The W
Views: 101546180
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.07 1111
The 7 - Random - In Canada, one is not considered naked if only wearing shoes
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(3171 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 982/5237
EXP: 26083691
For next: 340999

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#1 Posted on 21.9.02 1843.50
Reposted on: 21.9.09 1843.54
Click Here

appariently, in Canada, they have this wacky law where one is nude ONLY if one is wearing nothing. NOTHING. Once one puts something on, anything, a hat, a sash, shoes, one is considered not naked.

There was a Gay Pride march, and these men, wearing shoes were upset that they were arrested for public nudiety. they were appaled that someone would conisder wearing only shoes being indecent.

a snippit:

"The law is very straightforward if someone is absolutely and completely bereft of clothing...however things become a little more complicated if there is a scrap of apparel anywhere on the body and the Crown has to show that the person is indecently clad which gets into what the current Canadian legal test is for indecency," he said.

"Because everyone wore at least footwear the Crown had to prove indecency and it couldn't."

Simm said his clients, two of them visitors from Texas, were relieved at the decision but upset that they were arrested in the first place


----

"INDECENTLY CLAD" the shoes were decent clothing, therefore they men were decently clad. very logical thinking. but on the other side of the coin, being "Tackle out" would be indecent.

very interesting ruling, and another part of canadian law that i didn't know.
Promote this thread!
J. Kyle
Boudin blanc
Level: 93

Posts: 472/2392
EXP: 8009079
For next: 43761

Since: 21.2.02
From: The Land of Aloha

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 15 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 21.9.02 2035.03
Reposted on: 21.9.09 2038.06
Legal nudity, legalizing weed, it's gonna be martial law up there soon...
Scar
Goetta
Level: 39

Posts: 196/313
EXP: 381107
For next: 23668

Since: 2.1.02
From: NS, Canada

Since last post: 1553 days
Last activity: 1209 days
#3 Posted on 21.9.02 2105.27
Reposted on: 21.9.09 2110.06
They should of atleast worn fishnet shirts.
witeoutaddict
Cotechino
Level: 21

Posts: 46/81
EXP: 49081
For next: 863

Since: 25.7.02
From: a more brightly colored message board

Since last post: 3724 days
Last activity: 3719 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 22.9.02 1030.11
Reposted on: 22.9.09 1030.22
Canada. Pretty crazy, eh?
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 984/5237
EXP: 26083691
For next: 340999

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#5 Posted on 22.9.02 1319.47
Reposted on: 22.9.09 1320.04
on an unrelated (sorta) note, i just saw on the CNN headline news ticker that in Washington STATE, a judge ruled that it it legal to film up women's skirts.

i know that in the Girls Gone Wild case, the women were willing to disrobe themselves in front of cameras and video cameras and for them to cry foul was silly. But the women getting peepers upskirt has to be an invasion of privacy.

i'm curious to see the wording of the ruling and what the basis is. i'm betting the position is that if the women didn't want to get filmed upskirt, they shouldn't wear a skirt. *sigh*

this is just like a Maryland judge that admonished a young girl for getting sexually assulted because "It takes two to tango."

Direct Quote.
SerWolfe
Landjager
Level: 63

Posts: 939/955
EXP: 2029282
For next: 67881

Since: 11.1.02
From: st louis

Since last post: 4273 days
Last activity: 4273 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 22.9.02 1345.24
Reposted on: 22.9.09 1352.15
Blah. People are complete morons. And to have people that think this way writing laws and interpreting laws is ridiculous.

Next... lets let people stick their cameras in windows and film people in their own house.... "if they don't want that to happen they wouldnt have windows".

The worse thing is i can see that as a reason for someone to be allowed to do it.

chazerizer
Italian
Level: 35

Posts: 231/242
EXP: 253859
For next: 26079

Since: 11.7.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4450 days
Last activity: 907 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 22.9.02 1436.38
Reposted on: 22.9.09 1437.36

    Originally posted by rikidozan
    on an unrelated (sorta) note, i just saw on the CNN headline news ticker that in Washington STATE, a judge ruled that it it legal to film up women's skirts.

    i know that in the Girls Gone Wild case, the women were willing to disrobe themselves in front of cameras and video cameras and for them to cry foul was silly. But the women getting peepers upskirt has to be an invasion of privacy.

    i'm curious to see the wording of the ruling and what the basis is. i'm betting the position is that if the women didn't want to get filmed upskirt, they shouldn't wear a skirt. *sigh*

    this is just like a Maryland judge that admonished a young girl for getting sexually assulted because "It takes two to tango."

    Direct Quote.



Wow. That is some fucked up shit.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 334/1008
EXP: 2161381
For next: 52728

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3965 days
Last activity: 3934 days
#8 Posted on 22.9.02 1909.38
Reposted on: 22.9.09 1911.42
I wonder if there is also a law that says if I am in Washington State and my girlfriend/wife/good female friend/female family member/ etc. has some pervert film up her skirt I am allowed to kick his ass?
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: The UK's Big One
Next thread: New Fox Shows
Previous thread: LOTR Humor
(3171 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Random - In Canada, one is not considered naked if only wearing shoesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.231 seconds.