Four Year Old Nude - WOW - We have a long Way To Go
See this story. What a sad state of affairs. I suspect that it is the minority of people that think this way but how does it get the attention of the police?https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/neighbour-calls-cops-over-naked-four-year-old-in-squamish-yard/ar-BBiN0m8?ocid=AARDHP
See this story. What a sad state of affairs. I suspect that it is the minority of people that think this way but how does it get the attention of the police?https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/neighbour-calls-cops-over-naked-four-year-old-in-squamish-yard/ar-BBiN0m8?ocid=AARDHP
Just read the story.
Its truly pathetic that such a ruckus was made of a 4 year old boy playing with his brother whilst he was nude.
Some people really need to get a life and leave others to live theirs without suffering such indignation and humiliation.
When I lived closer to the beach than I do now it was great to take my kids and watch them play naked in the sand and waves on textile beaches often with other nude kids too. The more civilized we become more pragmatic of things that are normal and natural.
I wonder if who ever called the cops in the above situation was ever asked WHY?
In these types of stories, even though no crime has been committed, things are reported as "facts" to hype the drama and cause distress to those involved. If there was no criminal activity, why was it reported as such? At least that is what was inferred. One glaring error of omission in these stories is they always protect the real guilty party, the person who reported the incident to the police. There is much merit in protecting the witness to a crime, but when the witness reports something where no crime has occurred, that can be called harassment. We can't fault the police for responding, for they would be negligent if they didn't, but the guilty party needs to be revealed so people might know who is trying to degrade and insult them. Then, depending upon the circumstances, the parties who were harmed may have a remedy available to them.
The "unwritten rule" is that it is OK, in fact amusing even, if young kids romp nude. But around 5/6 that all changes.
What this busybody is doing is pushing back what is assumed to be OK at 4 years of age and make other parents 'think twice' before allowing their kids to romp nude in public.
No law was broken, no unwritten rule is broken, but the end result is a lot more parents will prevent their kids from being nude in public to avoid the possibility they may end up in a silly news story. The rule i this city at least may now be 2 years or younger.
The puritan busybody may have lost this battle but wins the war of the public through fear of being accused and what is considered 'normal' is changed.