vision2020
RE: Apology and Where do we go from here?
Mr. Guyer,
I appreciate the time you took in your response.
I am deeply saddened that the City Council, with all the wisdom
available, was unable to come up with a solution that didn't selectively
target a specific gender for physical attributes over which we women
have no control over the development of. Men, too, have secondary
sexual characteristics of the chest yet they are spared legal penalties
should their chests be seen in public, no matter how objectionable or
attractive some of us find the view. If I lay down sun bathing at the
pool and gravity causes a shift (which I've already observed is likely
to happen), I can be arrested, hauled off to jail, lose a serious amount
of money, *and* have a criminal record.
Being (relatively) young, I have *never* felt like such a second-class
citizen in my own community as I now feel with the passage of this
ill-advised ordinance. I feel incredibly devalued by my community
government, which seems to want to make me a criminal, and I can't help
but wonder what repressive and punitive direction the next action will
be given the apparent attitudes of the current City Council.
The ordinance that was passed certainly doesn't seem to fit your
criteria of: "3) Does not have unwarranted side effects" and "5) Is
offensive to as few people as possible". I continue to have serious
doubts about whether it fits your criteria of: "2) Effective" and "4)
Is Enforceable". And, I certainly don’t think it passes the "1)
Constitutionality" muster in much the same way I'm sure women felt when
denied the vote or access to birth control or ability to own property or
right to inherit and blacks felt with they were relegated to the back of
the bus.
I posted earlier in this forum my experience at the pool in just a
couple of hours and how many violations I observed. That was the first
day the ordinance was in effect, but I sure didn't see any "education"
or "enforcement" going on at the pool that day *or* since. I still see
the same "illegal" clothing for sale in our community stores. And, the
same "violations" are continuing to occur at the pool and within our
community on a daily and probably hourly basis.
I was recently sitting in a local large medical waiting room and saw a
nicely dressed (IMHO) young lady who was *clearly* in violation of the
ordinance because her breasts below the areola and away from midline
were very visible. We happened to be leaving the doc's office at the
same time, and she strolled off down Main Street with her boyfriend . .
. right past a police officer. No "enforcement" and none of the
"education" I've read that the police are going to do.
If the City Council has decided that breasts are an evil we need to be
protected from, when is this "protection" (or "education") going to
start??? Y'all certainly rushed through with absolutely amazing (or
horrifying) speed getting the ordinance in effect, so I'd think you'd
want it to start "protecting" us just as quickly. News Flash: It's Not
Happening!
Regardless of the intentions of the City Council, passage of the
ordinance has relegated a significant number of community citizens to
unequal protection under the law and added to the disenfranchisement of
women within our community. I don't know who you are hearing from
(likely at least some of the same bozos who have decided to subject me
to harassing vulgar phone calls since _The Argonaut_ printed a
paraphrase of one of my postings here), but my experience is that
passage of the ordinance, and NOT toplessness or breasts, has created a
true chasm within our community.
I'll readily admit that I definitely tend towards liberal (for those who
seem incredibly hung up on affixing labels to people), yet even among my
friends who don't share my views the ordinance is not supported for many
of the same reasons we've seen discussed in this forum. They, too, are
offended, Mr. Guyer.
I implore you, Mr. Guyer, as a City Council member, to rethink things
and take action to undo the unnecessary harm this ordinance has caused
the community. I urge that the ordinance be stricken or removed or
recalled (whatever the proper term is) and more careful concern and
consideration, as well as open discussion for a *reasonable* amount of
time, be given to alternative solutions (i.e., ideas Peg Hamlett brought
to the table as well as other potential solutions).
Saundra Lund
Moscow, Idaho
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to
do nothing.
Edmund Burke
-----Original Message-----
From: John Guyer [mailto:johnguy@moscow.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:54 PM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Apology and Where do we go from here?
Greetings,
The first order of business is an apology to Mark Rounds who has asked a
very good question regarding the Public Nudity amendment, and is
deserving of a (hopefully) very good answer. Many people are tired of
this discussion, so please feel free to delete here. If you care about
this issue, please read the entire post before you respond.
Mark asked what the purpose of the ordinance was. I need to begin by
stating that I can only answer for myself as a single council member in
responding to this question. My objective was to address the problem of
random topless encounters. The carwash may have gained media attention,
but it was the random encounters that greatly agitated the community.
This was not about traffic. It was not about an SOB. It was about
people (lots of people) not feeling like they could safely conduct their
lives without a great deal of alarm.
My responsibility as a representative is to provide a climate where
people feel safe (however one may define it), and people can conduct
their lives in peace (whatever that may entail). It is a difficult
balance to maintain the rights of the individual as they are exercised
within the rights of the community. We must maintain that balance while
avoiding the extremes of single mindedly thinking of one or the other.
This delicate balance was upset by a small group of people. It is
unfortunate, that so much time, money and rhetoric can be wasted by a
small group of people. However, as a community representative, I felt
it was our responsibility to restore this balance. I supported the
ordinance because it does that. I would vote the same today as I did
then.
It is not appropriate for me, as a community representative, to discuss
the merits or shortcomings of public decisions on a list serve, or at a
rally. It must stand on its own in that regard.
The question we should be asking (and some thankfully are) is, "Now
what?"
We have addressed the issue that disturbed the balance with an ordinance
that appears to pass muster on several counts 1) Constitutionality, 2)
Effectiveness, 3) Unwarranted side effects, 4) Enforcement. I grant
quite readily that some on this list, and in the community, find the
ordinance wanting, or offensive, or both on all, or some of the counts
stated previously. Again I will not debate those here. I can only
offer the following:
1) For those that feel women should be able to display their breasts in
public because men do - I can only say that we disagree on this point. I
do desire that common sense, and community charity ruled the day, and
this, or any type of law addressing this, would be unnecessary. However,
I do not think we can continue to have a community if this is permitted.
We will have people living together in ire. That is not community.
2) For those that feel this ordinance is lacking for a different reason
- I can say, as I have stated already, this is not cast in stone. I am
willing to invest whatever time I can, to arrive at an ordinance that
is, to the best of our ability to determine 1) Constitutional, 2)
Effective, 3) Does not have unwarranted side effects, 4) Is Enforceable,
and 5) Is offensive to as few people as possible.
Regards,
John B. Guyer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
johnguy@moscow.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Back to TOC