Nude beach, Penticton: posted "No Trespassing"

[Drip_Torch]

.

[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]

.

[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]

.

[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]

.

[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]

.

[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]

.

[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]

.

[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]

.