The W
Views: 97614836
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.14 1842
The W - Random - In Canada, one is not considered naked if only wearing shoes
This thread has 24 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(3539 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








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

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
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.



Jerry "The King" Lawler rhymes with ass and hearing him rant like a 12 year old makes me all shades of angry. Every last shade.
That's just my 2.453 Yen.
R-D-Z
Promote this thread!
J. Kyle
Boudin blanc








Since: 21.2.02
From: The Land of Aloha

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on
Jkyle.com says:

Legal nudity, legalizing weed, it's gonna be martial law up there soon...




IC Contender! Now can you dig THAT?


"When I have children I'll do as much to encourage them to read as possible.
You know, like hit them if they don't." Douglas Adams

"Parents.WWE.com posted a warning about Smackdown’s show and the issue of “same sex” relationships. The country can handle the President of the United States getting his pecker sucked from a whore half his age but 2 grown men pretending to get married is wrong. Right on." Flea

Scar
Goetta








Since: 2.1.02
From: NS, Canada

Since last post: 1401 days
Last activity: 1057 days
#3 Posted on
They should of atleast worn fishnet shirts.



Back to School.
witeoutaddict
Cotechino








Since: 25.7.02
From: a more brightly colored message board

Since last post: 3572 days
Last activity: 3568 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on
Canada. Pretty crazy, eh?



I SWEAR TO DRUNK I'M NOT GOD!
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








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

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
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.




Jerry "The King" Lawler rhymes with ass and hearing him rant like a 12 year old makes me all shades of angry. Every last shade.
That's just my 2.453 Yen.
R-D-Z
SerWolfe
Landjager








Since: 11.1.02
From: st louis

Since last post: 4121 days
Last activity: 4121 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
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.





Screw the strike date! Go Cardinals!
chazerizer
Italian








Since: 11.7.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4299 days
Last activity: 755 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on

    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.



Marty doesn't need surgery. This is a great day. I almost feel like I can say, I don't care that the Steelers lost. Again.

Steelers 0-2
Penguins 0-0-0-0
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3814 days
Last activity: 3782 days
#8 Posted on
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?



Our first act is to legalize marijuana. The tyranny and the bullshit's gone on too long!
Pages: 1Thread ahead: The UK's Big One
Next thread: New Fox Shows
Previous thread: LOTR Humor
(3539 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Wait a year. In a year, 42" LCD's should be starting around $1000 if not less. HDMI 1.3 should be widely available, which will be significant when you start looking at either HD-DVD or Blu-ray down the road.
- Mr Heel II, Help me find a new TV (2006)
The W - Random - In Canada, one is not considered naked if only wearing shoesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.153 seconds.