When I took part in a coastal walk with some fellow naturists, the police turned out in force - and some brought their prejudices with them.
What we are and what we do are quite different. We are what we are, and the law tends to protect our indisputable attributes from abuse. What we do, however, is what, in the main, we choose to do, and the law protects others from our more threatening and downright dangerous acts.
What we all are is unavoidable: naked apes. Yet we choose to clothe ourselves, and then judge states of dress and undress as if they were acts. What clothing we wear is, of course, a matter of choice and often makes a statement about the wearer. In this, as in many areas, each society has its norms and generally people abide by them. But sometimes norms are built on habits, habits can be questioned, and the habit of teaching human beings that their bodies are shameful is surely pernicious. So if a dress convention seems unnecessarily restrictive, why not break with it while in peaceful and well-intentioned activity pursued for reasons that seem good and in situations where, on consideration, no one will be harmed?
When British Naturism (slogan: "Nothing's better") chose the Marine Conservation Society as its charity of the year, it envisaged its supporters getting sponsorship for walking parts of the British coastline for the MCS's Coastal Challenge appeal. And, if conditions were suitable, no doubt naturists would want to walk with fewer clothes than most. Some of us rose to this challenge in Dorset this summer.
The south-west coast path between Swanage and Lulworth runs along a spectacular stretch of cliffs, including many steep rises and falls between beaches and abandoned seashore quarries (where the Purbeck stone of Westminster comes from). In any conditions, the walk is marvellous, and on June 2 the weather was warm and sunny. About 15 of us (and a dog) assembled at the start - but, wait, why all these police officers?
The walk's organiser had advised Dorset police of our plans principally so that, should any member of the public ring them to report the unusual sight of several walkers naked between rucksack and socks, then the boys in blue could reassure them that it was known about and broke no law. Unfortunately the police took the view that the public would be so distressed by us that they mounted Operation Thistle to chaperone the walk (boys and girls now in yellow) with vehicles and changes of shift along the route. Officers videoed us, ordered us to don clothes on a whim, approached passers-by to solicit "complaints" and even arrested one of us for not obeying an order to dress.
The charge was under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which police now use as a catch-all for behaviour they don't like by calling it disorderly, and was dropped when the CPS realised there was no evidential support. Submissions are being made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and Dorset taxpayers can take a view on whether police resources were spent wisely.
So what do I take from this? That some police apply their personal prejudices when defining acceptable behaviour, and are prepared to go to extreme lengths to frighten unconventional people. As counterexamples, I would cite police assistance in both Spencer Tunick's mass nude photo shoots and in the annual event of the World Naked Bike Ride (which hundreds of riders attended in central London this summer).
I'll let Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the former home secretary, have the last word: "If you want to stop people doing something which they enjoy doing, which they believe is within their liberty of action, then you've got to have an overwhelming social case. If you're going to stop them, you shouldn't do it out of prejudice or out of habit, but only because you can show that a definite social evil results."
Guardian.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment