nude hiking is no offense Why
The increasing popularity of nude hiking leads more often to ensure that insecure citizens ask to contact police or clerk's office to see if naked hiking is permitted at all. Unfortunately, regulatory agencies and police spokesman often give the false statement "If someone feels harassed, we have a walk".
The legal basis for "intervention" can only be found in the Administrative Offences Act § 118: "An offense committed by anyone who makes a grossly indecent act, which is likely to annoy the general public or to endanger and affect public policy."
intervention may order office or police so only if the three conditions are met: first
Someone makes a grossly indecent act.
second With the plot, the general public at risk or inconvenienced.
third With the plot, the public order are affected.
Is Naked Hiking a grossly indecent act?
The act of naked wanderer is walking. Walking is certainly not rude. So, an impropriety be justified only in the fact that you walk naked. To be naked is a state and no action, but lawyers sometimes maintain a state of understanding as actions. Lawyers sometimes lacks the ability to differentiate. To continue to come, we understand now that is legally the state of nudity as the act of being naked.
nudity itself is not improper. To nudity is about the Catholic Church established (by an encyclical by Pope John Paul II), "Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and beauty." Where the Church of splendor and beauty is, the Christian values to identify constructive, German society is not to gross impropriety, not even a simple impropriety!
further leads the Catholic Church to nudity, "indecency is given only when nakedness plays a negative role in terms of the value of a person. "naturists take any regard to man and nature. They respect each person in his personal individuality and the value of a man never at a physical property or be measured by whether and what clothing he wears. The nakedness a naturist in the sense of Christian standards then, in no way derogatory or indecent.
basis for living together in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Basic Law, which explicitly refers to God. The two big Christian churches, which over 60% of the population belonging to identify and design - for example in the value of the Federal Government - The development of values and moral standards in our country with much. Requirements of the Church can therefore in assessing whether an action "grossly improper" or whether to talk of "glory and beauty," not simply be ignored.
So the answer is clear: Nude hiking is not a grossly indecent act.
Since all three conditions for the existence of an offense must be met and the first Condition is not already satisfied, no longer be considered whether the other two conditions are met. We want to do it anyway.
Can the general public at risk by walking naked or harassed be? Can be
naked hiking at all a threat to anyone? That surely depends on the location of the event. When there are nude hikers on a busy square, a hazard (for individual, not for the general public) are that drivers are distracted in their attention to the road. The blame for possibly entering Ufällen is indeed still the inattentive drivers, but the Naturist may have contributed to a threat.
The human anatomy should be no secret. Dangerous to get to know the anatomy, it is not, even if it should be someone who they still do not know. Children who are often referred to by the inquiring citizens as a reason for their concern, they will even learn the latest in the kindergarten or school.
The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest minds of the 20th . Century, came to the conclusion: "As long as children are not allowed to see and sometimes adults around naked, the children necessarily have the feeling that there is a secret, and if they have this feeling that they are incited and indecent." A danger to children incited, and indecent to be there, so if and when they are deprived of the bare appearance of people.
But of course, parents have custody of their children and to determine whether, when and how they teach their children to human anatomy. Why is won by the sight of a naked man in no danger because of possibly emerging issues of adult children should easily find answers.
Hence: Nude Hiking in nature threatened anyone, let alone the general public.
Can be naked hiking an act which harassed the general public?
uses the concept of harassment ahead of the acts, will continue with the undesirable effect on other people. By the mere possibility of a vision in the other completely behaving inconspicuously, naked people is such a positive action not given.
It may be, however, that there are people to whom the sight of a naked man is not pleasant, and who feel disturbed by the possibility of such a vision or harassed.
the purposes of § 118 of the Administrative Offences Act it is immaterial whether individuals feel disturbed or inconvenienced. A misdemeanor is present only if the act can harass the public.
The general public within the meaning of this section, only the population as a whole or at least be an important part of the population. Certainly the public is not by any person individual or groups of individuals are represented. Is also expected to as the minority of the Islamic population in Germany (after 3.9% of the population), which their religion may prohibit nudity, do not stand for "the community".
The New Deister newspaper at a nude walk in the Deister in August 2009 conducted a readership survey, according to which 78% have nothing against naked walks, only 22% found that "no such thing heard." be excluded
As with the reference of the German society on Christian principles a "gross impropriety" for the naked hiking may be where the performance and praise of God Creation (who created man in His own image) in the wild be no harassment to the public after the Christian norms and values. What the Church as the "glory and beauty" appeals can not be harassing the general public.
Can naked hiking through public policy be affected?
This will also be dependent on. Who wants to go with naked in a solemn procession, so that might hurt the religious feelings of many others and thus disturb the public order.
Public order, after a ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe also emerge if Nacktivitäten within closed Villages to be done (in that case naked jogging in the city Freiburg), su
Hikers but in national parks or nature reserves or similar places in nature, can the public order in nature do not affect - the Naturist divided so aware in nature, and this is their natural element and active preservation by behaving in a way that neither plants, animals, soil, aquatic environment, people will be disturbed or damaged.
Conclusion
Not one of the three necessary conditions for the existence of an offense under § 118 Administrative Offences Act is fulfilled when people naked free in the Nature walk.
Why naked hiking no public nuisance
The term "public nuisance" is from the Criminal Code and relates to crimes of sexual acts in public and exhibitionism concern. According to the verdict of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court of exhibitionism is present only if the goal of the exhibitionistic act sexual gratification. bring
nude hiking in the concept of public nuisance related, is therefore completely misguided.
When naked hiking may still may be a misdemeanor
There are few authoritative rulings in the recent history of German law, in which nudity been confirmed as the harassment of the general public. became known for the case of the "naked runner of Freiburg, Dr. Peter Niehenke.
Quote: "This [. The existence of a misdemeanor, Einfügg the author] is under the jurisdiction of the authorities responsible for the interpretation of Fines ordinary courts, the case when the shame and decency which is inadvertently touched with an enduring foreign naked people confronted , as the presentation of a naked human body reindeer lichen on public streets and squares principle is the case, without that it depends solely on the sex-determining body parts. " (OLG Karlsruhe, NStZ-RR 2000, 309 ff.)
is noteworthy that one to the previous law applies, without checking whether there has developed in the German society and the lived reality of law with respect to a change of accepted values. Modesty and decency are always instilled and are therefore subject to the change of social development.
It is worth noting that the reference of the Federal Republic was not included on the Christian religion and the values and standards laid down there in the process. Remarkably, thirdly, the explicit mention of "public streets and squares" is.
Quote: "went to the findings of the 52-year old affected from February to October 2001, largely in six cases undressed by Freiburg (city center and outdoor) and by Umkirch about "The case was so naked in cities and not natural-conscious walking in natural parks or nature reserves
Quote:".. Irrelevant Anyway, if indeed passers had felt harassed. "This confirms the superior court that the perception of one or more persons for the fulfillment of the facts of an offense are irrelevant.
The verdict of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe, to which many subordinated ratings and administrative instructions, called , is still the remarkable point to the center of consideration
In the court's opinion it is said that "the shame and decency which is inadvertently affected by sustained foreign nudity faced man." Every normal person looks at his fellow man in the face - and then it is complied with, or perhaps you do not its nakedness.
only naturist beginners and voyeuristic watching other people's sex only once. The indecency is not with the naked wall, but when yoyeuristischen viewer, who then claimed yet, it was his shameless eye was imposed. In reality, revealed here the hypocritical mendacity immoral moralist who already Richard has branded storm 100 years ago in his first writings.
The VGH Baden-Württemberg out in the same case continues: "Both the genitals and the buttocks of a person belonging to the human pubic area, which should not be shown at any time and any place in public."
should be noted again that only shame is instilled and therefore a social concept of shame is subject to change, which must be checked in each case carefully. If this test is not, or only weak (and is only an opinion based on a lump opinions), then here is a procedural error.
More important is the recognition that there are, according to the VGH BW (outside built-up areas) well times and places where the genitals and the buttocks must be shown in public. Of course, the VGH BW has, in particular, natural parks and protected areas addressed, ie places where the nature - and thus human nature - is under the explicit protection.
This is our approach, natural areas, natural parks and nature reserves, walking naked, just not under the Administrative Offences Act § 118.
It is noted here that in politics for quite some time Claims are to delete the § 118 OWiG all - because obviously nonsensical. Explanation: The Offences tracking are fully covered by § 183 of the Criminal Code.
Note: Whether in a particular case there is a misdemeanor or not, decided by the competent court. Recognizing a public affairs office for the presence of a misdemeanor is then only valid where the person's prior consent.
More important is the recognition that there are, according to the VGH BW (outside built-up areas) well times and places where the genitals and the buttocks must be shown in public. Of course, the VGH BW has, in particular, natural parks and protected areas addressed, ie places where the nature - and thus human nature - is under the explicit protection.
This is our approach, natural areas, natural parks and nature reserves, walking naked, just not under the Administrative Offences Act § 118.
It is noted here that in politics for quite some time Claims are to delete the § 118 OWiG all - because obviously nonsensical. Explanation: The Offences tracking are fully covered by § 183 of the Criminal Code.
Note: Whether in a particular case there is a misdemeanor or not, decided by the competent court. Recognizing a public affairs office for the presence of a misdemeanor is then only valid where the person's prior consent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment