Naked jogging now legal!

December 1st, 2012 at 9:06 am by David Farrar

Blair Ensor at Stuff reports:

The right to go jogging in the nude has been upheld by the High Court.

Andrew Lyall Pointon, 47, was wearing only a pair of shoes when he was spotted by a woman while running at 8.30am in a forest near Tauranga in August last year.

The woman, who was walking her dog, was so offended and threatened by what she had seen that she vowed not to return to the Oropi Bike Park.

She should have just let her dog off the leash :-)

“If it was [offensive] then God wouldn’t have given us genitals,” Mr Pointon told The Dominion Post yesterday. “It is a win for all libertarians and a setback for all conservatives in the country.”

Wellingtonians can relax – I have no intention to follow this libertarian trend!

Justice Heath compared the case with the hypothetical scenario of two patched gang members strolling along the same track.

“It would not be surprising for a person in the position of the complainant to be concerned and discomforted by their presence, and even to feel threatened,” he said.

“However, on any view, their behaviour would not be regarded as offensive behaviour. Should the sight of a naked man, in the circumstances in which the complainant found herself, be treated any differently? I think not.”

I think the Judge is right.

Justice Heath said Mr Pointon was a genuine naturist who had chosen a time of day when it was unlikely children would be on the track.

Which indicates that running naked outside a school is still likely to land you in court.

Mr Pointon’s lawyer Michael Bott – a specialist in human rights and civil liberties – said he could not understand why women were able to ride naked down the main street of Tauranga during the Boobs on Bikes event without intervention and yet days later his client was arrested going about his business in a remote area: “It just appears inconsistent and grossly sexist.”

A fair point – however I thought the women in Boobs on Bikes were topless, not naked? Anyone able to confirm?

Mr McCoskrie said there was a time and a place for nakedness and it was not in a public place.

“It’s offensive to most of the population – that’s why most of us wear clothes.”

I thought it was because of the weather :-)

Tags:

45 Responses to “Naked jogging now legal!”

  1. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Wellingtonians can relax – I have no intention to follow this libertarian trend!

    You mean jogging??

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    “Mr Pointon was a genuine naturist” who “was wearing only a pair of shoes” – ah, how genuine is he if he wears shoes?

    That’s like saying a genuine vegan only eats chicken legs and fillet steaks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    You know, as a parent myself, I’m really getting sick and tired of McCrockoshite telling the rest of us what Families take umbrage at. For “families”, read wowser religious social conservative killjoy individuals who used to work as Radio Rhema talkback hosts and who don’t seem to regard lax alcohol availability or unregulated loansharking within impoverished communities as anywhere near as injurious as marriage equality, sex work or harmless nekkid joggers like this chap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    At least the jogger in question looks nice and fit :) !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (7,270 comments) says:

    “marriage equality”…the best piece of spin since “re-education” or even perhaps “the final solution”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (13,743 comments) says:

    Another exhibitionist. Yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    I suspect that Andrew Lyall Pointon is Luc Hansen in disguise, hehe!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    That’s my impression too Manolo, if I saw a jogger like that I’d roll my eyes and say “what a dick!”

    It also raises practical questions of things flopping around, and sun protection. Perhaps addressing one solves a third of the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kowtow (8,434 comments) says:

    If it’s OK to be nude and/or gang patched in the forest then I imagine the learned judge would have no problem with naked or patched men in his court………..

    I doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    “Which indicates that running naked outside a school is still likely to land you in court.”

    Using the logic stated by DPF and Justice Heath, does that mean two patched gang members strolling in front of a school is likely to land them in court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (8,434 comments) says:

    And as a parent myself I’m sick and tired of arses like chardongayballs being sick and tired of Bob Mc C. Afterall Bob’s entitled to an opinion too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Don’t get too excited DPF. Do us all a favour and keep your clothes on. You may get an unexpected visit from an even more excited FF!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    I support people’s ability to do what they want – as long as it doesn’t inflict on other’s rights.

    I believe we all have a right not to see some jogger’s bouncing penis and scrotum, and we have the right not to be around when he bends over to tie his shoes. Just like we have the right to not see a homeless man masturbating on Queen Street.

    The jogger can do this on private property all he wants. In a public park things are different. We can’t light fires in some national parks at certain times, we can’t chop down wood. He is free, but there are some rules he should have to follow.

    A male stranger’s genitals are considered offensive by most people. That’s why you’d be arrested for flashing your nuts at a bunch of women on their way to work.

    Can’t we agree that toplessness of women should be allowed anywhere – same with bottomlessness of women – but only young and attractive women? Men should only be allowed to be topless on the beach, and naked only in the privacy of their privately-owned land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    [Science Humuor]

    May be Mr. Pointon thought he was walking along Schrödinger’s forest, where in his mind he thought that he was naked and not naked (ie, being fully clothed) simultaneously in an indeterminate superposition state. An observer & her dog happened to go for a walk at the same forest observed Mr. Pointon in which Mr. Pointon’s (wave-function) state of clothing or nakedness has collapsed to only one outcome and that outcome was he found out to be naked. At the specific moment that Mr. Pointon was observed, he knew immediately that he was naked, but before he was observed by the woman and her dog, he thought the he was being fully clothed and naked simultaneously.

    If the woman had repeated her walk past the forest where Mr. Pointon was jogging ‘n’ times (say n=60) then she would have found out that Mr. Pointon was naked on 30 occasions and 30 fully clothed on other remaining trials. At the end, the woman would have very disturbed as to what she observed were a figment of her imagination or simply that’s how reality is supposed to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. berend (1,708 comments) says:

    What a day for freedom lovers, what a progress for humanity, now women may expect to encounter naked men when taking a stroll in the woods.

    Once there was a time when having clothes on was a sign of civilisation, but what a barbaric time that is considered now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    tristanb “Can’t we agree that toplessness of women should be allowed anywhere – same with bottomlessness of women – but only young and attractive women? ”

    Yes. Yes we can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. kowtow (8,434 comments) says:

    According to this article women may swim topless at pools in Sweden unless there’s a rule that men cover their nipples! Equality!
    Perhaps that’s why there’s so much rape there by Muslim immigrants.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100021481/swedens-insane-anti-discrimination-laws-have-created-a-generation-of-lost-women/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    kowtow – “And as a parent myself I’m sick and tired of arses like chardongayballs being sick and tired of Bob Mc C. Afterall Bob’s entitled to an opinion too.”

    Probably preaching to the converted but when the left say they support freedom of speech, that is lefty code for you are allowed to say what they agree with. Dissenting voices, such as FF and SST and old white guys are to be suppressed or, at least, ridiculed. Intelligent discussion about facts and opinions – not with a socialist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (8,434 comments) says:

    one track
    To be ridiculed…..yep that’s the tactic. And it’s a constant theme. Particularly with the media and other elites. Then the fools fall in behind and repeat.

    In NZ the suppression will come later.It’s already widespread in other parts of the Commonwealth,just a matter of time and with judges like this one can see it coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fletch (6,361 comments) says:

    You know, as a parent myself, I’m really getting sick and tired of McCrockoshite telling the rest of us what Families take umbrage at.

    How old are your children? Would you be/have been OK for them to have been walking down a beach track and come upon a naked man strolling? Once upon a time this type of nudity would have been called indecent exposure and rightly punishable by law.

    People these days have no sense of shame, or of the sacred and profane.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    To me this is a property rights issue.

    If the fellow was on private property he can be as naked as he wants. But it doesn’t curtail his civil liberties to acquiesce to the morality of the majority on public property. You can designate a public area “clothing optional”, but it’s not acceptable to risk children seeing some twat’s knob (or some knob’s twat) unexpectedly.

    The law clearly needs to be clarified on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    BlairM:

    You can designate a public area “clothing optional”, but it’s not acceptable to risk children seeing some twat’s knob (or some knob’s twat) unexpectedly.

    Very good! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    My daughter is about twenty five now and undertaking medical studies at Otago. Moreover, read the Stuff.co.nz article, Fletch, and you’ll note that the chap in question was very careful about children not being exposed to him letting it all hang out. Again, public nudity is nowhere near as bad as real issues facing vulnerable New Zealand families, like exploitative loansharking and excessive alcohol availability. What about them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Again, public nudity is nowhere near as bad as real issues facing vulnerable New Zealand families, like exploitative loansharking and excessive alcohol availability

    So you’re saying I should be allowed to be naked in public, but I’m forbidden from getting an unsecured loan to help feed my family, or a cheap bottle of wine to enjoy at the end of a stressful day?

    Methinks your priorities are fucked up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Here’s the relevant part of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (Section 27):

    27 Indecent exposure
    (1) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in or within view of any public place, intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals.

    (2) It is a defence in a prosecution under this section if the defendant proves that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would not be observed.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————–

    The question is whether or not there’d be reasonable grounds in this context. And is this section archaic and requiring repeal? After all, there are also provisions within the same legislation against acting as a medium with intent to deceive! (Section 16):

    1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who, acting for reward,—

    (a) with intent to deceive, purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy or clairvoyance or other similar powers; or

    (b) uses any fraudulent device in purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium or in purporting to exercise any such powers.

    (2) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to act for reward if in respect of what he does any money is paid, or any valuable thing is given, whether to him or to any other person.

    (3) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Haven’t you read this, Blair? Or don’t you care? Hello? Vulnerable Pacific Island families are losing their homes or other essential home items because of rackrent, predatory loansharks offering them seductive easy credit. Uh, what was that about priorities again?
    http://www.familiescommission.org.nz/publications/research-reports/pacific-families-and-problem-debt.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Boohoo. Pay your loans back. Be nice to own a home, can’t say I’ve had the pleasure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Which is difficult to do if one has more than three children to support, is on a benefit or a low-paying job during a period of recession. Really, what utter moral callousness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. rg (214 comments) says:

    The difference between men and women is that when women are naked you can not see their genitals unless they bend over. For men the genitals are on display all the time.

    Displaying your genitals is offensive under the law not being naked. Hence the difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Which is difficult to do if one has more than three children to support, is on a benefit or a low-paying job during a period of recession.

    “Help me! Help me! I keep plopping children out of my tummy, and I don’t know how they’re getting in there! It seems that 6 months after I plop out a baby, another baby bump starts forming! Can anyone help explain this medical mystery?!”

    “Oh, and another thing. I want SkyTV, but don’t get enough money from WINZ pay for it. Do you think it’s a good idea to get a loan so I can watch Sky Movies all day?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Manolo (13,743 comments) says:

    @Chardonnay

    Vulnerable Pacific Island families are losing their homes or other essential home items because of rackrent, predatory loansharks offering them seductive easy credit.

    You cannot protect people from their own stupidity. Live with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Shoddygayguy#

    “…..Vulnerable Pacific Island families are losing their homes or other essential home items because of rackrent, predatory loansharks offering them seductive easy credit. Uh, what was that about priorities again?…..”

    Whores do exactly the same!…..and to people who are drunk!

    Liberalising things like whoring, slutting, sodomy, and nakedness is the opposite of setting standards, it adds nothing to anything, has next to no value, and can’t be improved upon. It’s worst feature is the acceptance of debasement as a ‘right’ – At least blacks in the US and S Africa were fighting for ‘rights’ that added value to their lives. Some NZers are pathetic!

    Anyway, all the above NZ ‘rights’ are just hallmarks of the left – to appease and entertain vacant minds like yours to gain votes! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Scott Chris (6,133 comments) says:

    That’s my impression too Manolo, if I saw a jogger like that I’d roll my eyes and say “what a dick!”

    What, in admiration?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Moreover, read the Stuff.co.nz article, Fletch, and you’ll note that the chap in question was very careful about children not being exposed to him letting it all hang out.

    Don’t lie. It says nothing of the sort – just that he picked a time to make it *unlikely*. That’s not being “very careful” that’s playing the odds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    After all, there are also provisions within the same legislation against acting as a medium with intent to deceive!

    That section could do with a lot more enforcement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Reading the judge’s comments and the law pasted above, it’s clear that this was much more the judge ignoring the law than it is applying it. Comments like:

    “However, on any view, their behaviour would not be regarded as offensive behaviour. Should the sight of a naked man, in the circumstances in which the complainant found herself, be treated any differently? I think not.”

    Clearly indicate that he thinks nakedness is not offensive. But that is not a question before the court when the law clearly states that it is. The question is whether he had reasonable grounds to expect not to see anyone, and this particular guy seems to have a habit of public lewdness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. noskire (842 comments) says:

    Sorry, had to say it, but was the offended lady walking a sausage dog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Hairy Maclary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Laksa (16 comments) says:

    My first thought at reading kiwiblog was “Oh dear god, Dave’s got a new exercise regime.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    rg (111) Says:
    December 1st, 2012 at 11:51 am

    The difference between men and women is that when women are naked you can not see their genitals unless they bend over. For men the genitals are on display all the time.

    ————————–
    You mean like this?
    http://screencast.com/t/RKfoIu8e2z
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Johnboy (16,483 comments) says:

    Some Guy’s would have to bend over to show anything V2! :)

    http://tinyastheycome.tumblr.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Ha, I';ll bet there was a lot like that at the beach in CHCH today. TV was too shy to show the real thing on the news. (Too many little old ladies would get excited I suspect.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mara (784 comments) says:

    We all have genitals and bodily functions, but there are those types who shut the bathroom door when taking a crap, and some who don’t. I prefer the former.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Why do we tend to equate nudity with sex, when they aren’t the same thing at all?

    The same with genitalia – apparently more ready access to it does not mean that sex is implied, going to happen, wanted, or is an inevitable consequence.

    Personally I’m too self-conscious to go starkers, but I certainly don’t equate nudity with sexual availability, and frankly 99.99% of us look sexier with clothes on anyway. Nudity = too much detail.

    People who hang around nudist areas for the pleasure of seeing naked people frankly need their eyes examined, because they are probably suffering from cataracts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Well, yes, considering the average elderliness of many nudists. But seriously, micromanaging fortune tellers?! Really?! IMHO, the Summary Offenses Act 1981 needs a good thorough clean out at some stage, as some of its provisions are clearly moribund.

    Insofar as the public nudity question goes, aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. There are some people who find naked women aesthetically pleasing, whereas I’m indifferent. There are some who find fit naked men aesthetically pleasing. There are those who find Queensland an overheated rightwing intellectual wasteland and only visit it occassionally because their parents and sister emigrated there seventeen years ago :) There are those who think “family” campaigners should be stopped from bringing the word into the same sisrepute as has already occurred with the term “christian.”

    Pointon is harming no-one except the professionally offended, just as fortune tellers are harming no-one except religious bigots and those who believe what they have to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote