Although some seem to think this is a nudist blog, it isn’t, so I’ve closed the post for further comments.
Brian Coldin is a nudist – a Christian nudist, apparently. I’m not sure what part Christianity plays in his nudist exploits, but I imagine he could easily find an Anglican church willing to offer a generous pastoral response affirming him in his chilly calling.
He is about to assert his constitutional right to public nudity in the courts. This should dispel any lingering illusion that Canadian judges and lawyers engaged on constitutional issues are busy doing much of anything that is other than frivolous; particularly if Coldin makes his court appearance in his preferred state – as he should since he is obviously serious about his vocation.
From here:
Prominent defence lawyer Clayton Ruby was expected to argue current laws in Canada prohibiting nudity in public places, or on private property exposed to public view, are overly broad — thus they should be struck down and the laws under the Criminal Code updated.
According to the Federation of Canadian Nudists, these laws are archaic because they define nudity as generally “indecent” and intended to cause “harm” to those who witness it.
The challenge is being launched on behalf of Ruby’s client, Brian Coldin, a nudist resort operator in Bracebridge, Ont., a small cottage country town about two hours north of Toronto. Coldin, who has been arrested numerous times over the years for public nudity, was charged last year with five counts related to incidents between April 2008 and May 2009 near his resort and at drive-thus at both Tim Horton’s and A&W restaurants.
The criminal trial, which began last fall, heard testimony from one of the workers at the fast-food burger restaurant who cried on the stand when she described how Coldin and two others drove up to the pickup window completely nude. She testified Coldin and the driver of the vehicle both pretended to reach for their imaginary wallets to pay for their orders, causing their genitals to sway back and forth.
What further evidence of causing harm to others could possibly be required: fast food is hard enough to digest without being subjected to the uninvited spectacle of spontaneously swaying genitals.
Neither Brian Coldin, nor the courts would care, but C. S. Lewis, in The Four Loves, makes the interesting point that nudity is not the natural state of man:
“Are we not our true selves when naked? In a sense, no. The word naked was originally a past participle; the naked man was the man who had undergone a process of naking, that is, of stripping or peeling (you used the verb of nuts and fruit). Time out of mind the naked man has seemed to our ancestors not the natural but the abnormal man; not the man who has abstained from dressing but the man who has been for some reason undressed. And it is a simple fact-anyone can observe it at a men’s bathing place-that nudity emphasises common humanity and soft-pedals what is individual. In that way we are “more ourselves” when clothed. By nudity the lovers cease to be solely John and Mary; the universal He and She are emphasised. You could almost say they put on nakedness as a ceremonial robe-or as the costume for a charade.
