Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

to think this man is not a criminal?

163 replies

AtYourCervix · 24/08/2011 18:37

Who actually cares enough to send this chap to prison? Why? Is he dangerous? Is he disgusting? Is he a criminal? here

OP posts:

luweewu · 24/08/2011 23:59

FFS ILoveTIFFANY how in any was was he "disturbing the peace" , he might have offended some people , but he was naked , in no way violent .

What right have you to dictate what people wear?

GypsyMoth · 25/08/2011 00:01

he was arrested for breach of the peace,thats why

GypsyMoth · 25/08/2011 00:01

BOP doesnt have to be 'violent' either......

luweewu · 25/08/2011 00:09

The man was PEACEFULLY protesting against a law he feels is injust .

From history , and before you say its not as important , i know it isnt but

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Blueberties · 25/08/2011 00:12

it's not protesting, it's breaking

you don't call a thief someone who was protesting against the law of theft

you just kinda call them a thief

hth

Blueberties · 25/08/2011 00:13

luweewu is having a bit of fun with us all I think

GypsyMoth · 25/08/2011 00:16

lol i agree blueberties!!!

luweewu · 25/08/2011 00:18

Argh, no I am not having fun , I HATE having the majority view being accepted as gospel , again I'll link this , this was illegal ,the law can be an ass

On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks, age 42, refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Parks' action was not the first of its kind to impact the civil rights issue, and there had been others, including Lizzie Jennings in 1854, Irene Morgan in 1946, Sarah Louise Keys in 1955 and Claudette Colvin, on the same bus system nine months before Parks, who had taken similar steps. But Parks' civil disobedience had the effect of sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

It was illegal for Rosa Parks to stand up for her civil rights.

luweewu · 25/08/2011 00:18

and a bit of fun too :P

Blueberties · 25/08/2011 00:27

Well that's very nice but being nude in public isn't a civil right. So there we are. Problem solved.

luweewu · 25/08/2011 00:30

and neither was drinking at a "white only" water fountain before people protested .

Your point?

Blueberties · 25/08/2011 00:35

I think you are mixing up human rights with civil rights? The protests were for civil rights, under the banner of human rights.

It's not a civil or a human right to be naked in public.

Rosa Parks' rights were not hers under the law at the time. However they were plainly her "rights" under the right to human equality.

It is not a civil right to be nude: but then neither is it a human right to do what you want however many people you upset and offend.

luweewu · 25/08/2011 00:45

Blueberties said

It's not a civil or a human right to be naked in public.

That is right for which he is protesting for, he should be allowed to protest such without the threat (very real in his case) of imprisonment.

Blueberties · 25/08/2011 00:57

Sweetie

Equality under the law would be a human right.

The right to upset and offend people by doing what you want wouldn't be considered a human right by that many people.

However, in the interests of fairness, this has been considered by democratically elected people under election laws governed by rules of equality who have decided there's something called public decency to be considered. Now that would mean a balance between the right and the responsibility. Rather in the way that the right to free speech is tempered.

Now you might in all seriousness consider public nudity to be equivalent to the stupendous pain and suffering enduring in the fight for some of the most basic human rights to be established in the face of the most profound cruelty and ignorance.

Most people might consider that view to be trite, demeaning, self-indulgent and without perspective.

GypsyMoth · 25/08/2011 01:09

So the recent riots sit ok with you too do they lueeelu? People doing as they wish for whatever their reasons?

luweewu · 25/08/2011 01:12

The Taliban decided that public decency demanded that all women "dress modestly"

How is your viewpoint different from theirs?

Men are allowed to go topless without recrimination in public.

Women have wardrobe malfunctions.

luweewu · 25/08/2011 01:13

So the recent riots sit ok with you too do they lueeelu? People doing as they wish for whatever their reasons?

FFS this guy is PEACEFULLY protesting , how on earth do u come up with that

GypsyMoth · 25/08/2011 07:04

Cos he actually could cause 'alarm or distress' to others!

All damaging isn't it!

LadyBeagleEyes · 25/08/2011 07:34

I wouldn't like to sit on his seat after he'd vacated it in a public place.
Eeew, think of his mucky bum and bodily fluids.
He must be freezing as well, what does he do in the winter?

GypsyMoth · 25/08/2011 07:36

In winter he probably forgets all about this nonsense and conveniently drops his 'cause' and wears clothes! Funny that! Funny how he also wears shoes.......

Nesbo · 25/08/2011 07:44

I think luweewu makes a reasonable point. People have been imprisoned and worse in some countries for not having a beard, not wearing a burqua or committing any one of a number of "offences" which upset the moral majority. Us liberal Westerners will often tut at the sidelines about how awful it must be to live in a repressive regime. Then when someone upsets our own sense of decency we throw them in prison and mock anyone who suggests that they should have a freedom we don't like even though it does nothing to harm us (unless you count the same feeling of "shock" a member of the Taliban might claim to feel upon seeing a woman's face in public).

It is so easy to adopt the rather lazy assumption that your beliefs, your morals are the right ones and that any deviation is weird, wrong or criminal. Cases like this are useful if only to remind us that not everyone shares the same views, and to make us examine just how liberal we really are with people who are different. Some cultures are far more relaxed about nudity, it seems this guy was unfortunate in being born into one that frankly gets a little hysterical about it.

Mitmoo · 25/08/2011 07:46

MightyQuim , I really dont think it's comparable in terms of importance , but the issues are the same , He is protesting (peacefully) against a law he thinks is unjust.

The analogy is ridiculous, one was protesting for a massive swathe of the population based on their race, the other just wants to strip off for himself and offend a massive swathe of the population.

10 years in jail is a stupid sentence but what can they do with him, he just won't adhere to the law. I think he must like it inside, I hope he doesn't drop the soap too much or perhaps he does and that's the attraction. Who knows.

I think he needs help rather than imprisoning but if he has been offered that help in prison and it hasn't worked what options are there left?

Thistledew · 25/08/2011 07:52

It is an interesting issue from a legal perspective.

Our criminal laws are for the main part divided into 'moral code' laws - don't steal, don't hit people etc- where the law will only go so far as to impose a prohibition. Ie, X is morally and socially repugnant, so if you do X we will punish you. For the most part there is a social consent that such behaviours should be prohibited.

The theory is that the law will only intervene to say what you should not do, not what you should do, ie, it will lock you up if you are abusive to someone, not if you fail to be nice to someone. It had no need to tell you what behaviours are socially expected, because society will do that itself. Ie, if you are not nice to people, society will impose it's own punishment in that you will lose friends.

The other category of laws are based on health and safety or are necessary for the functioning of society - wear your seatbelt, wear a helmet when you are on a motorbike, pay your taxes. It is only in such cases that the law feels it necessary to step in and proscribe behaviour, on the threat of punishment if you don't comply.

The problem with the offence of outraging public decency (when it is used to punish behaviours that do not fit elsewhere into a criminal offence) is that a) as this thread shows, there is seldom consensus as to what people are outraged by; and b) in this case it is used to proscribe behaviour.

We are all naked in our natural state. There is no real agreement as to how much clothing we have to wear in order to be 'decent'. Some people are offended at seeing a naked body out of a context in which they are accustomed to do so, some people aren't. Even those who are offended are not actually harmed, in the sense that it does not affect their own physical integrity or prevent them from living their lives as they would wish. They are not left with any lasting fear or distress (other than temporary social discomfort).

The law does not generally intervene when we are offended - ie my friend told me I lazy at housework - because it is not seen as being serious enough for the law to intervene. It is something that can be dealt with by my never inviting her to my house again.

The law of outraging public decency is an old one, and it is an anomaly in that it is used to proscribe a moral code in a way that the criminal law does not normally intervene. That is why it is so problematic.

Nesbo · 25/08/2011 07:52

Can't see the need for the homosexual non sequitur?

Nesbo · 25/08/2011 07:54

Good post thistledew.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7