The first results are in. The court has looked at the fines of the Dutch nudists from the Delft nude beach.
Ruling: the beach is not fit for naked recreation when more than 150 dressed people (including children) are present.
Most people who were fined don’t have to pay. (I don’t know how they decided on that.)
The city of Delft has announced they are going to find a better place for the nude sunlovers. Many people fear that this will be a remote, hard to reach location where there is far more opportunity for sexual harassment than happened at the present location. A number of nudists plan to appeal, as on the same morning a large number of people were treated differently for the same ‘offence’.
A remote location as you suggested is discrimination of the family, especially of women and children. The risks for women to be alone on a beach is unfortunately in general already higher and a remote location will significantly increase that risk. Is that argument not used in court? Simple nudity is not, and should not be a criminal offence.
I agree entirely, and I hope that they will understand that.
At the moment however it seems that the weight of the majority rules, even when the majority is wrong.
Maybe the court people should give it a try before the finally chose.
It seems ~ from here, in New South Wales ~ ‘funny’ that the Netherlands is considered to have ‘remote’ beaches. (As an assessor for Keep Australia Beautiful, I have visited some REALLY remote beaches!)
Such a pity that the pendulum is swinging towards conservative again, in the Netherlands. I have been so proud of how sensible the Dutch have usually been about naturism and the fact that we all have a human body.
I enjoyed my very brief visits to the legal beaches in the Netherlands.
Distance is all relative, Joop. *grin*
My local nude beach is also ‘distant’ from the regular ones that are around. You need to walk at least 600 metres / 2000 ft to get there from the tiny parking lot!
The Netherlands is a small country, and in these things that shows.