This is funny, in a way, because the owner of the FB page, and also the owner of a related blog by the same name, periodically gets banned from FB for violating its rules; then, once reinstated, he goes on about it, whinging and blatting about free speech. Well, which is it? Does he believe in free speech or not? It turns out that one is free to say whatever one wishes on his FB page so long as it agrees with him. Speak otherwise and one is cast out. Really, this particular facebooker behaves remarkably like the FB police that he has often railed about. The truth is that the two of them are really sisters beneath the skin.
But being cast out isn’t as bad as one might think because the FB page is mostly blather and the related blog isn’t any better. I only joined because I like to keep abreast of what is being said within various segments of the Canadian naturist community and I had been checking both sites.
The issue raised by the blogger, then advertised on his FB page, was his contention that the Federation of Canadian Naturists, the FCN, should be split between East and West. I countered that there was already an East/West split in Canadian naturism as well as a French/English divide in the East. I put forward the position that we needed fewer splits and more solidarity, and that further splits were counterproductive. (I don’t have the exact words anymore because I didn’t keep copies of my posts.)
He replied, in a somewhat snippy manner, that the issue was really one of funding – there wasn’t enough to go around. I countered by asking how splitting the organization could possibly increase funding, noting that the duplication of administration was not an obvious path to fiscal health.
He replied that the issue was really one of numbers of volunteers. I countered by asking which was the real issue (of the two that he claimed to be the real issue) funding or numbers of volunteers.
He didn’t reply, but he did have the final word – he dropped me from the group. This is the internet equivalent of holding one's breath until one turns blue. Not that he is actually holding his breath, of course, just that he chose to behave like a two year old child who couldn’t get his way.
The way I see it, is that if you can’t formulate a cogent argument, or you are unprepared to defend a silly argument, it is best to keep your fingers off the keyboard.
Oh, I know, that isn’t the internet way of doing things, and I really do believe that everyone has the right to hold their own opinions. I just find it strange how many netizens are like this particular facebooker/blogger and don’t really think about what they post.
But all this is by way of introduction to the real point of this post, the question of whether naturism is a belief system. I think that it is.
Think about it for a second. Those of us who consider ourselves to be naturists largely subscribe to the official definition of naturism agreed by the INF: “a lifestyle in harmony with nature, expressed through social nudity, and characterized by self-respect of people with different opinions and of the environment.” We also, largely, subscribe to the stricture that such nudity is, and must remain, non-sexualized. These two points are our dogma.
Those of us who are 'Christian naturists' believe that non-sexualized social nudity is not at variance with holy writ. Those who have no particular religious belief simply consider it to be “in harmony with nature.” In other words we believe it to be natural, normal, modest and moral – one might add “righteous.”
The New Oxford English Dictionary defines a “nudist” as “an adherent of the cult of the nude.” To begin with, that isn’t a very helpful definition. Secondly, “cult of the nude,” seriously? No really, seriously? Who wrote that definition, Cotton Mather? Simply using the word “cult” in that definition betrays the derogatory opinions held by the writer as it is generally used in a pejorative manner against religious groups holding to doctrines or practices which differ from the established religion of the land. Religion, after all, has always been a powerful method of social control that has, at least from the time of the Roman Empire, been co-opted by the civil authorities to keep the people in line. But naturism isn’t a religion, and it certainly isn’t a cult. Cults have charismatic leaders, rigid doctrines, draconian enforcement of their rules and, in some cases, special koolaid.
As a collective, naturists aren’t slurping down the koolaid or waiting for the mother ship to arrive. Our leaders are most often voices in the wilderness, our doctrines are pretty much as described by the INF and our enforcement of the rules never goes beyond expulsion for bad behaviour, if indeed we can expel the offending party. A recent tribunal ruling in Ontario forbade a naturist community from expelling a person and has granted that person right of residence within the community, despite the fact that the community exists on private property. The community, the adherents of the belief system, has in effect been told by the civil authority that they must suffer a heretic to live among them.
To return to our facebooker/blogger, he fancies himself some sort of leader among naturists. He demands followers who agree with him and expels those who do not. I suppose that makes me a heretic in his personal belief system. Is there any difference in these two heresies?
I believe that there is. The first is one of individual transgression against the norms and mores – the belief system – of the a community which he has infiltrated by deception; the second one is a point of disagreement between two individuals. The first is one of community whose territory has been violated by an individual who is not in harmony with the belief system of the community; the second is of an individual unable to frame a logical argument or to state the grounds on which anyone else might support it.
To sum up this page of rambling thoughts I would like to state what I believe.
I subscribe to the INF definition of naturism as “a lifestyle in harmony with nature, expressed through social nudity, and characterized by self-respect of people with different opinions and of the environment.”
I believe that such social nudity is, and must remain, non-sexualized.
I believe such social nudity to be natural, normal, modest, moral and, yes, righteous.
I do not believe for a moment that the FCN should be split on any basis, East/West or otherwise.
I believe that the FCN, while being desperately distant from being perfect, should provide a necessary form of group legitimization for naturists across Canada.
I believe that more naturists should become involved with the FCN and become card-carrying members of the organization.
I believe that the FCN could and should be much more active in educating the public concerning naturism.
I believe that the FCN could and should be much more active in lobbying government.
I believe that the specific focus of the FCN in lobbying government should be the immediate decriminalization of innocent nudity.
What do you believe?
An update . . . in 2017 the FCN made a major blunder and in doing so managed to colour public perceptions of naturism in a very unfortunate way. See my blogpost The FCN does not represent naturism within Canada for further details. Unless and until it cleans up its act I can no longer support it, nor can I recommend that anyone else support it. That's just the way it goes. That said, I still believe that Canadian naturists need a central organization to represent them. If the FCN can't or won't be it then we need a different organization that will remain true to naturist ideals.
