Thursday 3 July 1997

Topless act offensive for some

Cindy Irvin

It's time to put an end to the hype and educate the public. Yes, this is yet another letter regarding the topless issue. However, I believe it is different from the others as I have been very busy collecting information and opinions.

One of the opinions I heard was, "it's legal now for women to be topless in the streets." This is wrong. One woman from Guelph won a court case. I got a copy of that hearing from the Ontario Court of Appeal, and I'd like to inform the public, that she never should have won that case and I hope to see the case be taken further.

First off, she was not charged under section S.174 (nudity), but rather section S.173 (indecent acts). In order to be convicted on that charge, an intent to offend must be proven. Since I'm not sure as many people went to the lengths that I did to find out about this case, I will tell you that Ms. (Gwen) Jacobs, who walked the streets of Guelph topless, was approached by many citizens and three police officers who all asked her to put her top on. It was the third police officer who laid the charge.

Now, while I would have to agree that Ms. Jacobs perhaps did not intend to offend anyone when she set off on her mission on that day, she obviously did intend to offend by continuing to bare her breasts to all those people who made her well aware that her behaviour was offensive.

At the time of her initial trial, there was a community standards tolerance test done that proved that this behaviour was not tolerable to the community. The Ontario Court of Appeal Judge dismissed the test on the basis that one should not have to conform to what the majority deems tolerable. Now doesn't that give us a great sense of security? Why does the judge have the right to impose his decision on the community?

We all know by now that this has gone way too far. It all started with a decision by Ottawa City Council to allow women to go topless at city beaches. Next thing you knew we had topless prostitutes on the streets.

Everyone can understand the vanity of wanting a tan without lines but that has been going on for ages, in secluded places, without imposing on other people's rights to sexual privacy and respect.

Now as we hear it, there is a Beach Volleyball Tournament upcoming which will have numerous topless female teams. Did you know that the money to hire extra security for this reason comes from the funds raised for the charities who are to benefit from this tournament?

There seems to be some people out there who believe there is nothing sexual about women's breasts. Why then is there an in-line skater grabbing women's breasts? And if there is nothing sexual about them, why was his sketch in the Citizen?

I'll now get to what really motivated me to write this letter. As I drove on Katimavik Road in Kanata, I witnessed a Down's syndrome male adult at a bus stop licking the photo on the front page of the Ottawa Sun. As a parent of two special-needs sons, you can well imagine how this offended me. The front page that day featured a young woman topless at Mooney's Bay.

The parents of special-needs children work very hard to achieve socially acceptable behaviour from their children, and it is very frustrating to be intentionally intimidated by the very society we work so hard to enable our children to function in.

Because I've heard so much opposition to this topless issue, by one woman fighting for what she thought was her right, I wonder how many of our rights did she infringe on?

I have no opposition to people who want to have a full-bodied tan so long as there is a designated area for this to take place so my very difficult tasks are not challenged that much further.

Cindy Irvin, Kanata 1