Submission by the Recommendation 54 Naturist Study GroupSynopsis"Setting the Boundaries, Reforming the law on sex offences" is in most respects a welcome analysis of often archaic and inadequate law, with reasonable proposals for coherent new law. Unfortunately the revised definition of indecent exposure is so worded that it will have what is probably an unintended but none the less catastrophic effect on the lifestyle of a substantial minority group: naturists. For this reason, we urge that consideration be given to altering the proposed wording (or the inclusion of an additional clause) in order to make it clear that the legislation is not intended for use in cases of simple male nudity where no element of threat or intention to commit a "non-contact sexual assault" is manifest. Where nudity is perceived to be a social nuisance, the present public order legislation appears quite adequate. SummaryThe Recommendation 54 Naturist Study Group is a self elected ad hoc group formed with the specific purpose of considering the impact of the Sex Offences Review on naturists and naturism in Britain. Participants volunteered or were invited to take part in order to provide, as far as possible, a group representative of naturism as a whole. We have consulted widely and drawn upon the views of many other interested individuals including lawyers and MPs. We venture to suggest, therefore, that the views and concerns expressed here are reasonably representative of naturism and fully take into account the needs of non-naturists. The full report contains much evidence to support our conclusions. We have been unable to find any empirical evidence counter to our arguments. The Study Group considered the report "Setting the Boundaries, Reforming the law on sex offences" in considerable detail. We consider most of it to be welcome proposals for much needed and sensible reform of often archaic law. The report's recognition of naturism, and of the protection offered by the Human Rights Act for naturists' way of life, are welcome.STB 8.2.5 Unfortunately, the team carrying out the review appear to be unaware of the extent to which public naturism occurs in the UK. The recent NOP survey showed that there are nearly a million self-professed naturists in this country, and about 10 times that number who have taken part in naturist activities. Each fine weekend in summer there are tens of thousands sunbathing, swimming or engaged in other recreational activities at beaches and other secluded spots that are 'clothes optional' either by custom or by the explicit or implicit permission of the owners. Despite the large numbers there are very few complaints. We would suggest that this indicates that the public are generally tolerant of such activities and that those who indulge in them are generally careful to choose places where they are unlikely to cause offence. If Recommendation 54 was enacted as currently worded then male nudity in public places would become a serious sexual offence. We do not believe that that this could have been the intention of the review team. We consider part of the material supporting Recommendation 54, and the conclusions drawn from it, to be sensible. Unfortunately, some of the most important evidence purporting to justify the recommendation is so fundamentally flawed as to be completely worthless. The study quoted was based on data gathered in the Yorkshire Ripper area at a time when the police were issuing more and more serious warnings as the number of murders increased. When first published, the academic editor pointed out that this study was at variance with both previous studies and academic opinion. It is also most regrettable that Recommendation 54 does not accurately reflect the discussion earlier in that section of the review. The ideal solution would be to repeat this part of the review but we recognise that this is probably impracticable. We suggest that there are four types of exposure forming a hierarchy of behaviours and believe that this should be reflected in the legislation and in the penalties:
In order that any new offence not be devalued as has happened to the current law,STB 8.2.1-3 sex offences legislation should clearly target the aggressive flasher and exclude other types of exposure, whilst still ensuring that the guilty are convicted. It is our belief that the wording used in Recommendation 54 sets the threshold for conviction so low that it would criminalise nearly all public male nudity. As there is no evidence that naturism does harm, and substantial evidence that it does good this is a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are also a number of other respects in which implementing Recommendation 54 using the current wording would be in conflict with the convention. Recommendation 54 states: Recommendation 54: There should be a new offence of indecent exposure relating to exposing the penis when he knew or should have known that he might cause fear, alarm or distress to another person. We suggest that the term "indecent exposure" is inappropriate and that in order to make the threatening nature of the offence clear it should be renamed "Sexually Threatening Exposure". We also suggest that the recommendation is ambiguous and has the potential to make nearly all public male nudity a serious sexual offence. It could mean "Might cause fear alarm or distress to a person of reasonable firmness." but equally well it could mean "Would cause fear alarm or distress to a timid person who might be in the area and see the penis." There is evidence that some courts in other countries have used the latter interpretation when applying legislation with similar wording. The simplest solution is to use plain English and just state "flashing is an offence". However, that may be too colloquial so: To remove the ambiguity we urge the Home Office to introduce "a reasonable person". It is just as necessary here as in other acts e.g. Public Order Act 1986. To place the conviction threshold at a more appropriate level we request that the wording used in the reviewSTB 8.2.7 be reinstated and a more appropriate name used. There is some evidence that existing legislation has been misused to harass naturists so we would like to see a statutory defence provided that specifically excludes them. Thus the wording becomes: A man is guilty of sexually threatening exposure if he exposes his penis to a person, intending to cause them fear, alarm or distress, or is reckless as to the effect upon them. We argue that the above wording and a statutory defence would greatly simplify the complex issues raised by the recommendation in the form that it appears in "Setting the Boundaries". Please see the full report for details and other alternatives. We are very aware that most non-naturists have at best little idea and at worst a very distorted idea of what naturism is. We strongly urge anyone reading this report, especially non-naturists, to find out more. We will be pleased to provide additional information or to arrange visits to naturist places and events, either as participants or observers. There are two web sites that we particularly recommend as sources of further information:
|