Canada: Nude Beach Comfort Levels Reveal Canadians' Stance On Beach Nudity

[Danee]

For some Canadians, the beach is the go-to place for soaking up the sun or sculpting some sandcastles, but for a certain part of the population it's just another place to get naked.


The latest findings come courtesy of Expedia's Flip Flop Report which was released earlier this week. The survey found that 30 per cent of Canadians say they're “comfortable” with topless or full nudity, higher than the global average of 23 per cent. Another 29 per cent of Canadian respondents said they were indifferent with the idea, while another quarter of respondents said the concept made them uncomfortable.


Expedia's online study polled over 8,600 respondents across Europe, Asia and North America who had visited a beach this year or were planning to in the next 12 months. Overall, European beach-goers were the most comfortable with toplessness at the beach, while Indian beach-goers were the most turned off by the idea with 41 per cent of respondents saying they were "uncomfortable" with the idea.


But as anyone who has visited a nude beach can attest, watching naked people at the beach and being naked at the beach are two very different things.


When it comes to participation, 15 per cent of Canadian respondents said they've sunbathed topless, nearly twice as likely to (or at least admitting to) going nude at the beach than Americans.


Still, neither Americans nor Canadians could dethrone Germans as the nude-beach-going kings. This year's study found that 17 per cent of German beach-goers have gone naked at the beach, up two per cent from 2012.


Of course, as a gentle reminder for everyone, it's technically illegal to be nude in a public place or dress in a matter that would offend public decency in Canada, though there are a few clothing-optional beaches in the country that are secluded enough for beach-goers to get naked without offending other patrons.


From: [size=78%]http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/19/topless-beach-comfort-level_n_3624213.html[/size]

[Dan]

Of course, as a gentle reminder for everyone, it's technically illegal to be nude in a public place or dress in a matter that would offend public decency in Canada, though there are a few clothing-optional beaches in the country that are secluded enough for beach-goers to get naked without offending other patrons.

It's technically ambiguous through weasly worded laws, not outright illegal. Same as the US.

Toplessness has court precedents in favour on constitutional grounds.

[AElf]

The Criminal Code of Canada states:

Section 174. Nudity
174. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,
(a) is nude in a public place, or
(b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Nude
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.
Consent of Attorney General
(3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 170

The actual purposes of this badly worded law were political and had, in the first instance, nothing to do with anything sexual.  The law was enacted in 1932 as a means of curbing nude protest marches by the Doukhobors, a religious sect whose communitarian ways smacked too strongly of communism and anarchy to a worried government, and whose extremists were bombing railways and schools.

Okay, now fast forward to the present in which nude celebrants/protesters march naked unmolested in Gay Pride events and sundry other protesters bicycle naked in local WNBR events.  Both of these events are coordinated with local authorities and pass without arrests unless there are extraordinary events involved.  In the same vein, right now the best free beaches in Canada are mostly within national and provincial parks . . . what does that tell you?

Somehow, between the enactment of the law and the present day the original intent of political control within the law has been lost and a bunch of fussbudgets have re-cast it as a bulwark against nudity qua nudity.  It is this disconnect between the intent of the law and the current reality that will eventually provide some clever lawyers with the argument necessary to have the law struck down.  Having the law struck down might be fairly easy if the proper amount of effort is a applied to the right place . . . a matter of leverage, I think. 

Please note that the definition of nude is terribly loose but that it makes no mention of boobs & bits.

[Delta]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.

Does that mean that people who do not offend with their state of dress are legally clothed? Or does it even mean that not being clad at all means public nudity laws do not apply at all?

[Dan]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.

Does that mean that people who do not offend with their state of dress are legally clothed? Or does it even mean that not being clad at all means public nudity laws do not apply at all?

Law frequently redefines words to make them unambiguous in context. It's meant so that you don't interpret based on the colloquial meaning so you can't make the link to clothed you did because it's not part of the definition.

[Delta]

Unless the law specifies the state of being clothed somewhere else, calling it clothed hardly matters as long as you are not legally considered nude.

[AElf]

Unless the law specifies the state of being clothed somewhere else, calling it clothed hardly matters as long as you are not legally considered nude.

I doubt that the powers have given it much thought but if I was to give the situation its most nefarious interpretation I would suggest that the law is worded the way that it is so that it can be applied where the powers wish to apply it and ignored where the powers wish to ignore it.

[ToneBender]

I doubt that the powers have given it much thought but if I was to give the situation its most nefarious interpretation I would suggest that the law is worded the way that it is so that it can be applied where the powers wish to apply it and ignored where the powers wish to ignore it.

I've seen that before where legislators balk at the responsibility of actually sorting through all the issues (usually for popularity reasons) and instead leave things to get sorted out by individuals and the courts (case law). It's a lame and transparent tactic IMO.

The italicization of your post went sideways because the end slashes are backwards.

[AElf]

The italicization of your post went sideways because the end slashes are backwards.

By the great steaming balls of Beelzebub . . . I hadn't noticed, just posted and moved on.  Thank you.

[ralff37]

I have never been, but is there still a nude beach on Toronto Island?  You would have to get there by ferry, but it is a public beach.