it, so get off it and don't come back."

[Donald G]

Left wing extremism in action; what is yours is for "our" use.

[driveangry]

Will have to see how this plays out,,,,
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#143641

[twobits]

Will have to see how this plays out,,,,
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#143641

See how what plays out. She was nude on a public beach and refused to divulge her full name.

What is going to happen here is a waste of taxpayer dollars. This broke azz nudist is going to qualify for legal aid to challenge the courts about the definition of nudity in public. The person that should be buried up to their neck in sand and stoned, is the cretin lawyer sucking up legal aid dollars to defend an obviously indefensible position of public nudity.
Now, watcheva his/her name is, is going to suck probably tens of thousands of dollars out of the system to try and prove her....maybe his...point. Dollars better spent on more important issues than the right to be naked in public places.
Those that are truly in need can just wait for funding while watcheva argues his/her right to expose genitals in public.

[Donald G]

I appreciate that the police have done everything they can to avoid arbitrarily deciding the issue one way or the other.

They arrested the person for obstruction which will now FORCE the politicians and Criminal Court authorities to decide the issue by the need to determine whether the accused had an obligation to identify herself and thus commit the offense of obstructing justice.

My compliments to the police officers involved. I wonder how many years and how many thousands of dollars this lawyer gravy train will take to make its way through the court system ?? The court system is more of a disgrace than the nudes.

[Queen K]

There's our tax dollars at work, arrest a nude girl. Yup, that guy saw the crime and moved in steathily so as not to startle said dangerous criminal into actually putting on some clothes. Time to get the real goods in real time action!

[Donald G]

To Queen K ...

I do not see that as the "naked" truth.

[maryjane48]

religion at work, when humans decided to wear clothes it was because of the elements and for protection , not for vanity , but ever since jesus showed up that all changed . now i have no issue with folks who own private land wanting the land used by just them , that is non issue , but public land should be just that , for public use as public sees fit with in the law .

.



Despite this, women still faced discrimination in public facilities. In 1997, Fatima Pereira Henson was charged with trespassing for swimming topless in Cambridge, but the charges were dropped. She was then charged again, and also this was dropped by the crown, so the City initiated its own prosecution. Although this too was dropped, a bylaw specifically prohibiting topfree swimming was passed. Eventually her efforts led to a new bylaw allowing this.[13]
In Toronto in 2011, a Go Topless Day rally was refused a permit to meet in a park, so they marched down the streets, with a police escort.




In 2000 a similar case to Jacob resulted in acquittal. Linda Meyer was a top-free activist inspired by the Gwen Jacob case, who appeared in a number of public venues topless. A bylaw in the municipality of Maple Ridge stated "females over the age of 8 years shall fully cover all portions of their nipples and aureole with opaque apparel.". On July 1, 1997, Linda Meyer went to the swimming pool in the bottom half of her bikini. Some parents complained and she was charged,[15] but the judge in this case (Justice Holmes) voided the by law stating, inter alia:[16]
[55] In R. v. Jacob, supra, a woman who walked bare-breasted on a city street and then reclined top-free on the front step to her home was acquitted on appeal of committing an indecent act. The Court found the baring of her breasts was not harmful to anyone. There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in her conduct. The Court noted anyone who was offended was not forced to look.

[57] I do not find in the evidence support for the view that the parks could not operate in orderly fashion if a female were to bare her breasts in a circumstance that did not offend criminal laws of nudity. The evidence suggests the Section 3A amendment to the Park By-Law was more a reaction to a frustration that the criminal law was not supporting the moral standards in regard to females who chose to bare their breasts in public that some Maple Ridge citizens desired.


A 1992 poll showed that 62% of Canadians were opposed to women having topfreedom, with women being more likely to be opposed.[20] A more detailed survey was undertaken in 1998,[21] and a detailed analysis was published by Fischtein and colleagues in 2005 (Fischtein et al. 2005). This showed context to be important, for instance 72% were opposed to being topless on a city street, 62% in parks, but only 48% on beaches. In all cases women were more opposed to toplessness.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada


interesting in the poll more women then men are against public nudity

[Anonymous123]

This is not about being topless. It is about being naked in public.

[twobits]

religion at work, when humans decided to wear clothes it was because of the elements and for protection , not for vanity , but ever since jesus showed up that all changed . now i have no issue with folks who own private land wanting the land used by just them , that is non issue , but public land should be just that , for public use as public sees fit with in the law .

As the public sees fit. I think "the public" in general is quite clear that all public spaces should not be a free for all nude if ya want to be place. I could care less if certain beaches were declared clothing optional. I would at least be able to avoid them. Yourself, and the whatchova folks seem to think public lands are just that.....public for any use. Personally I can avoid designated special use areas but I'll be damned and argue to the cows come home that I want some public space where I don't have to worry that myself or grandchild is going to use some piece of park or beach infrastructure that some sweaty monkey butt crack has just just left a lab sample on.