Everybody has a right to a safe beach - even if you are naked
Everybody has a right to a safe beach - even if you are naked, and even if nudity is not legal where you are.
I am wondering whether there is any substance in this statement, and if anybody in here with legal experience can add to this view.
From an access point of view, beaches are difficult to create the right kind of access for all people including those with mobility issues. Increasingly you will see disabled access being provided at beaches and its because those local governments with 'ownership' of the beach understand the rights of the human enshrined by the UN.
Local governments also understand the duty of care for beach goers, and provide hazard warnings and Life Guard patrols. Sure the beach goer may defy these instructions and take peril at their own risk, but at least for beaches where the bathers are clothed these things are in place.
This basis local governments comprehend their need to meet the rights of the human and their own duty of care.
So why is that legal clothing optional beaches remain without these matters undertaken? Why is it that clothing optional beaches for the most part are difficult to access and in many cases isolated?
When the debate over a beach being either to remain clothing optional or to become clothing optional arises, we get many reminders of the lewd acts at these beaches and the fact that most women feel unsafe. Why is it that local governments do not understand their complicity in this situation and why these beaches are unsafe?
Gunnison has lifeguards and ranger patrols.
While it is a long walk from the parking lot to the beach, there is a mat most of the way to make it easier for people with mobility issues to get there.
Could you elaborate on why you consider a safe beach to be a right?
Here in Australia your right to be safe anywhere is enshrined in law. Be that health and safety or via our constitution that defaults to the UN human rights.
I'd pose the opposite question; why would one believe that they don't have a right to be safe at a beach?
My proposition here is that just because you're breaking a law regarding nudity why does that extinguish all your other rights?
Why is it that clothing optional beaches for the most part are difficult to access and in many cases isolated?
Because such beaches are less likely to be visited by clothed people who cause problems with their narrow minded attitudes. Nudists have an incentive to get to them. Basically, any quiet isolated beach in Australia can be used as a nude beach.
Until mainstream society can get over its phobia about nudity (which is not going to happen), it's the way it will always be.
Why is it that clothing optional beaches for the most part are difficult to access and in many cases isolated?Because such beaches are less likely to be visited by clothed people who cause problems with their narrow minded attitudes. Nudists have an incentive to get to them. Basically, any quiet isolated beach in Australia can be used as a nude beach.Until mainstream society can get over its phobia about nudity (which is not going to happen), it's the way it will always be.
You're view of basically any isolated beach in Australia can be used as a nude beach is not so absurd. And lets face it, probably part of the joy of nude bathing and enjoying nature.
But those beaches are not my focus here. I am talking about the likes of Greys Lane, Samurai and Birdie in NSW or say an unofficial nude beach such as A-Bay here in QLD. They are not quiet isolated beaches, they are well known by the general public and as such they are:
All unpatrolled (so swimmers take uninformed risks of swimming)
Birdie is pushed to the end closest to the rocks
Samurai is the same at the southern end, and don't even start to talk about the access unless you own a 4WD (walking in can be unsafe)
Samurai and A-Bay both virtually inaccessible for those with mobility issues and so is Birdie
But above all, at all three I have witnessed the deviates in the dunes.
There is no reason why these beaches can't have a patrol with Life Guards and the access improved.
IMHO Making our clothing optional beaches safer will attract more people and gain greater acceptance of nudism, and therefore start the ball rolling towards even greater acceptance in more locations.
I had heard that A Bay was considered too unsafe for swimming by the nearest SLSC.
As for isolation, Ive mentioned it in other posts on this website, but if the nudist beach was very public / accessible there probably wouldnt be any perverts in the dunes. Decades ago I went to a nude beach in Brighton, England, that was visible from the promenade - no-one was misbehaving there as everyone was very visible.
I had heard that A Bay was considered too unsafe for swimming by the nearest SLSC.As for isolation, Ive mentioned it in other posts on this website, but if the nudist beach was very public / accessible there probably wouldnt be any perverts in the dunes. Decades ago I went to a nude beach in Brighton, England, that was visible from the promenade - no-one was misbehaving there as everyone was very visible.
I have heard similar regarding A-Bay. I think many will argue that the stats defy this (ie drownings at A-Bay are uncommon). But is it that people really don't 'swim' there.
I know from my own experience at A-Bay that I have seen very few enter the water further than their knees. This includes myself as I can read the surf conditions and they never look suitably safe to me!
Either way even if you only mildly injury yourself at A-Bay its a long and winding walk back out.
I can also say that A-Bay I have experienced seeing a person on the coastal walkway with a telephoto lens and he appeared to be taking pics of people (nude) in the dunes.
I'd pose the opposite question; why would one believe that they don't have a right to be safe at a beach?
"Right" is a pretty strong word.
Beaches are nice, but visiting one is completely optional. Like many natural features, they have inherent dangers, and I question the need for all such features to be made safe for recreation.
I'd pose the opposite question; why would one believe that they don't have a right to be safe at a beach?"Right" is a pretty strong word.Beaches are nice, but visiting one is completely optional. Like many natural features, they have inherent dangers, and I question the need for all such features to be made safe for recreation.
Right is something that is derived at law (ie a point of law). In this regard, Australia is a very different landscape to the USA and many European nations. Our Constitution for example doesn't bestow rights on a specific basis such as the USA's First or Fifth Amendment (so here you don't have the right to bear arms, and nor can you not refuse to speak if charged [its more complex than that but that's the outcome]).
When it comes to safety, again the legal landscape here is one that has facets like other Nations but collectively is unique. It doesn't say that everything must be altered to be made safe, after all how could you alter the surf conditions to make them safer?
So what it does say and using this example is that if its unsafe it must be identified as such and potential users must be informed. That's the current practice/system with Surf Patrol flags and information boards, along with Life Guards on their patrol. But none of this is extended to areas of beaches that are clothing optional - not in any State that has legal clothing optional beaches.
In short, if you wish to swim at the safest place on any of our beaches you must be clothed is the outcome.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!