Miscellaneous desk
< December 31	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 1

Lewdness

Has anyone ever been arrested in a western country strictly for clothed "lewdness"; i.e. a clothed erection causing a bulge, highly visible but clothed erect nipples, or super-tight yoga pants that leave nothing to the imagination? Contrib raati (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: Define what YOU mean by "Old World". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you asked this question just last month:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The adverbs are different. The previous question contained this; the above question contains the adverb ever. Contrib raati (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whatever. So, what's your definition of "Old World"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly did not incorporate east Siberia into my calculation; hence redundant. Contrib raati (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ever"? Yes: Annette Kellermann, Revere Beach, Massachusetts, 1907. Tevildo (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until 2003 in England and Wales, ladies couldn't be charged with indecent exposure, since the offence was only covered by the Vagrancy Act 1824 which prohibited " openly, lewdly, and obscenely exposing his person in any street, road, or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort, with intent to insult any female". A ruling in 1854 at the Old Bailey by Lord Justice Campbell stipulated that "his person" specifically meant "private parts" (ie genitals). [2]. Thus, none of your scenarios would have been illegal here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's outraging public decency at common law; this has been held (R v Gibson and Sylveire [1990] 2 QB 619) to include wearing a (particularly offensive) pair of earrings, so it almost certainly would include clothing of the type the OP describes. Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK it's apparently an arestable offense. See this recent incident; "Police in Manchester look for a cyclist with an erection 62.37.237.16 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. It's lucky that I'm not a lawyer. See Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency. Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Law Commission report referred to in Alan's article, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the above that I can read mention the Vagrancy Act. I can't read the CLJ article and I don't quite understand whether Alansplodge meant he was saying it's possible under the Vagrancy Act or just in general. But anyway, IANAL either but I wouldn't be entirely confident from first few sources that it ruled out such a prosecution. While it may have only applied to genitals, it would seem to me it still depends on whether you intepret "openly, lewdly, and obscenely exposing" to require nudity or whether very tight clothing could still be considered to violate it. "Openly" and "exposing" are probably the key words here but I'm not sure either definitely rule out openly exposing through clothing. As an exercise in impossibilities, I would have to wonder what a 1854 judge would think of super skin tight clothing which leave an erect penis and even to some extent testicles clearly visible. There's also the interesting question of how you define clothing. The OP seemed to require clothing that is fairly translucent but you could have stuff you wear made of transparent material and as materials advance you could likely make it feel and look (if it weren't transparent), like something people would call clothing. That's presuming you can't do this already, and there's also the complicating matter that what people consider clothing is expanding. I think there are few countries where walking nude is a problem (and there are quite a few western countries where it is), where wearing such "clothing" is going to be a defense. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under English law, the distinction is between the general common law offence of outraging public decency (which doesn't require any exposure of the body), and the specific statutory offence of indecent exposure (under the Vagrancy Act or the Sexual Offences Act 2003), which requires exposure of the "person" (1824 act, sc penis) or the "genitals" (2003 act, not tested in court as regards female exposure as far as I can tell, but almost certainly doesn't include the breasts). Tevildo (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the question is whether "openly" "exposing" under the Vagrancy Act requires that the penis be nude/uncovered/unclothed. It's a given it may only apply to the OP's first and possibly last scenario. As I mentioned, an interesting thought exercise is how the 1854 judge would have handled someone wearing tight translucent clothes with the outline of erect penis and testicles clearly visible and who went around to places where females (particularly higher class ones) were intentionally showing off. Even if this was rejected as not "openly" "exposing", I'm even less convinced it would have been the same for someone who was wearing some sort of transparent garment with the erect penis and testicles clearly visible (albeit this is further than what the OP asked about). It's also possible even if this would have been rejected in 1854, there was later time were they would have been more liberal in their intepretation of "openly" and "exposing" then they were then. E.g. while indictments always have to be accurate and precise, I wonder whether someone always would have gotten off for stealing a pair of stockings because he stole 2 odd ones. Ultimately unless there are tested in court we will never know, and the ones I suggested were basically impossible. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently topical: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Police "went to the scene to look for the hardened criminal". 80.44.166.220 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the same thing the other IP linked above but while it addresses the OP's original question, it doesn't seem to address my question. I don't think it's likely any of the sources suggested the alleged offender would have been charged under the Vagrancy Act and I also doubt any of them had a reliable legal opinion suggesting he could not have been charged under the Vagrancy Act. Considering there may be no reason why it would be seen as better to charge him under the Vagrancy Act (or any similar offender), I have a strong suspicion it will never be tested. But we also can't assume that means a prosecution was impossible. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metis Rights

As a Painted Feather Woodland Metis in Bancroft Ontario want rights do I have Can I go out and put food on me table like hunting fishing and what other rights do I have thank you Brian Robbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian robbins (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start with R v Powley for your research and see where it leads you.--Jayron 32 05:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also these are only additional rights. You also have whatever rights are granted in Bancroft, Ontario relating to hunting and fishing or putting food on the table, to those who aren't Metis or other Aboriginal Canadians. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble reading your post due to multiple typos and a total lack of punctuation. Here is the corrected version, so hopefully others can understand you:

As a Painted Feather Woodland Métis in Bancroft, Ontario, what rights do I have ?

Can I go out and put food on my table (like hunting & fishing) ? And what other rights do I have ?

StuRat (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understood perfectly what Brian meant. I was not alone. (and by the way, you missed the accent form Métis) Richard Avery (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And tried to indent using spaces. I've fixed that. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was trying to make it stand out, to show it was the OP's post reformatted, versus being my own post. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I would've used italics if I didn't think the indentation made it clear, but I do. (Note that I indented 2 levels.) --76.69.45.64 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Stu wasn't the only one who was confused. I had no idea what a "Painted Feather Woodland Metis" is. My guess would have been some sort of bird species and the OP was just being cute by saying that they were one. Now that I'm editing the section, I see that they at least put carriage returns in but due to the WP software, it all ran together as one line. Dismas|^(talk) 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right to say "Arr!" on days other than September 19. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

To the OP. Check with your Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and they should be able to help you. See here and check the topics on the lower right. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]