Username
Password
Remember Me    |  Forgot my password  |  New Account


Newest Groups

NameMembers
Clothed But Commando10
Hairy Gay Nudists6
Nudist Teens (18-21)5
Satanic Nudists2
SPAIN NUDISTS GROUP6



Invite a Friend

Know a nudist that would love this site? Have a sneaking suspicion you're not the only nudist in your friends? You can send an anonymous email to a friend from truenudists.com, or add your information and let them know you're a true nudist





*The following field is not required



Freehikers

Started by


OrilliaNudist on 05/12/2009

Group Description

This group is for freehikers to discuss their clothes free hiking experiences and to help arrange nude hikes in their area. Freehiking is a fast growing, healthy way of life that has minimal cost. (Getting to and from the freehiking location only). My area has a number of great trails that are ideal for freehiking and anyone wishing to give it a try. Please leave a message. John (Orillianudist)


Group Rules

Know the law in your area. Here in Ontario one is not considered nude if one is wearing just footwear and/or a hat.(Usual outfit for freehiking) See Section 174 of the Criminal Code of Canada below, which I am "VERY" familiar with, states. 174(1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, (a) is nude in a public place, or (b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property...is guilty of an offence... (2) For the purpose of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order. (3) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section without the consent of the Attorney General. Subsection 174(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it an offence for a person "without lawful excuse" to be "nude in a public place". However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that "nude" means "completely bare" rather than just "shockingly bare" or "offensively bare". In other words, even if all you`re wearing is socks on your feet, the Supreme Court of Canada says that you are not automatically considered "nude" for purposes of the Criminal Code. Even the scantiest or most minuscule item of apparel, loosely worn, is sufficient to take the accused out of subsection 174(1), regardless of whether any particular body parts (such as genitals) are completely visible: R. v. Verrette (1978), 85 D.L.R. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.); R. v. Khestlova-Hanko (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (Ont. Dist. Ct.).


Group Discussion


  Topic Last Post Views Replies

Everybody should try Freehiking

Looking for nudists around Toronto to go nude hiking
by jbigguy 2 months ago
402

re

re
by gabare 7 months ago
720