National Library of New Zealand
Harvested by the National Library of New Zealand on: Oct 8 2008 at 8:33:19 GMT
Search boxes and external links may not function. Having trouble viewing this page? Click here
Close Minimize Help
Wayback Machine
GayNZ Logo & Link
Wednesday 08 October 2008

Proclamations of the Red Queen

15th September 2008

Kapiti Coast: Silly Christians Against Nudity!!!

Posted by: Craig Young

“Stop it! Stop it! No more nudes!!   Stop it! Stop it! Crude and lewd!!” Will Kapiti Coast be beset by bellowing bigots if they grin and bare it on the beaches this Summer?

The Kapiti Coast District Council’s regulatory management committee has just ruled to allow nude bathing and fishing (???) on its beaches. This apparently includes the whole forty five kilometres from Paekakariki to Otaki, although the provisions of the Crimes Act and Summary Offences Act would still apply to someone misbehaving themselves in front of passers-by.

By itself, public nudity per se was viewed as no problem. Not to permit it might be seen as an infringement on freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act, according to the councillors. There would be  no signage, but there would be prosecutions if clothed or unclothed beach users misbehaved under the terms of the above legislation. Gay Peka Peka beach users were somewhat concerned about what this might mean for them- although I suspect that two men or women lying alongside each other doing nothing but nonsexual public displays of affection wouldn’t be affected.

Predictably, however, the raving right disagrees with this sensible concession to changing times. On Scoop, the fundamentalist Family First pressure group was heard to wail and screech at news of the KCDC RMG’s decision.

Family First blithered about the ‘protection of families’ and ‘child welfare’ (excuse me, that is the pro-belting pressure group Family First…?). Families don’t go to nude beaches for a reason- they don’t want to be confronted by naked women and men. Er, actually, most nudist organisations exclude single men for that reason, and are centred on nudist families, Bob.

And as usual, Family First appointed itself spokespeople for The Family, arguing that the viewpoints of (puritanical fundamentalist) families were being ignored on beaches. They demanded that “a political party” should ban nudity on beaches under the Crimes Act and Summary Offences Act, otherwise ‘liberal judges’ would steadily weaken such barriers to public nudity.

Personally, I find public displays of militant fundamentalism far more objectionable, but sadly, the Bill of Rights covers their freedom of speech as well. Which is as it should be.


Kay Blundell: “Kapiti Coast beaches going nude?” Dominion Post 15.09.08:

Family First media release: “For the sake of families, cover up on beaches” Scoop 15.09.08:

List of New Zealand Nude Beaches:

Breaker Bay Nude Beach

Little Palm Beach (nudist)

Mapua Leisure Park Nude Beach

Opoutere Nude Beach

Orpheus Bay Nude Beach

Papamoa Nude Beach

Pekapeka Nudist Beach

Pohutukawa Nude Beach

Rarawa Nudist Beach

Tags: Politics · Religion

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Kodaz // Sep 15, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    1: I agree with you that Families, persons offended by nudity etc, should avoid those geographical areas traditionally understood in the community as ‘nude beaches’. The trouble is that the Kapiti Coast District Council is proposing that the entire 45km that they are responsible for become treated in the same manner, which is a completely different situation. They have the power to create quite specific by-laws that can focus on the geographic areas of interest (in this case ‘nude beach’ and place formal restriction/allowances on that area. But they seem to be wanting much more than that..some sort of international notoreity, at having the largest stretch of nude friendly coastline in the southern hemisphere or something.)
    2. If the beaches of Kapiti Coast have this sort of freedom, why not the other Council facilities as well? Surely it is hypocritical to restrict the freedom of expression in their Main St, Parks, Public Libraries, Administrative building, Local pool etc. They really aren’t going far enough with their ‘commitment’ to the Bill of rights / Freedom of Expression etc, and should be lambasted for this massive oversight.
    3. What the heck is ‘Lewd’ behaviour in this day and age anyway? I can’t see how public copulation can’t be restricted under the Bill of Rights either. Why hold back? Why the show of restraint in this regard?
    4. Silly law makers make unenforceable laws…That’s of course assuming that they want to see the laws enforced to start with. I suspect is the council’s intention in this case is not to see them enforced, whatever it is that they legislate. There’s no discussion of re-purposing the KCDC budget to either support the local police or setting up their own branch of ‘Speedo-less’ Cops is there? No.
    5. The ‘Nature Coast’ no longer..The ‘Naturist Coast’ instead..Why didn’t the Mayor use this as the campaign tagline, in keeping with her open agenda and plans, once in office. Just another mid term suprise, I guess, to keep us all cynical about politicians.

    That’s all I can think of right now..

  • 2 Craig Young // Sep 16, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Might I point out that it is the KCDC’s Resource Management Committee which is calling for public feedback on its bylaws, and that this is not a fait accompli?

    It mightn’t be a bad idea to have specifically zoned precincts, though. I don’t think that would be a major infringement on freedom of expression in this context.

    Incidentally, why isn’t SPCS caterwauling and screeching about this, as it usually does?


  • 3 Craig Young // Sep 24, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    I *knew* it was too good to last. According to their website, the Society for Promotion of Censorious Stupidty has filed a submission against the pro-nudity council bylaw:


  • 4 Craig // Sep 30, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    It now seems the Wellington City Council has done the same thing on its Oriental Parade beach, leading to amused comments about the amount of inclement weather in our nation’s capital…

  • 5 Craig Young // Sep 30, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    And predictably, Family First have gotten professionally outraged about it, as has SPCS.
    Hee hee hee.


Leave a Comment


(Required but not displayed)