Media Release 24 Sept 2008
The Kapiti Coast Media Release dated 19 September, published at ratepayers’ expense in the Kapiti-Observer on Monday, is a shocker. It seeks to ‘clarify’ matters relating to its proposed Beach By-law 2008, but contains a number of false and misleading statements. Kapiti Mayor Jenny Rowan, Deputy Mayor Anne Chapman and Councillors Anne Molineux and Peter Ellis have all gone public in the media endorsing, albeit with some reservations, nudity on Kapiti beaches.
False Media Statement 1
“The possibility that “clothing optional” areas might be considered has been retained in the proposed bylaw [2008] but must still be publicly notified and consulted on before any such area might be designated and signposted.”
Our Society spokesperson informed Mr Tony Cronin, Kapiti Council Communication Manager, on Friday 19 September, that this is a false statement. He responded to the complaint in a telephone discussion by saying that “it probably was” but made no effort to correct the published version.
The 2008 Draft Bylaw posted on the KCDC website has section 15.1 – “Clothing optional areas” (contained in the current bylaw that was enacted in 2002) – completely removed. S. 15.1 from the 2002 Bylaw which remains in force, states:
“Council may by publicly notified resolution define any part of the beach, foreshore and dunes as a “clothing optional” area. Such an area shall be appropriately signposted.” [see www.kcdc.govt.nz ]
If s. 15.1 is removed as proposed by Council, there is nothing in their Draft 2008 Bylaw that has been “retained” from the existing bylaw that would allow for a “clothing option” area to be “considered” by Council, let alone empower it to designate and signpost such an beach area after public consultation and notification.
Our Society understands the legal rationale for the removal of s. 15.1 and is not opposed to its removal. However, it is very upset that the Councillors have claimed or suggested to the media that by its removal, the effect will be that Council now supports a 45 km “clothing optional” beachfront on the entire Kapiti Coast. This is a legal nonsense.
The Dominion Post report (“Councillors vote for nudity” 15/09/08) stated: “Kapiti Mayor Jenny Rowan and 10 councillors unanimously supported the inclusion of the stance [“… to allow nudity along the 45-kilometre coastline as long as it is not deemed “lewd”…”]…. Ms Rowan welcomed the move, saying it meant there would be no signs confining naturists to specific areas of the beach.
False Media Statement 2
“There is no practical difference between the existing by-law and the proposed one on whether any areas of Kapiti’s beaches are “clothing optional”.
The existing 2002 by law (s. 15.1) does have a “practical difference” to the draft proposed. It allows for a mechanism whereby Council “may by publicly notified resolution define any part of the beach, foreshore and dunes as a “clothing optional” area…” No such zone has ever been notified to the public. The proposed 2008 bylaw removes the statutory requirements of public notification and signage, prior to the declaration of any area of beach as “clothing optional”. All practical legal impediments would appear to have been removed allowing Ms Rowan and her 10 Councillors to just utter a declaration as to the new status of the Kapiti Coast without being able to be held accountable by ratepayers for their promotion and endorsement of public nudity on our beaches.
False Media Statement 3.
“If there is any proposal in the future that any section of the beach might be made “clothing optional”, that proposal can only be decided upon by the Council after full public notification and consultation.”
There is nothing in the proposed 2008 bylaw that addresses the need for either public notification or consultation over this matter. The Council has no authority to rule on such matters if the proposed Draft Beach bylaw 2008 is passed into law.
The President of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc., Mr John Mills, of Paekakariki, strongly urges all Kapiti Coast residents who support the Society’s submission set out below, to sign it as individuals, cut it out and send it to the Mayor, Ms Jenny Rowan and all Councillors ASAP – C/- P.O. Box 601, Paraparaumu 5254 (deadline for submissions is 24 October 2008).
SUBMISSION to Mayor, Ms Jenny Rowan and all Councillors
I wish to notify you and your Council that I am strongly opposed to any attempt by the Council to provide any provision in its 2008 Beach Bylaw that might allow for, endorse or lead to any “clothing optional” zone being designated and approved on any of the Kapiti Coast Beaches. Instead I urge the Council to uphold and promote the rights of members of the public to enjoy the beach, foreshore and dunes without being confronted by those persons who intentionally engage in “indecent exposure” which is clearly defined in law under Section 27 of the Summary Offences Act 1981as involving the intentional exposure of “any part of his or her genitals”.
S. 27 states: “(1) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in or within view of any public place, intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals. (2) It is a defence in a prosecution under this section if the defendant proves that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would not be observed.”
Nudists who may wish to openly expose their private parts to others can do so lawfully by joining a naturalist club which are crying out for new members, or confine their activities to their own private homes.
You have been reported as supporting nudity in public places on the Kapiti Coast beaches and are quoted as saying that under the proposed 2008 Bylaw:
“There will be no signage, they [nudists] will have free rein.”
As much as you may wish them to have “free reign” or believe they have such a “right”, the absence of signs stating “clothing optional” does NOT give nudists a “free reign” to indulge in “indecent exposure” as you misleadingly suggest.
You added: “The beach is a place for the general public, as long as they are not being offensive they can be clothed or unclothed. The Human Rights Act supports anybody being there.” (Dom Post 15/09/08).
We strongly oppose the public endorsement, albeit with some reservations, of “indecent exposure” as a legitimate option and a “human right” on the Kapiti Coast beaches when you know full-well that the deliberate and often provocative exposure of genitals in a public place is considered offensive and obscene behaviour by most people and can lead to prosecution.
Name ___________________________ Signed __________________ Date ___________
I live on the Kapiti Coast Yes/No. I am a KCDC ratepayer Yes/No
Does it bother you that the only interest your site attracts is that of the dissenters?
I strongly oppose the use of local beaches to allow nudists free reign. I do not want my grandchildren exposed to this kind of thing. The beaches on the Kapiti Coast are a pleasure to walk on but this will definitely NOT be the case when nudists are allowed to go anywhere they choose.
“I do not want my grandchildren exposed to this kind of thing”
I do not understand this problem people have with whats under their clothes? Why do you want your gradnchildren to feel that their bodies are disgusting and need covering? There is no logic to your position.
I am a grandmother who advocates honesty. To teach your children to hate and fear the human body is deplorable. Nude sunbathing and skinnydipping in the sea is wholesome, healthy and life-enhancing. I urge the councillors of the Kapiti Coast to stand firm against organised witchhunts.
Joyce, let’s please be honest. No good, normal and reasonable parent wants their child to “hate and fear the human body” as you put it, so they would NOT teach such corrupt ‘values’. Good parents teach their children “wholesome, healthy and life-enhancing” values (to use your words): to love, nurture and respect their own bodies and practice the virtues of modesty, kindness, honesty, self-control, purity etc. Good parents teach children that it is wrong to hate and exploit others especially when it involves the demeaning, degrading and dehumanising of other persons, who according to the Judeo-Christian world-view are “made in the image of God.” Clearly, to show contempt, hatred and fear towards one’s own body is at odds with this world-view.
You are right to say that for parents to teach attitudes of hate and fear towards their bodies is “deplorable”. Which good parents do this? However, in our view, to suggest, as you appear to, that those good parents who oppose any move by Council to promote and tolerate public nudity by establishing “clothes optional areas” on our beaches; teach these values of hate and fear to their children, is ridiculous, puerile, and very dishonest in our view. What is your evidence, if this is indeed the claim you are making?
Our laws make it clear that flaunting oneself naked in a public place in a way that causes offence can lead to a conviction under section 4(1)(a) or 27 of the Summary Offences Act 1981. S. 27 states:
27. Indecent exposure
· (1) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in or within view of any public place, intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals.
(2) It is a defence in a prosecution under this section if the defendant proves that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would not be observed.
Joyce, have you not engaged in a brutal and deplorable “witchhunt” yourself, by suggesting that all those who have expressed their opposition to the reported statements made by some Kapiti Coast councillors and Mayor that Kapiti beaches promoting beach nudity, are purveyors of hatred and fear towards the human body? If you think the Council has been misrepresented by the media in a “witchhunt” by a journalst(s) – then please name these deplorable evil doers and we will help you deliver them to the Grand Inquisitor and you can light the match.
@ SPCS
Overreaction, much? No one has given so much as an explanation as to why they find nudity so reprehensible, do they have a reason at all?
What can be more natural than to take off one’s clothes to go for a dip? This has nothing to do with “flaunting”.
I am familiar with the law on these matters. Unfortunately many people are not, and many seem unable to discriminate between harmless skinnydippers and criminal behaviour. In order to be subject to prosecution, one would have to be found to be behaving “deliberately and obscenely.” – in other words being actively offensive, since no human body is in itself obscene. Bona fide naturists are law-abiding, peace-loving people who adhere to a strict code of conduct. Mutual tolerance is required on this matter. In other words, learn to live and let live. Consult the website http://www.freebeaches.org.nz
Truly corrupt and violent behaviour is seen on television every day and night. How do we protect our children from that?
@ Joyce
“Truly corrupt and violent behaviour is seen on television every day and night. How do we protect our children from that?”
Change the ****ing channel or, alternatively, turn off the ****ing tv.
Re Joyce Fleming ; You say you are “a grandmother who advocates honesty…..”
What value if any do you place on Modesty?
I would appreciate your comments on the folowing observations
Nudity and sex – is there a connection? In one way or another those who promote public nudity as ‘innocent’ or ‘social and not sexual’ seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity.
Those who support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc say that walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the opposite sex has nothing to do with sex.
In other words, there is no organic gradual/natural relationship between nudity and sex While acknowledging one doesn’t have to lead to another, it seems illogical to ignore the following realities.
It seems that the pornographers understand the connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or photos that cause lust that some argue can only be satiated by sex.
It seems that men in general, understand the connection since they are, by every known rational mind to be visual.
Lastly, it seems that if HONESTY prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be multilayer thick.
Nudists decry sexual harassment and sexual assault. They say they are committed to creating an environment where women and men may both feel safe and non-threatened.
That’s commendable. But how realistic is it? How practical is it to ensure this, in a public open space?
It’s is all very well in theory to make a distinction between nude and lewd but making a distinction in practice is a huge can of worms.
Consider for instance the application of sunscreen and the not uncustomary habit of having it applied by someone else.
It is inevitable that our threshold of tolerance of lewd activity will be further lowered.
Reflect if you will on how this very same characteristic is evidenced in the manner in which we accommodate swearing and blasphemy.
One may note the comments of Pope John Paul II in this matter: “The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty… Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful… Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person
Isnt it interesting how parents will allow their children to play violent video games watch violent movies and cartoons,then claim that the sight of a naked body will harm them,,,The churches and those that manipulate the populations must be so thrilled to see their ongoing projects continuing to suppress natural intelligence :(
Centuries of oppressive thought have convinced many people that the body is a shameful, worthless object that should be hidden.
Nonsense!
The human body is one of the most elegant, masterful and valuable things on earth. There are few things in existence which compare to it on an artistic, technical, or philosophical level. Celebrate the human body! It’s one of only a handful of truly unique creations.
Any male or Female who is somehow offended by the sight of a nude body,
probably has some major psychological issues.
@ Peace,
Who is stupider? The people who had “nudity=bad” bludgeoned into them for centuries or someone who just decides that violent video games=real harm to children, on the basis of… no evidence? Yeah, I know who I’m picking.
I see that B.J.Whittaker on 6 November has challenged me to answer his point that there is (quote) “an inextricable connection between nudity and sex.” Yes, alas, in the western “civilised” world this connection is certainly exploited to the full. However in talking about sexual corruption etc we are being diverted from the original topic which was beach naturists and skinnydippers where the connection between nudity and sex does not “inextricably” apply – especially in the case of ancients such as myself! I take my clothes off every time I have a shower or a swim, which, as I have said before, is more pleasant and hygienic than wet clothes would be. I suppose you will reply that you would find me, and others of like mind, (to quote a recent DomPost front page headline) “a horrible sight!” Some people and things are more beautiful than others at all stages of life. Naturally, we teach children according to our own beliefs, and I don’t presume to preach; so I’ll say only “Judge not” or otherwise sum up with key words – acceptance, tolerance, compassion.
ConstantNeophyte wrote:-
‘Who is stupider? The people who had “nudity=bad” bludgeoned into them for centuries or someone who just decides that violent video games=real harm to children, on the basis of… no evidence?’
The people who have had attitudes ‘bludgeoned’ into them could not help or avoid being so indoctrinated. Children cannot choose their circumstances in life (very regrettable in many unfortunate cases as we all know to our sorrow). However it is certainly not true to say that children are not adversely influenced by violent video games, as well as advertising, general TV programs etc. You cannot shield children from such influences by simply changing the channel or turning a TV off. What about when they go to school, their friends’ houses, cinemas, etc?. Influences on children and adults are 24/7 from all sources and the sum total is highly effective in shaping and maintaining attitudes and beliefs. That is why corporates spend billions each year on branding, advertising and marketing. And why the entire world’s print and broadcast media is now owned by just 8 mega corporations.
Naturists are one group of people who had been able to see through the indoctrination of religion and corporate elites, both of whom have massive vested interests (admittedly for different objectives), of making people ashamed of their bodies, but nevertheless both conspire to achieve mass mind control for their objectives.
Adults can break free from mind control, if they are sufficiently intellectually able and become aware that they are being so controlled, That simple fact terrifies the elites and they work very hard, with clever strategies, to prevent humans from becoming spiritually enlightened (which is certainly not the same as ‘religious’).
B.J. Whitaker on November 6th, 2008 1:52 am wrote:-
‘It seems that the pornographers understand the connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or photos that cause lust that some argue can only be satiated by sex.’
I would argue that this is not true. Nude photos absolutely do not ‘cause’ lust. Lust has to be already in the mind of the observer. Otherwise any art gallery, or medical textbook that depicted a nude body would cause observers to feel lustful and as we all know, that simply does not happen.
Pornography has to be sought after, it does not occur naturally. Some people seek it out (those who have lust in their mind), other people do not seek it out (those who are not obsessed with lust).
If B J’s statement was true, then censors and investigators that view pornography in the course of their work, would themselves become possessed by lust and thus become unable to do their jobs!
“Influences on children and adults are 24/7 from all sources and the sum total is highly effective in shaping and maintaining attitudes and beliefs”
If you make any decision on the basis of advertising you deserve to be brainwashed by “mega corporation corporate elites”.
Hello Joyce,
Don’t know how to contact you but hope you will read this on this blog site.
I found your talk with Kim Hill extremely inspiring. Mainly because I feel that you have so much wisdom which needs spreading. Please tell me whether or not you intend having your autobiography published. Please say YES!
Or will you allow people to read it. I would be love to read it if there were some way I could, even just the manuscript,
please. I feel your ideas have so much philosophical as well as practical value.
I am not a naturist but when we think back to Greek Olympic, they used to run in the nude, without anyone seeing any perversion in the practice. Beaches and swimming seem to be a logical place where one does not need clothes, but given the dangers of skin cancer, one should feel free to unclothe or clothe as one feels fit, according to skin-type, etc. You are not walking advocating walking down the main street nude, so I cannot see the fuss people are making about allowing naturism on beaches. The fear, of course, is of encouraging pedophiles, perverts etc.. However, I do not think the danger is increased by naturism (in fact probably the opposite given that “clothes maketh the man” ). An alluring bikini probably encourages a potential pervert more than the naked body which, apart from a few with very young, lithe bodies, is not necessarily the epitomy of beauty.
I hope this reaches you and you will find time to reply.
With thanks,
Sheri