|
|
Who Acted Immorally Here?by Peter A. Simm, B.Comm., LL.B.
Police have made three "routine liquor-licence inspections" at the Barn in the last ninety days. Each was during a TNT!MEN naked dance. Even a cautious lawyer like me must concede that, at some point, "routine inspections" are better characterized as "routine harassment". No criminal offenses are alleged to have occurred at any of our 37 monthly dances. If other Toronto dances emulated our policy of mandatory nudity, they'd drastically reduce some of THEIR problems (you know, annoying little things, like fatal shootings). Upon entering the Barn, the police rushed directly to the washrooms. Were their bladders bursting? Were the officers just full of crap? If they were hoping to find sexual activity, they went home unsatisfied. I've totalled the scores for the three "inspections": 14 highly-trained eyes, 105 minutes, zero sex. If the cops wanted to catch someone doing something shameful, all they had to do was look in the mirror. Besides being a ludicrous misuse of expensive police resources, the latest "inspection" violated an agreement between the police, TNT!MEN, and the Barn. After the second "inspection", Supt. Aidan Maher, head of 52 Division, promised no further harassment of naked dances at The Barn if conducted as "private parties". This entailed admission tickets not sold at the door. On April 20, that agreement with police became a matter of public record in articles published in Xtra!, eye, and NOW. What happened a mere nine days later? Despite meticulous implementation of the agreement by TNT!MEN and the Barn, Det. David Wilson showed up with two plainclothes officers. In the absence of any criminal activity, they were left swatting at regulatory gnats. For example, Wilson triumphantly noted that his two juniors hadn't observed food menus. Someone present then stopped patting his pet chihuahua and fetched some laminated menus. To his credit, Wilson restrained himself from screaming, "Curses! Just you wait, my pretty -- I'll get you... and your little dog, too!" The three "liquor-licence inspections" together yielded one minor charge under the Liquor License Act. A regulation prohibits bar owners from permitting "riotous, quarrelsome, violent or disorderly conduct". Two officers chose to misinterpret "disorderly conduct" as including mere nudity. They reached this clever insight without consulting a lawyer who is actually familiar with relevant jurisprudence and principles of statutory interpretation. After exhaustive legal research, I am confident the Crown attorney will withdraw the charge as legally untenable, or that a judge will acquit for that same reason. There's a disturbing historical parallel in George Chauncey's book, Gay New York. He recounts how police have at times abused vague liquor-licensing laws to make life miserable for lesbians and gay men. When Prohibition was repealed in 1930, "disorderliness" was forbidden in New York bars. This proviso had "a profound impact" because of the way it was interpreted by the State Liquor Authority: "The simple presence of lesbians or gay men... made an establishment disorderly." From 1939 to Stonewall, the SLA "closed literally hundreds of bars that welcomed, tolerated, or simply failed to notice the patronage of gay men or lesbians." As a result, gay bars "survived at all only by paying off the local patrolmen and policing the behaviour of their own patrons". Some of Toronto's finest have decided they don't like uppity naked faggots. To indulge in regulatory harassment is to defile the rule of law and to abuse the power that WE citizens have entrusted to OUR police. It is imperative that they stop and honestly ask themselves, "Whom am I serving, and whom am I protecting?" This article appeared in slightly different form in Xtra. |
I'm sorry to report that starting in February of this year, a handful of Toronto police have decided to attack Toronto nudists who are peacefully and legally holding monthly nude dances at a Toronto bar. They have charged the owner with violating the conditions of his liquor license for "permitting disorderly conduct", in that he allowed us to dance naked.
Nude dancing is disorderly?? Exactly who's dictionary are they using anyway? We are completely convinced that there is no way the owner could be convicted of such a violation, but the cops have threatened to charge him again and again until he stops.
This is despite the widely-reported deal that was worked out by the Barn, their lawyer, and Police Superintendant Aidan Maher in early April. It was Maher who came up with the idea, and the rest agreed, that the police would stop harrassing our nude dances if we emphasized the private nature of the event by not selling admission tickets at the door. We did so, and three cops, one of whom being the fellow who caused so much trouble for the Bijou last year, came to our dance at the end of April. They wanted to collect the names of all of the volunteers working at the coat-check, purely for intimidation purposes. They rushed to the washrooms looking for sex, but they left unsatisfied. Although no charges were laid as a result of their visit, the cops promised to continue intimidating the Barn until they gave it. Threatened with more charges and expensive court costs, the owner of the Barn recently decided to stop holding nude events until the initial charge is thrown out by the courts.
And so TNT!MEN's nude dance at the Barn on May 27th is cancelled. However, the TNT!MEN board has promised to arrange a fabulous nude dance at a new location for our "Show Your Pride" event on Saturday, June 24th. They are still working out the details; if you know of any great location they should consider, please let us know. 30 May 2000: The board of TNT!MEN has decided to have a "nearly naked" dance at the Barn on June 24th, from 1-8:30 pm.
This also means that the Sunday Underwear Parties at the Barn are no longer nude. And fearing similar harrassment, the owner of the Black Eagle has decided to make the Sunday "Sleaze Nights" clothing-mandatory, too.
Stay tuned for more info.