1. Section 17 of the Bylaw: “Defined Areas”
The Society submits that Section 17 (“Defined Areas”) of the Draft Beach Bylaw – 2008 – as it stands – should be deleted in its entirety. We challenge the Council to provide to the public any reasoned justification for such a provision based on the four specific examples given. Furthermore, we contend that the Council has no authority whatsoever to claim such a wide discretion over the beach – “without limitation” (17.1). The provision is ultra vires – it is beyond the powers of the Council to lay claim to such a wide discretion, one that could potentially lead to the imposition of severe limitations on the freedom of movement and behaviour of persons or classes of persons on Kapiti Coast beaches. It raises serious issues under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) if the Council approves any by-law enabling it to place unreasonable restrictions over certain “defined areas” of the beach, especially a provision that allows for no public consultations and/or submissions prior to a Council making resolutions as to such restrictions. Under s. 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 02), the Council must consider whether a clause raises implications under the NZBORA.
In our view, the four examples of “defined areas” in s. 17 cannot possibly provide justification for this addition, when the Council already has powers under existing legislation to place restrictions on public access to such areas. For example, section 146 b(vi) of the LGA deals with “land under the control of the territorial authority”. This means all beach area under its control1 under the LGA 02. It is empowered with the task “of managing, regulating against, or protecting from, damage, misuse, or loss, or for preventing the use of, the land, structures, or infrastructure … land under [its] control [as] the territorial authority.” This includes safeguarding sand-dune restoration.
Section 145 of the LGA 02, allows the Council to make bylaws for the following purposes: protecting the public from nuisance, protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety, or minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public areas.
The Society challenges the Council to identify what safety problem(s) is being dealt with by the Section 17 examples given. We contend that there are none that cannot be dealt with adequately under existing legislation. What problems have been identified by the Council and documented by way of formal public complaints that would necessitate the imposition of a new by-law s 17 that would further erode public freedoms? Under section 155 of the LGA, the Council is required to be able to identify a perceived problem that can be addressed by a bylaw.
As currently worded, section 17 allows the Council to impose certain restrictions, limitations or conditions on certain “defined areas” by means of its own resolution, without requiring public consultation involving submissions etc. While it is true that the Council can impose a restriction or prohibition by Council resolution alone, without public input, it cannot do so if the by-law is so worded that to act upon it would be ultra vires. Section 17 is such a bylaw. The Bylaws Act 1910 contains a provision that would make any bylaw invalid if the latter provides the Council with so great a discretion as to be unreasonable. Section 17 – if tested in Court – would be declared invalid for this reason.
One can only assume that Council, when agreeing to accept Section 17 into its proposed Beach Bylaw, had other examples of “defined areas” beyond the four listed in mind. It is noteworthy that none of four given have as their focus, concerns over the effects of activities/behaviour of humans on others. If the Council still maintains that Section 17 should stand, despite considering matters raised above; but only moves to delete the four examples given, to be replaced with ones involving human behaviour; – a serious problem still remains.
Let us consider the defining of areas based on a human activity – such as nude swimming and nude beach activity (sunbathing, volley ball, BBQs etc). The Council would be acting ulta vires to define an area based on the so-called “clothes optional criteria. There are serious Bill of Rights issues to consider here. By defining an area based on such criteria sends two clear messages: [1] that to engage in such activity on the beach elsewhere (outside the defined zones) is contrary to the law and [2] to engage in nudity within the defined area is lawful. Both implications are problematic and overlook the force of Section 27 of the Summary Offences Act 1981, which 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.
There is only one defence provided in law to a charge of “indecent exposure” and the onus is on the defendant to prove his/her case (s. 27[2]). Any defence that seeks to rely on Council signage stating: “clothes optional,” or “beware of exposure to nudists,” or “enter nude are at your own risk,” or “close your eyes while crossing between A & B,” or “No prudes allowed in Nude Zone” etc; will be ruled out of order in Courts. Police will be required to consider laying charges when any person acting in a lewd or offensive manner within a so-called nudist area, causes offence to any member of the public, following genuine complains. The Council may well be drawn into costly litigation if such cases proceed to the Courts as in the two Ceramalus cases (see below).
2. Minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public areas.
Under S. 145 of the LGA the Council is within its rights to place notices on any beach instructing the public as to what is considered “offensive behaviour in public places” and this could relate to nudity. However, to outright ban such behaviour, could be argued as over-reaching its jurisdiction given that (1) other laws cover such matters (e.g. ss. 4 and 27 of SOA) and (2) under the LGA 02 the Council would have to establish that a perceived problem existed to warrant such restrictions.
In the light of the fact that there are a huge variety of ethnic and cultural communities represented on the Kapiti Coast it behoves the Council to take into consideration the values, beliefs and customs etc. of these communities when addressing “perceived problems” by means of signage. People do need to be reminded that common courtesy, respect and consideration of others, should and must undergird all behaviour, particularly in a public place such as a beach. Signs warning potential offenders of the consequences of engaging in “indecent exposure” and “lewd” or “offensive behaviour” should not be necessary. However, if the public document to councillors by way of complaints – documenting the facts – significant numbers of offences of this kind in certain areas – the erection of appropriate warning signs should be an option the Council looks at seriously, as a means of addressing the problems raised.
The Society believes that the Council has not yet established that there is a “perceived problem” (relating to public nudity) as is required under the LGA 02; that would justify the erection of warning signs as outlined involving “banned behaviour”. Nor does it believe that there is a “perceived problem” identified by those advocating “no clothes zones”, that could possibly justify the creation of such areas for the enjoyment and cultivation of a small band of nudists, most of whom can go and join a private nudist club.
The Society believes that signage should be placed on all major beaches at the significant entry/access points, notifying the public of their responsibilities in terms of behaviour in general terms. The expectation of the majority of Kapiti Coast ratepayers is that they show consideration to others. Under s. 5.4, of the proposed draft by-law, the Council has seen fit to inform surfcasters “to take reasonable steps to ensure” they avoid creating “a safety hazard to other beach users”. Perhaps determined nudists need to be reminded by Council to keep their hazardous tackle boxes covered to avoid causing hazards!
The deliberate choice and action of some members of the public to engage in activities involving “indecent exposure” is recognised and defined in law as causing potential offence to others. If members of the public need to be reminded in s. 5.2 of the proposed Beach Bylaw not to “loiter in or around dressing shed or toilet”; it should not come as a surprise to Council that they may need to erect signage to remind people not engage in “indecent exposure”. A man was recently ordered off a very popular section of the Paraparaumu Beach recently, because he chose to expose himself fully naked (including his genitals) in front of a mother and her children. He told police that he thought that it was now legal to go nude on any of the Kapiti Coast beaches. One report suggested that Kapiti Coast councillors had been responsible for conveying this massage to him.
The Council would be acting ultra vires if it were to seek to regulate nudity in the beach environment. It cannot declare it lawful or acceptable in any area under its jurisdiction. It can remind the public of relevant sections of the SOA 1981 and commend the principles of respect, etc. to the public The Council must consider whether any action it takes by way of erecting signage, is a proportionate and rational response to the identified problem.
3. Beach Nudity and the Ceramalus cases.
The Society believes that the Council may have been misled into thinking that the case involving the acquittal of Mr Ceramalus by the High Court (Ceramalus v Police AP 76/91) for offensive behaviour, brought by the police under s. 4(1)(a) of the SOA 1981; sets a precedent in case law – establishing that merely being naked on a beach is not offensive. However, it is an over-simplification of the case law to draw this conclusion from what we can refer to as Ceramalus 1.
The police’s initial charge against the defendant of “indecent exposure” (under s. 27 of the SOA) was dropped and only a charge under s. 4(1)(a) of the Act were pursued in the District Court. Despite being convicted of the latter offence – “offensive behaviour” – no penalty was imposed on the defendant. And yet Ceramalus appealed the conviction to the High Court and won. The latter ruling does not say anything about the way the law deals with a charge laid under s. 27(1) – one of “indecent exposure”. The High Court Judge took the view that the threshold level of offence had not been reached to warrant a conviction for “offensive behaviour” – the behaviour he wrote – “must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person”.
This case cannot be used as an authority for the assertion that nudity on beaches will never amount to offensive or disorderly behaviour in breach of s. 4(1)(a) of the SOA 1981. Judge Tompkins emphasised that in judging the behaviour in terms of “matter of degree”, factors such as relevant time, place and circumstances, had to be taken into account.
The second Ceramalus case2 in 1995 established that walking down a suburban street naked, openly in view of children, does constitute disorderly conduct behaviour. The High Court established that the context of the behaviour was of critical importance. In his decision Justice Morris indicated that he might have decided Ceramalus 1 differently. Ceramalus unsuccessfully sought to appeal his case further to the Court of Appeal.
The Society wants the Council to disregard the erroneous proposition put to it in a legal opinion presented by the Free Beach Movement (Inc.) – a nudist lobby group – that Ceramalus 1 establishes in case law that going nude on a New Zealand beach does not constitute offensive behaviour. The Council should avail itself of the full facts relating to all the Ceramalus cases and study section 27 of the SOA 1981.
4. The Bill of Rights Act
Here again the Society believes that the Council may have been misled by those promoting so-called freedom of expression and who see the promotion of nudity and optional clothing zones as a liberating public activity that promotes freedom of expression. Section 19 of the BOR states:
19. Freedom from discrimination:
- (1) Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
- (2) Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination.
Those opposing any Council by-law that might spell out that advocating nude beaches on the basis that
However, “freedom of expression” is not the overriding and only principle to consider here. Sections 5 & 6 of the BOR must be taken into account as well
5. Justified limitations.
- Subject to section 4 of this Bill of Rights, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
6. Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred.
- Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.
The Society will elaborate on these matters in its oral submission to Council.
_____________
Note: The Society wishes to make an oral submission to Council on this matter.
For the Society for Promotion of Community Standards
On behalf of Society Members who reside on the Kapiti Coast.
1 Area of beach between Mean High Water Springs and Mean Low-Water Springs.
2 Ceramalus v Police 1991 CRNZ 678
To view Beach Bylaw 2008 see:
The sooner people like you get over their hang up about whats in their pants the sooner the world will be a better place.
Also: “nude beach activity (sunbathing, volley ball, BBQs etc).”
What mad person would BBQ naked? That is just asking for trouble.
[RE SPCS Submission] A very scholary response, much needed in untangling the legal minefield that goes with bylaws. Very helpful in addressing all the misinformation.
The two important comments I made yesterday have now disappeared from the screen. Why is that?
I am sad to see that the DominionPost appears to favour “bodyphobic” and militant groups on the Kapiti Coast who, with their petitions etc. appear to have got things totally out of proportion. In contrast, bona fide naturists and skinnydippers are healthy, peace-loving people who simply ask for commonsense, courtesy and tolerance to prevail on all New Zealand beaches.
Joyce, you made two important comments yesterday (4/11/08) in relation to the earlier SPCS news item entitled “Kapiti Coast Nude Beaches and Council Shocker”. Are these the ones you say have disappeared from your screen? They were never removed. If you refer to other comments then please resubmit them and they will be posted. None were received as far as we can tell.
RE ConstantNeophyte :
Firstly you either intentionally or unintentionally blur the distinction between private and public nudity.
You fuse both concepts together and treat them as one.
Why?
Could it be, that it then makes, those with a view point, opposed to nudity easier to discredit?
A very similar “Blurring” tactic was used so effectively in the smacking debate. Here smack and beat were interchanged in the same sentence. And in a manner as if to suggest there was no difference between the two. Thus leaving the defenders of smacking, having to defend the indefensible ie the beating of children as opposed to smacking)
We all accept there is a huge difference.
Similarly with private and public nudity
If we are seen to be opposed to nudity in all its forms, it becomes much easier to discredit us. We are deservedly so, made to look prudish.
So let’s be clear, the problem is with public ,not private nudity
You ask “why do some find nudity so reprehensible, do they have a reason at all?”
Assuming your referring to public nudity, perhaps the simplest way to respond, is to observe that urinating, vomiting and excreting are also normal, natural behaviours. (Just like Nudity.) Would you do them publically? If not why not?
Out of convention, dignity, respect and in the interest of furthering socialabilty with our fellow men and women we do not urinate, excrete or vomit publically. For the same reason nor should we with nudity.
The Nudists say.‘Naturism is a way of life in harmony with nature, characterised by the practice of communal nudity with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for others and for the environment. ‘
Specifically how does being naked facilitate these virtues, any more than not being naked? Despite my bet endeavours this question remains unanswered?
Can you help?
Re Joyce Fleming’s Comments that nudists “……..are healthy, peace-loving people who simply ask for commonsense, courtesy and tolerance to prevail on all New Zealand beaches”. How does this stack up under scrutiny? Consider :
What is being sought is not the practice of discrete nudity. (Involving Consideration of others)
What is being sought is the legitimacy of indiscrete nudity (Inconsiderate) and all that it entails.
I buy into the concept of being fair and reasonable, but this presupposes that nudists will be equally fair and reasonable.
However, does the Ceramalus case and the activities of the local nudist activists, demonstrates that they are equally fair and reasonable?.
Let us not forget that….
The FIRST Ceramalus case involved : children. More than 100., a request made to him, to reposition himself to a more suitable locality by the police, a refusal to relocate, this was not his first offence, an insistence by Ceramalus that he had the right to remain where he was, and to behave in the manner that he was behaving in.
Characteristics associated with Ceramalus are of note, as they are in direct conflict with the “let’s be reasonable”, “live and let live”, imagery that those advocating for a clothing option beach zone align themselves with.
Jerry Foxley (local nudist appearing on TV 3, 15 Sept 2008, and the Coasts ‘Visitor “ from Featherston who wanted to” conquer his inhibitions ” (Observer Oct 13) provide a further indicator as to the behavioural traits and character of people advocating for this change.
Sun Lovers
As for the description “sunlovers” and the desire for an all over tan, as being one of the labels depicting their prime motivation for nudity, the following has not gone un noticed
In the first Ceramalus case
Under heading ‘Facts’ (contained with in the Judgement) is the following note
‘…He lay upon the beach sunbathing – although it appears that the sun was hardly out, if at all.’
The myth of sun loving being the motivation for nudity is further under mined by:
1 Jerry Foxly – overcast – TV3, 15 Sept 2008,
2 Jerry Foxly – Beach Clean Up – Coldest, windiest day in spring – TV One 4/10/08
Why don’t genuine nudists redirect their thinking to the concept of private nudist clubs.?
There is nothing stopping the local nudists from joining one. Or forming their own. This could include purchasing any one of a number of isolated beachfront vacant rural blocks north of Peka Peka .
They can establish their own complex, on their own private property, with their own set of rules and regulations.
There is a plentiful supply of such property and there are two further large beachfront subdivisions likely to come on-stream in the next twenty four months. All in the immediate vicinity of the area they currently occupy.
It is interesting to note that private nudist clubs usually contain their own vetting procedures so as to deter any unsavoury characters.
The fact that they need/choose? to do this, speaks volumes.
Keep in mind that if we have a clothing option beach zone (COBZ) there will be no vetting procedure, it will be open slather.
Still Feel There Is An Injustice? ……….
Some readers may be thinking, the above is all very well, but access to public property for nudists is still being denied. You still feel there is an injustice? After all why shouldn’t nudist get the same treatment as other ratepayers?
To that observation I respond as follows:
– Discrete nudity (Considerate nudity) is not being denied.
(If it is genuinely discrete, it is most likely no one will know about it, other than the participant or participants themselves,. Furthermore even if it is observed, what triggers the offence is usually no attempt on behalf of the culprits to cover up.)
– Offensive behaviour manifests itself in many different ways.
Eg Nudity, blasphemy ,swearing defecating ,urinating, drunkenness, public sex acts etc
– We don’t set aside other parts of the beach specifically for these types of negative behaviour.
Why are we treating indiscreet nudity any differently?
– Why do nudist deserve the protection of the law, when they continually defy the law?
– It is not an excessively punitive path to limit indiscrete nudity to private clubs and private property.
– If a person does something that offends others, and there is ample opportunities for the offender to satisfy their desires in alternative ways, then the offender should surely make use of those alternative opportunities.
There is no ethical justification for offending others when one can just as easily achieve one’s goal another way.
– That KCDC should allow for private nudist parks, reserves and other recreational facilities on the basis of ‘clothing optional’ is the logical extension of a COBZ.
Freedom
In the interests of the greater good i invite nudists to contemplate the following.:
There are two types of freedom, what we would like to do and what we ought to do.
@ B.J. Whitaker
I was going to make a list of logical fallacies you committed in your reply to my comment, starting with straw man argument, but I really can’t be bothered.
Rather than answering my question on the problem with nudity you simply equate it (equivalency fallacy) to urination and vomiting etc.
Also: “Out of convention, dignity, respect and in the interest of furthering socialabilty with our fellow men and women we do not urinate, excrete or vomit publically.”
I know an age group that would disagree with that :)
It is to be hoped that the Kapiti Coast District Council will be strong enough to remain calm in the face of the mass hysteria which has occured, largely as a result of distorted reporting on the part of the DominionPost. Despite a full-page statement issued by the KCDC (Kapiti Observer, 22 Sept. 2008) in an attempt to correct the misconceptions which had occurred, the matter continues to be misunderstood.
Naked sea and air bathing is beneficial to health and well-being. Emerging from the sea au naturel, even on a windy day, is found to be invigorating – as compared with wearing damp clothing to conceal those areas of the body which are most in need of an airing!
I suggest that those activists who have worked so hard in drumming up support by taking petitions etc, ostensibly to protect their children from harm, are barking up the wrong tree. The force of their anger would be better directed towards the damage done to young people by exposure to television where at all hours of the day and night are influences of violence, murder, sex, drugs and all kinds of criminal activity. The sort of nudity one might see in such negative context is an entirely different matter to that of someone merely stripping off to go for a swim.
Genuine skinny-dippers and beach naturists do in fact adhere to a code of good conduct which includes not intruding on the more populated areas of beach. If you happen to catch sight of a naked person who is relaxing (not misbehaving), what’s the big deal? As I said, calm down, live and let live.
@ Joyce Fleming
Did someone hardwire your TV up and strap you to a chair as a child. People complaining about the contents of TV programs rate just under people complaining about hot things burning them.
B J Whitaker made the comments:-
‘Assuming your referring to public nudity, perhaps the simplest way to respond, is to observe that urinating, vomiting and excreting are also normal, natural behaviours. (Just like Nudity.) Would you do them publically? If not why not?
Out of convention, dignity, respect and in the interest of furthering socialabilty with our fellow men and women we do not urinate, excrete or vomit publically. For the same reason nor should we with nudity.’
B. J., please understand that nudity is NOT A BEHAVIOUR it is a STATE OF BEING. All the other activities you mention are behaviours and in public of course are objectionable to others.
Is a grossly obese person or an amputee in a swimming costume offensive – because they do not conform to ‘accepted’ body shape? Some people would claim that such a sight would be offensive, but is it? Should such people be therefore banned from a public beach in case they offend some people?
The sad fact is that the objectors to beach nudity cannot distinguish between a state of being and an activity, when it comes to nudity. This is because of their conditioning, which equates nudity and the human body as sinful and shameful and that makes them feel uncomfortable when confronted by nudity. Hence they link nudity with urinating, vomiting and excreting – and sex. Well, nudists would also find the public carrying out of these activities objectionable.
Another comment by BJ : –
‘What is being sought is the legitimacy of indiscrete nudity (Inconsiderate) and all that it entails’
Well excuse me, but what does it ‘entail’? Please enlighten us, without referring to the anti-social activities that we have already dismissed as nothing at all to do with nudism..
The advanatges and benefits of swimming and sunbathing nude are very well documented elsewhere. I come from Europe, and there are countless beaches there where nude and non-nude people co-habit in complete harmony. So I know for a fact that there need not be not the problems that the objectors seem to think will ensue. The fundamental key is to ensure that irresponsible and anti-social people do not treat nudism as an excuse to behave badly in public. We all know who they are and the police should deal with them under the current, quite adequate laws. Some people drive cars anti-socially and irresponsibly, but we do not ban all cars because of it. Think about it.
Mike wrote: “The fundamental key is to ensure that irresponsible and anti-social people do not treat nudism as an excuse to behave badly in public.”
But Mike is smuggling moral values into his comment.
First he wants to allow nudity on beaches — To Mike this is morally acceptable.
Then he wants to discriminate against those who “behave badly in public”.
But to what common moral law is Mike appealing in each of these cases? His own? In which case, who cares what Mike thinks? Anti-nudity-on-beaches believers opinion’s are just as valid as his or any other.
Mike also talks about “conditioning”:
“This is because of their conditioning, which equates nudity and the human body as sinful and shameful…”
But again Mike does not shine the light on his own presuppositions. How Mike, do you know, that you are not the one who has been “conditioned”?
Mike Ward wrote:.
“…. BJ please understand that nudity is NOT A BEHAVIOUR it is a STATE OF BEING. All the other activities you mention [urination, defecation and vomiting] are behaviours and in public of course are objectionable to others.”
[ BJ wrote: “Out of convention, dignity, respect and in the interest of furthering sociability with our fellow men and women we do not urinate, excrete [defecate] or vomit publically. For the same reason nor should we with nudity.”]
Mike you are clearly confused.
Men urinating in a public place such as a urinal is not “objectional” to other men present. It is the context of the behaviour as BJ points out that is all important and the law recognises this. Urination or defecation by an individual(s) in any public place open to view and not designated as a public facility for such purposes – when they know they could be viewed by a person(s) who may not wish to be exposed to the sight of private ablutions – is an offence under the law, and can lead to a conviction if a complaint is laid by a person offended. The context of the behaviour is critical.
Vomiting is not a pleasant sight but it is not “objectionable” in the technical sense (such as a publication promoting paedophilia), nor in every context. It only constitutes an offence under the law in the context of offensive and/or disorderly behaviour under s. 4(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.
Large numbers of university students regularly indulge in pub crawls, drinking binges and other social highlights that involve vomiting as a form of bravado ‘entertainment’. Vomiting while not generally considered a controlled behaviour like laughing noisily, is more like a state of being brought about by a set of circumstances involving excess in drinking, eating etc. It is generally an involuntary activity caused by a certain state of being (sickness etc). Reality TV shows feature such activities with graphic depictions of gross behaviour.
Men or women who present themselves in a state of undress (nude) in a public changing shed, public changing shed shower, designated nude sauna, private hot pool, engage in activity that cannot be defined as “objectionable” provided they are courteous, respectful of others while nude.
Nudity per se is never offensive, objectionable or against the law when it involves consenting adults – eg. private love making between heterosexual couples, nudist clubs set aside for such a purpose, discrete activity that does not involve the exposure of a person’s private parts to unsuspecting members of the public in a way that causes offence.
Mike Ward tries to make a big deal out of the claim that nudity is not a behaviour but rather “a state of being”. This involves a degree of self-deception and naivety as well as ignorance.
Ward’s argument is a feeble attempt to win over the simple-minded to his view of nudity being only a “state of being” rather than involving a ‘behaviour”. Then, once this proposition is accepted, he claims, nudists on public beaches, in full view of non-nudists on the beach, cannot be prosecuted under s. 4(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 for “offensive or disruptive behaviour” because nudity isn’t even a behaviour.
What a nonsense.
Behaviour is a noun and is defined as “way of behaving.” (Longmans Dictionary) or “manner of behaving” (Collins Dictionary)
Behave is defined as: 1. to act, bear oneself. 2 To bear (oneself) in a socially acceptable or polite way 3 To act in a particular way. (Longmans)
To bear oneself in public without clothes involves a conscious act, a degree of motivation and a consciousness to some degree of the impact of one’s state of undress on others. For an MP to turn up in the debating chamber of Parliament naked would be unacceptable behaviour and socially irresponsible. Green MPs might consider it a great strategy for highlighling the immorality of green house gas emissions, promoting the so-called moral superiority of breast-feeding over bottle feeding, or highlight the dangers of bad diet by displaying their struggles with obesity and flatulence; however nudity is not merely a “state of being” when put into a human social context.
For a tiny lobby group, consisting of “nudist” Gerry Foxley of Waikanae (featured on National TV) and his male friend, to advocate nudity on the Kapiti Coast beaches as something the District Council must favour by implementing by-laws protecting their “state of being” is ludicrous! What about those who enjoy being lonely, depressed, “high”, sexually aroused etc. Are these not all “states of being” too? Do we need lobby groups advocating all these “states of being” to make submissions to Council advocating by-laws safeguarding their “states of being” – interests?
Of course the advocating of nudity on Kapiti beaches as a healthy activity involves the advocasy of certain way of bearing oneself socially – the recognition of such nudity as a socially acceptable form of activity (behaviour).
The problen is that those pushing for such a nudist friendly Kapiti Beach zone(s) ignore the very real impact of s. 27 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (Indecent Exposure) on persons engaging in such behaviour in a public place. This point is covered in detail in the Society’s submisson to Council on the Proposed Draft Beach By-law 2008.
[a lesson in life] Have you noticed that persons who find themselves unable to argue convincingly tend to resort to personal abuse of the opponent? Mike makes very good sense, but his adversary has fallen back on calling him “confused”, “naive” and “ignorant.” Ahem. The person pointing the finger has two fingers pointing back at himself. It is impossible to reason with such people.
Joyce, please think again. For someone to respectfully suggest that a person, or his/her argument, is “confused”, is NOT – as you claim – “to resort to personal abuse”, especially in the context of a robust, fair-minded discussion or debate on a controversial point. Far from it! Joyce you are being too precious. Furthermore, you have provided no reasoning to show why Mike’s arguments are not confused etc.
To contend that a person’s argument or viewpoint “involves a degree of self-deception and naivety as well as ignorance” (comment by SPCS) is a claim that has been backed up with reasoned argument and facts – sadly, unlike your approach Joyce.
It was the little boy in the famous children’s story by Hans Christian Andersen “The Emperor’s New Clothes” who pointed out the obvious to a deluded ‘NUDIST’ King who stood before his subjects naked and convinced that he was wearing a lavish, newly-tailored suit. The wee boy in the crowd of ‘dazzled’ onlookers did not need to convince them of the facts: it was OBVIOUS for all to see! Yes the KIng was naive and ignorant and the victm of his own self-deception – a product of pride and self-aggrandizement etc.
The case can be well argued: Nudists like Mike, who argue that they have a right to expose their private parts publicly on popular public beaches and have a Kapiti Coast District Council Bylaw supporting such “indecent exposure”, are advancing a viewpoint that is based on “confused”, “naive” thinking that demonstrates a level of ignorance of the law (e.g. see s. 27 of the Summary Offences Act dealing with “indecent exposure”).
To argue against the pro-nudist lobbyists like Mike in the manner recorded in previous comments by SPCS et al. is not to abuse him, but rather to honour him by engaging in robust, reasoned debate addressing his arguments.
What is truly sad is to see the reaction of nudists, who like the Emperor, writhe with discomfort when they recognise the stupidity of their own position, but for them the show must go on….. their opponents are just written off as indulging in “personal attack”…..
Joyce here’s the pertinent pasage from Hand Christian Andersen……….
“But he has got nothing on,” said the little child.
“Oh listen to the innocent,” said its father. And one person whispered to the other what the child had said, “He has nothing on – a child says he has nothing on!”
“But he has nothing on!” at last cried al the people.
The Emperor writhed, for he knew it was true. But he thought, “The procession must go on now.” So HE HELD HIMSELF STIFFER THAN EVER, and the chamberlains held up the invisible train”.
Haughtiness is a form of mental stiffness .. a disease of the mind.
Some, like gay lobbyist Craig Young, stridently assert that Kapiti Coast’s Peka Peka Beach is an unofficial nude beach for gay males to use as a pick-up cruise zone….. is this a position Joyce Fleming and Mike Ward endorse?
To Rob’s comment:
‘But Mike is smuggling moral values into his comment.
First he wants to allow nudity on beaches — To Mike this is morally acceptable.
Then he wants to discriminate against those who “behave badly in public’.
Well of course the law does discriminate against anti-social behaviour. That is what it is designed to do, in order to define the boundaries of behaviour and its effects on other citizens.
The law does not prohibit nakedness, but does prohibit the use of nakedness to threaten or insult another person. That is why nudity in some contexts is considered an offence and in other contexts it is not.
The situation with a beach is that nudists are, through experience, convinced that their way of enjoying the sun, sea, and air is the best, the most practical and most beneficial. Anti-nudity activists on the other hand most likely do not have the benefit of this experience in order to compare the difference between being clothed and unclothed. That is an obvious given – otherwise they would not have their position of dogmatic objection. In simple words, if they tried it they would see that they are making a fuss about nothing.
Nudists simply want to live and let live – to enjoy nature and the beach innocently, peacefully, responsibly, as it should be enjoyed, without wanting to foist their own beliefs onto others. – In other words, – they do not want to try to force others to shed their clothing. Contrast that with the anti-nudity campaigners, who are the opposite of that – they do want to force their ignorant beliefs onto others. Yes, ignorant – remember they most likely have not tried being nude on a beach. Nudists on the other hand have, without exception, tried wearing clothing on beaches and of course would put clothes on or keep them on if the weather is unsuitable to be undressed. After all, they arrive wearing clothes and they leave wearing clothes.
As to the suggestion in several postings that nudists should have to join private clubs, I would respond why don’t objectors stay in the cities, townships and their high temples of consumerism- the malls, and leave the beaches to be enjoyed by nudists?
To respond to Rob’s comments about whether I am conditioned, of course I am. In fact all of us are conditioned – by life, comprised of personal experiences, people around us, upbringing, education, media etc, etc. The reason I said that the objectors are conditioned is that people are not born with an instinct to regard their bodies as obscene or disgusting. Babies and young children delight in being without clothes – why shouldn’t they? it is the most natural state. It is conditioning by parents and society, driven by powerful religions and corporate vested interests that creates the view of body shame and guilt, which in extreme circumstances creates dysfunctional people, a dysfunctional society and all the ensuing problems. To see the ultimate effects of this, just look at Islamic societies, their morals, customs and practices. Islam is the world’s ultimate anti-nudity society.
Nudists are people who have broken free from the mind-prison and have risen above it to a state more close to the original Eden-like condition before the serpent worked its evil. It is ironic that the ‘clothe-the-naked’ missionaries went out to do the serpent’s work, not God’s work, by seeking out Eden-like isolated societies with their naked and shameless people and instilling their perverted morality onto innocent people. Since babies, young children and all other creatures do not see shame in nudity – then it must mean that it is the shame culture that is the perversion. It is gratifying that the SPCS recognises the simple truth of all this in its objects, in particular: –
2. The objects for which the Society is established are: –
(a) To encourage self-respect and the dignity of the human person, made in the image of God.
(b) To promote recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation in all stages.
The Naturist Education Federation (USA) provides the following definition:
“Naturists: you may know them as harmless skinny-dippers. That’s true, but they also hold some deep and abiding philosophy, ‘Naturist’ is the world-wide term for individuals and families who devote part of their time to being natural in the open expanse of nature, and who adhere to a strict code of conduct. With their quiet live-and-let-live philosophy, Naturists (not to be confused with naturalists) sometimes do themselves a disservice by not speaking out loudly enough for the fine values they share.”
Joyce, you note that naturists “adhere to a strict code of conduct” and many share the same sincerely-held “deep and abiding philosophy”. However, such strict codes are designed to apply to the behaviour of persons within a PRIVATE NATURIST CLUB involving a community of persons involved in a consensual nude lifestyle. One only has to read the strict rules and regulations applying to such PRIVATE clubs to see that the “code of conduct” expected of all members is very strict and that it is very strictly enforced. Prospective members are vetted very carefully and failure to comply with the code leads to cancellation of membership and loss of all privileges linked to the use of the private facilities and open spaces etc. Put simply: Naughty naturists are excommunicated and forced to explore their “quiet live-and-let-live philosophy elsewhere”.
Would you please enlighten us all on how the enforcement of such a “code of conduct” applies on a NON-PRIVATE – i.e PUBLIC beach. For example, how does it apply to the nude men – mainly elderly – who use the Kapiti Coast’s Peka Peka beach as a gay cruise/pick-up zone and who like the elderly gay lobbyist Craig Young, stridently assert in postings on gay lobby websites and elsewhere, that this beach is theirs as an “unofficial nude beach” for gay males to use as a pick-up cruise zone….. We ask again … Is this a position you endorse?
Joyce would you also please enlighten us all on the nature of the “code of conduct” you personaly comply to when you frequent the sand dunes of Peka Peka or similar “quiet live-and-let-live” environments. What you do do when the “code of conduct” of supposed “naturists” is not being adhered to in a PUBLIC place? Who is the authority figure you would report observed inappropriate and/or offensive behaviour to – such as that alluded to by Craig Young, involving homosexual men?
To Joyce, who wrote:
“I am sad to see that the DominionPost appears to favour “bodyphobic” and militant groups on the Kapiti Coast…”
We’ve had “homophobic” name-calling, now we have “bodyphobic” name-calling. Perhaps you should add “murderaphobic” on behalf of those poor souls who want the freedom to commit murder. And rapeophobic on behalf of those who want the pleasure of raping other people. And what about pedophileophobic on behalf of those poor pedophiles, in case they are offended.
Oh, those people I mentioned are different because their behavior is deleterious to their victims.
Really?
Well, I would suggest the same case could be made for your side’s behavior and its effect upon me, my kids, and other liberalphobe beach-goers.
Mike wrote:
“Babies and young children delight in being without clothes – why shouldn’t they? it is the most natural state. It is conditioning by parents and society, driven by powerful religions and corporate vested interests that creates the view of body shame and guilt, which in extreme circumstances creates dysfunctional people, a dysfunctional society and all the ensuing problems. To see the ultimate effects of this, just look at Islamic societies, their morals, customs and practices. Islam is the world’s ultimate anti-nudity society.”
Mike, babies also take delight in throwing food from their high-chair. Are you seriously wanting to derive rights and wrongs from the behavior of babies???
Next, what is our “natural state”? Let’s say for argument’s sake you believe humans arose through neo-Darwinian evolutionary processes. Then the “natural state” would be one of the fittest surviving and the weak being erased.
So let’s be consistent. We should all take our clothes off and be natural, then just let all our evo-historical baggage hang out while we get “natural” and rape and kill and trample the weak underfoot.
Is this really where you want your argument to go?
Ok, so you reject the survival-of-the-fittest model and want to argue from the Bible? Then why make such as bad case for your argument? Those who study the Bible extensively come to the opposite conclusion to you. Please name for me if you can even one Biblical scholar that advocates your “Eden-like” vision of nakedness.
Are you next going to advocate that clothes are optional in the workplace too? I mean, it is the most “natural state”. Just turn up the air-con temperature a few notches to make up for the climate change. And you could get rid of all the “corporate vested interests” who make clothes at the same time!
No Mike: your arguments are quite silly as I have shown. Biblically speaking, you are not more free because you would have clotheless days. Rather you are more depraved and immoral, proven by the desires of your sinful heart, as you have shown above.
Lest you think I am saying I am morally better than you, let me jump in first and iterate that I am not saying that. I too would like all restraints removed, but that would offend my Creator and insult Jesus Christ thru whose death I have forgiveness. Indeed, the wrath of God, due to me, a sinner, was directed towards Christ on the Cross, who received God’s punishment for my sin, in that he took my place (substitutionary atonement).
Re the posts from Rob and SPCS – crikey, where do I start…?
Firstly a private club can quite easily enforce its rules, in a confined space and with a few people. In public spaces we rely on the Police to do that job. Unfortunately they are too few in number to be everywhere at once. Hence people get away with things that they shouldn’t. Now, most genuine nudists have as much of a problem with the offensive and irresponsible public behaviour of SOME gay men as you do. It is their behaviour, not the fact that they are gay. Not all gay men engage in sexual activity in public. There are also many gay women – but they do not go ‘cruising’. We are talking about a small minority of irresponsible and inconsiderate people and we should expect the law to deal with them. Some people drink and then drive cars, boy racers drive cars irresponsibly, others drive at dangerous speeds, but we do not ban all motorists because of these. Some people use knives to attack others but we do not ban all knives. There are too many other similar comparisons to mention, but you get the point (no pun intended).
To Rob’s comments about “…..murderaphobic” on behalf of those poor souls who want the freedom to commit murder. And rapeophobic on behalf of those who want the pleasure of raping other people. And what about pedophileophobic on behalf of those poor pedophiles…..” All of these groups have one thing in common; they kill, injure or abuse other people. What exactly does a nudist DO to other people? Which is not the same as ‘what exactly does a nudist LOOK LIKE to other people?’ Rob, this is the point that this whole debate simply boils down to; that the appearance of someone is not to your liking and therefore must be banned simply because of that.
To [Rob’s] comments about babies misses my point. My point was about the instincts that they are born with, not the skills that they may or may not have: – they crawl instead of walk, they gurgle instead of talk, etc, etc. Of course we do not remain at the level of babies nor would we want to derive our behaviour from them. My point was and still is that in common with all other creatures, humans are not born with guilt or shame about their bodies, it is not a skill that is learned, it is an attitude that is instilled into them.
To the comment ‘….Then the “natural state” would be one of the fittest surviving and the weak being erased.’ I suggest that you address that one to the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and most of Africa. Today I read a news report that started: ‘Rich governments and corporations are triggering alarm for the poor as they buy up the rights to millions of hectares of agricultural land in developing countries in an effort to secure their own long-term food supplies…….’
No nudist would ever advocate nudity in the business workplace – but they equally wouldn’t advocate wearing bathing costumes or wetsuits either. However it is common practice for miners working deep underground to work naked – due to the temperature.
I would not enter into a debate with a biblical scholar about nudity on beaches. Perhaps you could get a biblical scholar to direct me to where the Bible says “Thou shalt not go naked on beaches.”
Mike wrote:
“What exactly does a nudist DO to other people? Which is not the same as ‘what exactly does a nudist LOOK LIKE to other people?’ Rob, this is the point that this whole debate simply boils down to; that the appearance of someone is not to your liking and therefore must be banned simply because of that.”
Mike, I am trying to answer your question, but I cannot make sense of it. What does it matter what it does to other people? Are you using this as a measure of rightness or wrongness of an action?
If this is the case, then is there ANY action that would fail your test? I mean, why stop at nudity? Why not encourage public sex of all kinds? Why not have state-sponsored public “temple prostitutes” — they could share facilities with the public library in each area, and think of the educational benefits for kids! Why discourage kids from swearing at school and in their everyday language? I mean, what does this DO to other people? After a few years, we will all get used to it, won’t we?
Rob wrote: “Mike, I am trying to answer your question, but I cannot make sense of it. What does it matter what it does to other people? Are you using this as a measure of rightness or wrongness of an action? “
Rob, the answer is in my first post, in response to B. J. Whittaker, in which I expressed the difference between actions and a state of being. You took exception to this in your response, but it remains at the heart of the argument. Swearing, sex, etc are just two activities that you mentioned (there are many more of course), which are objectionable in public whether or not clothes are being worn at the time. Nudity is irrelevant to whether or not they are objectionable.
If certain activities are legal and acceptable on a beach whilst wearing swimming costumes (swimming, sunbathing, reading a book) then being nude whilst doing these does not change the activity. So why does being nude change these same activities into something wrong? To answer my own question; of course it does not make the activities themselves wrong. Where the problem exists is in the minds of people who have a mindset that equates nudity as shocking, sinful etc, etc. So any activity undertaken whilst nude (whether legal or illegal) therefore becomes shocking and sinful. This is the reason that all the contributions from the anti-lobby always come down to the equating the behaviour of the responsible naturists (who just want to enjoy sunbathing, swimming and reading) with the behaviour of the deviants who set out to offend others with blatant sexual activity.
There is no getting around this fundamental point, either from my side or from yours and there can be no progress in the debate, only circular arguments, as we have seen in the exchanges so far. The only thing I can suggest is that you abandon the trivial pursuit of naturists and instead use exactly the same logic much more productively and usefully to campaign to ban all private motoring on the grounds that it will eliminate deaths and injury caused by deviant behaviour such as drink-driving, boy-racing, speeding etc. Beach nudity has never killed anyone; cars in the hands of deviant private motorists kill and maim people every single day.
After that, you can again use the same logic to campaign to ban all knives from every household on the grounds that some deviant people use them for deviant behaviour such as stabbing, fighting and mugging.
Think how many lives you could save, Rob…..
Rob said: “Ok, so you reject the survival-of-the-fittest model and want to argue from the Bible? Then why make such as bad case for your argument? Those who study the Bible extensively come to the opposite conclusion to you. Please name for me if you can even one Biblical scholar that advocates your “Eden-like” vision of nakedness.”
You might want to check out these two christian websites Rob:
http://www.naturist-christians.org/
http://www.figleafforum.com/
It’s interesting that the anti-nudity side of the argument consistently fails to distinguish between behaviour and state of being. They keep drawing comparisons between bad behaviour which we don’t tolerate and have laws against, and a state of being such as being nude. That’s comparing apples and oranges.
SPCS wrote “What about those who enjoy being lonely, depressed, “high”, sexually aroused etc. Are these not all “states of being” too? Do we need lobby groups advocating all these “states of being” to make submissions to Council advocating by-laws safeguarding their “states of being” – interests?”
There are no laws against being depressed, lonely, or sexually aroused. I’m not 100% sure, but there’s probably also no law against being “high”. (But the law says it’s illegal to possess certain drugs and drug equipment or to buy or sell certain drugs.) So these states of being are not prohibited in law, so why should being nude be prohibited?
Rob wrote to Mike:
“you are more depraved and immoral, proven by the desires of your sinful heart, as you have shown above.”
Why make such accusations against Mike? Have you run out of arguments that you are calling him depraved, immoral, and sinful? The bible does not actually speak against nudity. Study the two websites I listed in my previous post.
How “honouring” is it to God that you call the work of his hands OFFENSIVE?
Just after God had made Adam and Eve, and they were wandering in the Garden of Eden stark naked, God pronounced it VERY GOOD. And you disagree?
Is it going to warp children’s minds to see a topless woman? Of course not, but some well-meaning Christians will try to tell you that. If that was the case, why would God design the body so that infants are fed from those breasts? Notice too that, in the story where David is watching Bathsheba take a bath on her rooftop, it is David who is chastised by God. David’s ACTION was the problem. Not Bathsheba’s nudeness. Not David seeing her nude. Not David enjoying the sight. Not even David cracking a woody (our bodies were designed to respond that way). None of these are actually wrong. But when David decided he wanted her (began lusting for her) and had her summoned, THAT is where he entered into sin.
Nudity does not equal sin.
Henry you naively ask – “why should being nude be prohibited?” Surely you are not going to ask next “why should being a user of obscene language be prohibited?” or “why should being a person who makes nasty threats be prohibited?” Offences committed involving the use of threatening and/or obscene
language are dealt with under the Summary Offences Act 1981.
Are you not aware that streakers are regularly charged for causing offences in public places for being nude? When did you last hear of a Kapiti District Coast Councillor carrying out his or her daily duties in the nude in Council buildings? Of course they are perfectly at liberty to do so in their own homes or their private backyards.
We obviously don’t have laws stating: “Thou shalt not be nude in a public cinema, parliament buildings etc.”…. (the list would be endless!).
We have relevant sections in the Summary Offences Act (1981) — ss 4 & 27 – that act as a catch-all for all possible offences committed on public land, venues, facilities etc. involving “indecent exposure” and “offensive behaviour”.
Henry, why on earth haven’t you yet grasped that there is a law in New Zealand
under which one can be convicted and sentenced for the offence caused to others – for being nude in a public place? Have you not read our submission to the Kapiti District Council (posted above) which quotes the law involving the offence of indecent exposure.
Section 27 “Indecent Exposure” (of the Summary Offences Act 1981):
(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.
Section 27 does not distinguish between what you call “behaviour” undertaken in the nude and the “state of being” nude. Why then should SPCS make such a distinction that you claim is so important and demand we make? Arguing about whether being in a state of nudity in a public place constitutes a form of behaviour per se, is pointless when addressing the facts of a case (an alleged offence) that may form the basis of a conviction under s, 27.
The intentional exposure of a person’s genitals in a public place can cause offence to others and it is the nature of such exposure that constitutes it as “indecent”. (Please note the word “indecent” qualifies the word “exposure”, confirming that the law recognises degrees of potentially offensive exposure).
Other degrees of exposure not involving exposure of genitals cannot be deemed to constitute “indecent exposure”. Such forms of limited exposure (e.g. topless
women rubbing themselves up against law enforcement officers at a public
protest) may be deemed to be offensive in certain circumstances, but they CANNOT be deemed to be “INDECENT exposure” unless they involve genital exposure.
A person charged under s. 27 does not have to perform an “indecent” act or carry out “indecent” behaviour to be convicted under s. 27. They only need to be in a state of nudity such that their genitals are visible in a public place (see above). We repeat: It is the degree of exposure or display of the nude human form, and the context, time and circumstances of this exposure, that constitutes it ‘indecent”.
SPCS is not ant-nudity per se. It is not opposed to people joining naturist clubs. SPCS does not consider people sinful, immoral or depraved because they belong to naturist clubs and enjoy the outdoors in the nude. It affirms the right of
every faith-based religion or philosophy to celebrate sex, the nude human form, love-making, procreation, etc etc. – and acknowledges the wonder of the human being made in the image of the Divine. It seeks to promote those values that would enhance the fuller enjoyment of all the above in a manner that promotes the public good.
SPCS members have much in common with Mike Ward and Joyce Fleming. Any of you on for a game of nude jelly wrestling on ice under the stars on Kapiti Coast? We can assure you Henry it is not sinful and we don’t want you videotaping the event so you can report on us to Kapiti Concillors and accuse us of double standards.
Like you Henry, SPCS recognises the corrupting nature of human behaviour involving sexual perversions, infidelity, prostitution, paedophilia etc. The censorship laws recognise the injurious nature of content that promotes and supports such sexual content when viewed by children and young persons and adults. They do not refer to “lust” or “sin” as you do or require a theology based on Genesis to explain themselves as you do
Regarding the possibility of being found guilty under the Summary Offences Act, the key words are “deliberately and obscenely.” There are people of integrity who believe in the health benefits of all-over sun and air and sea bathing. Why should they pay hundreds of dollars to join an enclosed club when the best things in life are free? There is no reason why those who choose to go skinnydipping once in a while should even be given a label (such as nudist). They are not out to offend anyone, therefore they normally choose a quiet part of any beach. Surely there is room on New Zealand’s 15,000 metres of coastline for people of differing beliefs to co-exist. To signpost certain areas of beach would not be good insofar as it could attract undesirables and voyeurs. Bona fide naturists, “clothing-optional” and people of like mind should join the organisation Free Beaches Incorporated in order to protect their rights. Definitely no obscenity allowed!!