Assholes at Wreck Beach
- Thread starter jesuschrist
- Start date
- Status
Seems the problem in this regard is that Wreck beach is a place where it is publicly acceptable to be nude. Thus, if a woman chooses to walk around nude and someone snaps a photo of her, how is it any different than if they snapped a photo of her wearing a bikini on Kits beach? Unless someone can correct me here? Would taking a photo of someone who is voluntarily nude on a public beach be against the law? Does the law even address that?
If you can't take a photo of a person's private parts without their permission, what if you are taking a picture of a friend at Wreck beach and someone is naked in the background. Did you just break the law?
Not that I'm trying to defend the actions of these perverts. But it's pretty naive to think a nude beach can exist in a public place that anyone can visit and things like this won't be an issue. And if the regulars at Wreck beach don't like it, they need to appeal to the city and not try and police it themselves.
You can legally take a photo of a nude person at WB if:
1) they know and consent to it, if your photo is of her as a main subject matter
2) you don't necessarily have their consent but they are among a group of people and not the main subject matter, such as a photo of a bunch of nude people far away
3) the subject matter of the photo is not lascivious (ie: focused on genitals), unless you have their consent
4) not attained surreptitiously
So as for your example of taking a photo of a female in a bikini in public, you don't need their permission, just as you don't need the permission if you took a photo of someone nude in public - unless in the case of the nude person you took it as the main subject matter without consent. The "reasonable right to privacy" thus still applies to a nude person on the beach, they have a right to not have their genitals be the focus of the subject matter of a photo. Voyeurism in BC is illegal, even if a camera is not involved, even if you do it on a nude beach! This is an excerpt from the criminal code:
PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Sexual Offences
Voyeurism
162. (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if
(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;
(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or
(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.
Definition of “visual recording”
(2) In this section, “visual recording” includes a photographic, film or video recording made by any means.
.....
Punishment
(5) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (4)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Defence
... the motives of an accused are irrelevant.
So it is the context under which the nude photo is taken that matters in terms of legality. Taken to an extreme, it is legal to have nude children in your photo, provided the child is not the main subject matter (ie: in the background somewhere). But if it is the main subject matter, it is illegal - even if you are the parent (believe it or not, that's the way the law stands) - even if you take it in the privacy of your own home (there was a case which charged a parent with production and possession of child porn). And if the photo does only have nude children in the background, which is ok, it becomes illegal if you post it on the internet.
Aside from the legality of obtaining the photo, there is always the danger of distributing the photo on the internet without the person's permission. In fact, once the photo is taken, the danger extends forever into the future because the photo can be posted on the internet forever in the future.
Last edited:
You don't need to hit them. The best way to deal with it is to pull out your own camera, take pictures of them skulking around, and tell them you are going to post pictures on every social networking site and on lamppoles in every ethnic neighbourhood in the city showing "Pervs at wreck beach". They are probably kids doing this for the thrill, but you can bet that the last thing they want is to be outed and shamed in their own community.
The key word is "surreptitiously". If they are walking around openly with their camera's taking pictures in a public place, then it is not surreptitous, no matter what your state of dress is. In an open public place you don't have an expectation of privacy either, and that is another requirement of the law. Your being naked in itself doesn't give you a reasonable expectation of privacy if you are doing that in a public place. Your nakedness is only protected if you are in a private place, or a space that is intended to afford privacy (such as a washroom or a changing room).
That law is intended primarily for the folk who fit camera's in their shoes or some other hidden place to spy on others.
And its also intended for people who are pretending to use their cell phones but are filming you secretly with it. I'll bet you any judge would fit that into surreptitious. By the way, you shouldn't gloss over the criminal code section I posted, so you wouldn't have made the.mistake of saying that your nakedness is protected only in private places.
it also has to pass the test of being in a place where a person can 'reasonably' be expected to be nudeWell try it then, I'm pretty sure you won't get too far
It has to meet both tests, being surreptitious AND in an area where there is an expectation of privacy. Sitting around openly on a public beach is going to pretty much nix it.
i think the supreme court has yet to rule on the legality of public nudity. if public nudity at wreck beach is technically illegal, even though it is commen practice, then a judge would rule that nobody there can reasonably expect to be nude, and Section 162 would not apply
imho, the legalities of the situation being discussed here are a long way from being clear; however, what is clear are the laws governing assault, and members of the public must be very careful to not assault the assholes, or they could be charged
talk about protecting the guilty...
And the criminal code says:
162. (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if
(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;
Wreck Beach is a place a person can reasonably be expected to be nude (section a); it's legal to be nude there after all, besides cops visit all the time and nobody is arrested for being nude (and apparently never has in decades), thus it is reasonable to be expected to be nude.
And if it is a place that one can reasonably be expected to be nude, then the surreptitious observation is illegal - and it would be obvious if the recording made focussed on genitalia - for example, a photograph where it is zoomed in between the legs of the main subject.
I will test this, the next time this happens, I will have a copy of the criminal code handy and I will show it to the idiots, followed by a demand for their cell phone - and if I don't get it, I will threaten them with calling the cops.
I don't go to Wreck anymore. I'd been a regular since the 70's, I even made a living as a vendor for a couple of years. It's not the same anymore, and that's mostly a symptom of Vancouver's growth in general, and not any particular group.
I personally found the white tattooed kids who only went down to drink, smoke dope, and stay clothed as as annoying as anyone.
FUNNY STORY: One of the last times I was down there, there was a young EE guy strolling around, clearly checking out my GF, and the other ladies in the vicinity. He took off his t-shirt, but left his track pants on... Finally, in an effort to "look like a regular", he pulled his cock and balls over the waistband of his pants, and placed his hands on his hips proudly.
The gay couple on the next log exclaimed "OMG! Is everyone seeing this?" Dude continued to walk around, his junk bouncing off his elastic waistband with every step. He was convinced that hanging out his unit was exactly the same as what all the nude people laying on towels were doing.
I personally found the white tattooed kids who only went down to drink, smoke dope, and stay clothed as as annoying as anyone.
FUNNY STORY: One of the last times I was down there, there was a young EE guy strolling around, clearly checking out my GF, and the other ladies in the vicinity. He took off his t-shirt, but left his track pants on... Finally, in an effort to "look like a regular", he pulled his cock and balls over the waistband of his pants, and placed his hands on his hips proudly.
The gay couple on the next log exclaimed "OMG! Is everyone seeing this?" Dude continued to walk around, his junk bouncing off his elastic waistband with every step. He was convinced that hanging out his unit was exactly the same as what all the nude people laying on towels were doing.
A funny story, but unfortunately yet another example of somebody in his community who simply doesn't get it: nudity is not sex, and where there is sex, it has to be by consent. He seems to think that nudity is sex, therefore he displays his weiner in a sexual way, and then because it is sexual for him, he assaults others with the view of him - which is not consensual (albeit a minor form akin to unwanted flashing).
Those guys who sneak photos think in exactly the same way. I wish they would just figure out that non-Indians do not equate nudity to sex and that sex should be consensual and nudity is not an invitation for them to get sexual in any form, even as voyeurs. This is a country of tolerance, but when one group of people imposes their morality on another, it goes against what this country stands for. I'm sick and tired of redneck idiots who constantly complain about ethnic minority's minor behavioural differences and differences in customs and etiquette, but if there were not any clearer example of a minority group taking away the rights of others, this would be one and is only tolerated because they are a minority and the majority feels uncomfortable singling them out.
i beg to differ. the following is section 174 of the code dealing with nudity. it seems pretty clear to me that nude sunbathing at wreck beach is technically a criminal offence. just because the law is not enforced does not automatically mean that anybody can consider it a place where they can reasonably expect to be nude. therefore behaving like an asshole around people who are technically breaking the law does not necessarily constitute an offence
don't get me wrong, i'm all for nude sunbathing at wreck beach, and have been since i studied up on top of the hill in 1970, but i don't believe you would get far in court trying to convict assholes for taking pictures of the sunbathers
you might well be able to scare them into thinking that they would be in trouble if the police showed up, but that would prove not a thing about the law, only that the assholes are ignorant as well
Just a side question. Is it popular for the coast guards hovercraft to pull up on wreck beach? Just saw how big the thing was could probally fit 20 cars on it... yet it was show boating on wreck beach... Tax dollars hard at work.
You should read a little more carefully my post: they weren't just curious, they were fully clothed and were videotaping her but trying to hide the fact they were doing so. It's the age of the internet - she doesn't want her images on the internet where they can be duplicated, distributed, and shown forever. Wreck Beach is supposed to be a safe place to be nude, not to be gawked at by clothed idiots who are recording you with cameras.
- Status
