It seems that in Canada, mere nudity is unconstitutional (section 174 criminalizes mere nudity, section 173 deals with indecent acts). Because of this law, Mr. Brian Coldin has been charged with several counts of nudity in the Bracebridge area. Mr. Coldin admitted to regularly walking in the parkland adjoining his property while wearing only sandals. His lawyer, Clayton Ruby, is planning a constitutional challenge to section 174.
Karen Grant, President of the Federation of Canadian Naturists, declared the organizations' support for decriminalizing mere nudity. "It is ridiculous that the simple exposure of our natural body could result in a criminal charge" said Ms. Grant. "Casual nudity should not be in the same league as theft, robbery, assault and murder."
On the 3rd day of the Coldin trial, Dr. Ronal Langevin testified that adults or children who are exposed to nudity do not suffer any psychological harm and added that nudity is generally well accepted in society. Dr. Langevin was also very specific that nudism/naturism is not exhibitionism.
You can read more about this story at CNW.
1 comment:
"It is ridiculous that the simple exposure of our natural body could result in a criminal charge. Casual nudity should not be in the same league as theft, robbery, assault and murder."
It shouldn't even be in the same league as parking tickets.
Post a Comment