National Committee

President Traven Searle 

(0061) 7831 1731

Vice President John Groombridge

(North Island)          (04) 589 5461

Vice President Joyce Fleming 

(South Island)         (03) 322 7990

Secretary Jackie Caldwell 

 

TreasurerJohn Groombridge 

(04) 589 5461

Members 

Ian Bushett(04) 237 0193 

John Lowe

Steve Wilkinson(03) 325 3316 

Correspondence should be mailed to the official FBG address

LOCAL CONTACTS

Auckland Jan Winn 

(09) 482 0134

Tauranga Ted Lidgard 

(07) 542 2344

Waikato Roger Morris 

(07) 856 8857

Taranaki John Lowe 

(06)  

Hawkes Bay Butch Hickmott 

(06) 835 7146

Sthn Hawkes Bay Hugh Bowles 

(06) 374 6238

Wellington Meryl Baker 

(04) 528 7010

Linda Geeves

(04) 478 4820

Christchurch Joyce Fleming 

(03) 322 7990

Steve Wilkinson

(03) 325 3316

 

Triathlon at the Lodge

The crowds were a tremble as they watched the entrants for the races warm up. With muscles rippling and steely determination on their faces, the contestants waited with bated breath for their chance for fame.

The men's race began with the canoeing event continuing on to the fast walkers course. Steering the canoe in the right direction proved almost too much for some (Ross), but Brian took the lead with a confident air and was only beaten at the end by Greg's long legged stride. In the second heat it was an experienced Traven who just managed to hold onto the lead and finished first. So a joint win, and congratulations to Greg and Traven.

In the men's relay Ross, Errol and Traven's team finished first and in second place came "the Captain" (Bob), Dick and Greg's team (slowed down a little by Dick's little dip in the icy stream after steerage problems with his canoe).

The girl's event was very close race, they were powering through the water in their canoes and walked swiftly towards the finish line, ending up with Erin in first place and Tara coming in a close second.

So start your training now! You may just be lit enough to take part in next year's gruelling events.

Fern McKenzie ******

Fernland Hot Pool

Rotota Sun Club invites FREE BEACH GROUP members to join them at the Fernland Hot Pool at Tauranga, Saturday 4 May 1996, from 11am to 3pm. Cost is still $4 per adult and $1 for school aged children. FBG Membership Card or INF passport will be required for entry. Lunch and refreshments may be taken into the pool area. Club uniform and rules apply. A pot-luck dinner and social evening will follow at the Tauranga Historic Village / Museum Exhibition Hall, 17th Avenue West, Tauranga. A donation of $2 per adult will cover the cost of hall hire; drinks at 5pm, dinner at 6pm ??? And it planning works, there will be music this year.

For more details:		Graham Macgregor
14 Burns St, Tauranga		Phone 075786693

 

Letters to the Editor

Dear John,

Frank Peek's analysis of my recent High Court case makes several fundamental errors. It is a great pity that in publishing it you failed to seek comment from those involved; for, once again, that has produced an inaccurate, unbalanced, and misleading result.

First, Frank assumes that Justice Morris's ruling was enough for a proper analysis of the case. It is not. It contains only what His Honour put to support his judgement. Some aspects were not even in any submissions.

Second, he misses the overwhelming significance of the fact that this case was put under the heading of 'disorderly' behaviour, unlike the 1991 case, which was under 'offensive' behaviour. But both were under the same enactment, namely S.4/1a of the Summary Offences Act 1981, which means that when using, police officers are now free it to ignore the 1991 ruling, if they choose to, simply by using 'disorderly' to shut out 'offensive.' They deliberately used that ploy against me, and told me so. They knew they could not fly in the face of the 1991 ruling, but hated it and wanted it out. They happened to get a judge who also disagreed with the 1991 ruling, as he made plain in court. So we have contradictory High Court rulings: the inoffensive can now be disorderly. Which word is used depends entirely on the police. Any naturists who rely on the 1991 ruling can only be as sure of it as they can of the views of whichever police officer might come along - which means they cannot be certain at all, and that the ultra-conservative view is the only certainty. No reliance at all can be placed on the phrase 'where nakedness is not uncommon', because Justice Morris ignored the fact, confirmed by five witnesses, that nakedness has not been uncommon in my secluded neighbourhood for twelve years or so. Indeed, it was proved far more common there than at the beach involved in the 1991 case.

Third, Frank misses the significance of the fact that the Court of Appeal ruling he refers to (the one known as Melser) was handed down in 1967, a very long time before the passing of both the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993. His analysis is thus set against the legal framework of the 1960s, not the 1990s. All judgements must now take those two Acts into account, but Justice Morris ignored them completely.

I have nothing against Frank Peek - I have never met him - so this letter is not a personal attack on him, or anyone. But it is a great pity that your newsletter did not try to get its facts right before going into print. For too long naturists in this country have been misinformed, or fearful rumour has taken precedence over facts. Articles like that do not help.

But at least my going to the Court of Appeal maintained enough doubt in the minds of the police to prevent conservative ones from acting with impunity against us over the summer.

Yours sincerely,

Nobilangelo Ceramalus

Frank Peek replies...

Nobilangelo Ceramalus's observations about my article on the legal status of public nudity require comment, not at all as a personal attack against him, but precisely in order to avoid any confusion on the issue.

Justice Morris's Ruling

Firstly, Mr Ceramalus contends that Justice Morris's ruling was insufficient for a proper analysis of the case. On the contrary, substantive comment must be based on the ruling itself. Any other comment would be incidental. Common law is a living organism in which each judgement counts because each one adds to and/or affects a legal position to some or other degree. The fact is that Justice Morris's ruling is now a part of legal precedent: it is "on the books" and will certainly be referred to in any future case of this nature. It will be cited as the 1995 High Court case (Ceramalus v. Police). My article provided a commentary on the essence of the ruling, because that is what matters for us. Any background machinations to the case, which seem to predominate in Mr Ceramalus's thinking, are of no more than incidental interest. Again, it is the ruling itself that counts.

Offensive v. Disorderly

Secondly, Mr Ceramalus puts considerable weight on his having been charged in the present case with 'disorderly' behaviour, instead of 'offensive' behaviour. He contends that his 1995 conviction of 'disorderly' behaviour demonstrates contradictory High Court rulings because public nudity has already been proven to be 'inoffensive' (the 1991 beach case).

Several points need to be made. Above all, the issue at stake is not offensive v. disorderly. The essential point (and this is the fundamental point the Mr Ceramalus fails to grasp) is that the cases are not the same. Public nudity at a free beach is not the same as nudity in a public street. As explained in the Courts' rulings, the difference in the circumstances does make all the difference before the law. The words of Judge Cadenhead in the District Court are what matter: "walking naked on a public road was an entirely different situation to that of the beach where nudity was not unheard of. People could always leave the beach but they may have to use public roads". Mr Ceramalus's neighbours are clearly aware of his nakedness on his property. It is possible that many of them tolerate it rather than positively approve of it. While they do not have to invite themselves on to his property, they may be obliged to use the road and could be highly annoyed by his nakedness on the road.

The rulings in question are not contradictory because both High Court rulings were based on exactly the same principle, and the same criteria were used to reach the respective judgements. The judgements differ because of the different circumstances in the two cases. Consequently, we do not have a situation where the inoffensive can now be disorderly.

Quite simply, the inoffensive (public nudity at a free beach) remains inoffensive, whereas the disorderly (nudity in a public Street) is disorderly.

Bill of Rights Act and Human Rights Act

Thirdly, Mr Ceramalus places significance on the timing of the 1967 Court of Appeal ruling in Melser v. Police. Contrary to what he states, a decision and legal framework in the latter 1960s is certainly not "a very long time" before the passing of legislation in the early 1990s. Circumstances may change relatively swiftly, but legal principles do not. The 1967 decision is still "on the books", it is still a part of legal precedent, and Justice Morris had every right to refer to it. If need be, we will still have every right in the middle of the next century to refer to the 1991 High Court ruling in Ceramalus v. Police in defence of our nudity at free beaches.

Turning, though, to the specific legislation in question, Mr Ceramalus puts far too much significance on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.

The Bill of Rights Act is designed to do three things: affirm, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in NZ. The particular rights to be affirmed and promoted are explained explicitly in the Act. Similarly, the Act explicitly explains the particular freedoms to be protected and promoted. To be naked in public is not one of the rights or freedoms listed in the Act. At the most, one would have to try to link public nudity either with section 14 (freedom of expression) or with section 15 (manifestation of religion and belief). In both cases, it could be argued that the link is certainly tenuous. Accordingly, reliance on the Bill of Rights Act is not a strong defence for public nakedness.

Furthermore, section 4 of the Bill of Rights Act kills off any defence for public nakedness. Essentially, this section ensures that all other legislation remains valid and is to be applied by the Courts. The practical effect of section 4 is to say that we have certain rights and freedoms as long as, in exercising them, we do not break any other law. Accordingly, the sections of the Summary Offences Act that deal with disorderly and offensive behaviour remain valid, and they are to be enforced by the Courts when appropriate.

The Human Rights Act 1993, protecting us from specifically listed instances of unlawful discrimination, is even less helpful for nudists. Not only does it not afford even a tenuous link between public nudity and unlawful discrimination, it also ensures that all other legislation remains valid (section 151). The Human Rights Act is no defence for public nakedness.

Police Action

Finally, Mr Ceramalus attributes any lack of Police aggression over the summer to his recourse to the Court of Appeal. Whatever the merits of such an estimation, I think that, quite simply, the Police know that nude bathing at free beaches is neither offensive nor disorderly.

Summer Extremes

This year my partner and I had an interesting Christmas and New Year, and after some deliberation between ourselves, thought it would be prudent to share our experience with you, our fellow nudists.

My partner and I have never been to a Sun Club before, so in taking advantage of this year's rally location, we went to spend some time with those who were there. What we hoped would be a pleasurable experience, turned in to a major disappointment. Now don't get me wrong, these are the opinions of myself and my partner, and obviously will not be shared by all.

The Sun Club itself is set in a wonderful location. with more than adequate facilities; the extra working bees had obviously been put to good use. It was the atmosphere about the place that put us off. Rules and regulations are useful tools to have in place when organising and catering for a large contingency. Having them "barked" at you in a uncivilised manner is not. Especially when you are unaware of them. Civility goes a very long way in making people comfortable.

Some form of organisation is a good thing, finding yourself in an environment that resembles a "Butlands Holiday Camp" is not. I certainly do not appreciate being woken up at 7-30am to the sound of the Pink Panther theme coming over the intercom system, followed by a run-down of people who were participating in that days events, and times, plus all the other bits of information. Talk about dawn "roll call"; Nudists are responsible people, this is what a notice board is for.

A look of understanding between us; this is not the place for us. We treasure the tranquillity, sociability, philosophy and exhilaration that comes with the nudist lifestyle. We have the glorious tans, bright eyes and confidence that are the nudist hallmarks. Which in turn brings me to the second part of this story.

When the sun comes out, down to Breaker Bay we go, as do many others. We have had our problems with people of the perverse persuasion; it is a problem we endeavour to keep in check. But this year we are making an extra effort. In tandem we regularly patrol the beach, keeping an eye on any prospective "victims". It any known or suspicious undesirables descend upon these people, so do we. Being the woman on patrol it is up to me to approach first, as we both feel it is a more comforting and gentler approach.

It is my partner's responsibility to keep an acceptable distance, and give myself and the person who I have to approach, overall security. Introductions and a clear and precise explanation for my visit are given, as is an invitation to either join our group or move into their own space within our proximity. All this is done at eyeball to eyeball level. No looming overhead which even though I may be a woman, could still be deemed threatening.

One such lady that we approached in the manner turned out to be a journalist for the Evening Post, no less. On her first public outing as a nudist she was rescued. She decided to join our happy sociable group, where upon we gave her the best introduction to nudism that any prospective nudist could have. Complete with a glass of wine, sunscreen, informative and comforting conversation, and of course the proverbial barbecued condiments. These things we at Breaker Bay have in abundance, and happily share with anyone who joins us. No rules, regulations, committee decisions, flag or banner waving here. Everyday weather and work permitting, these things are joyously shared with anyone who joins us. The whole experience made this young lady feel so relaxed and unafraid, that an article was published in the Evening Post of her experience. What better advertising could anyone have?

The comment that she made, that made her aware that we were true nudists when I approached her were our glorious tans. It just goes to show, we don't need a barrage of flags to advertise who we are. Our hallmark speaks for itself. And thus a new convert was made. We at Breaker Bay look forward to her company in future.

I guess you could say that this whole holiday experience with its two extremes reaffirmed why we are nudists. Nudism, its a way of life, philosophy, with almost religious bearing, is to be shared openly with anyone who wishes to partake in it. We feel that although Sun Clubs may be the environment for some, it is definitely not for us. My partner and I wear our hallmark with pride and dignity, hiding it from no-one. We have no reason to.

Petra James

Raymond Cook

Easter at Rotota

On Easter Saturday, Rotota Sun Club will feature a Feast to Remember, a culinary delight: Pig on a Spit, complete with potato wedges and coleslaw. All for only $5 per head.

Grin & Bare It

This was the title of a full page article in the magazine section of the Evening Post, Monday 15 January, 1996. The text written by Alice Taylor, was superimposed on a full page colour photograph of Free Beach Group members Frank Peek and Petra James (full length, rear views).

The text reads as follows:

As things hot up, Wellington's nudists head for Breaker Bay each day to catch the rays all over - closely followed by the perverts. "We know all the weirdos down here by nickname and we're on a mission to clean them out," say super tanned couple Raymond Cook and Petra James. They've been regulars at Breaker Bay, the Capital's unofficial nudist beach, for many years and are members of the Wellington Free Beach Group. The Group is affiliated to free beach groups world wide, which tout stress-free nudity through safety in numbers. Any day of the week there'll be at least two or three members ripping oft the last shackles of life to de-stress.

The group has claimed a spot in the middle of the beach where its barbecue plate is permanently stationed throughout summer. Gay couples hang out down the other end in the privacy of the rocks and shrubs - etiquette is "don't bother us and we won't bother you".

"Nudism is liberating, it's about being free-minded and accepting it's not at all odd or sordid", says Cook, a chef on the Cook Strait ferries.

"We're normal well-behaved family people. Because you're not wearing anything, you don't see anything".

The perverts can see as much they want. They target their prey - mostly women - in various shady ways from cameras, videos and subversive rock-lurking to stalking the beaches, openly gazing.

But Cook and James have stepped up the pervert patrol this year in an effort to rid the beach of its bad boys. They regularly rescue innocent bathers from the eyes of voyeurs.

One, nicknamed the codpiece, has been hauled up twice in the last week ... and he appears to have got the message.

"He's been hanging around for years and we've had enough", James says. "He stalks the beach wearing a g-string looking for his prey and strategically places himself about 10m away, removes his g-string and starts playing with himself".

Legally, the group could have him up for indecent exposure or offensive behaviour. But they prefer not to involve the police.

"It gives the beach a bad name", states former national president Frank Peek, a senior policy analyst for the Land Transport Authority who has been a naked bather at the beach for seven years.

"We have a less critical approach to different philosophies and ways of life than non nudists".

"Nudism is not a body show, it's a way of life. We're all relaxed with who we are and in the company of other people, no matter what shape or size they are".

He says they want to avoid what happened in North Auckland where a council passed a by-law forbidding nudity.

"We have a very good rapport with the Kilbirnie police and they have assured [us] they will protect us from voyeurs". Kilbirnie detective inspector Chris Le Page says Breaker Bay does not have a history of serious offenders and there is nothing illegal about nude bathers who keep to themselves.

"It's known as a beach where people strip off. We don't often get complaints but we have had the occasional one from nudists being stalked. Our staff will do patrols".

The legalities of stripping off in public are blurred, and depend on whether the naked person is trying to offend or is acting indecently. Topless bathing was declared legal under the 1982 Summary Offences Act.

Wellington City Council has recognised the beach as an unofficial nudist spot for 25 years. It debated proposals during the early 1980s to have it declared an official nude zone, rejected mainly because the beach backs on to the Southern Walkway.

The article next makes brief reference to the Wellington Sun Club where it's members prefer the seclusion and privacy of six hectares of fenced off grounds at Te Marua.

 

Fitzroy Bay

In early December we made our first visit to this delightful beach close to the eastern entrance to Wellington Harbour. Having been warned about a steep slog up a rough track, we were pleasantly surprised by a leisurely walk along a wide, clean and in some places sealed track. We found a beautiful sheltered spot only a few metres away from walkers and cyclists who were totally unaware of our presence.

 

We were enlightened by the fascinating history of this amazing beach. For instance, Maori from the Wellington area used to walk the route from Eastbourne to Pencarrow and around the coast up into the Wairarapa. They had an overnight stop over near our picnic spot where they had cleared an area to grow kumara, and had planted a grove of Karaka trees, which are still growing there.

All in all, a very enjoyable day.

Meryl Baker