Nude bathing barely legal (Southern Courier)
www.freebeach.info
22 Feb 10 @ 11:00am by Leesa Smith
Southern Courier
[Photo] Not on our beach: Nudists are welcome at Kings Beach near
Byron Bay but not at Little Congwong at La Perouse.
A raid on an unofficial nudist beach at La Perouse has reignited the
call to make Little Congwong a clothing optional locale.
The NSW Free Beach Action Group’s attempt to have the beach classified
as a nude beach for a two-year trial was rejected by the Randwick
Council in 2005 and again in February last year, but tensions have
risen between residents and nudists at the beach, which has had a long
history of an unofficial clothing optional code.
The long-running battle to get swimmers at Little Congwong beach to
keep their clothes on climaxed on Sunday with a police raid.
Police swooped twice in one day - at 12.30pm and 4pm - after ongoing
community concern about the public beach being turned into a nudist
oasis.
Nude bather Bozena Hochwallner, who was at the beach on Sunday, said
the raid was a waste of police resources.
“There are more urgent matters for police to attend other than people
skinny-dipping and if it is such a big problem in 2010, there is
something wrong with society,” she said. “Let’s finish that nonsense
and register the beach as a nudist beach. One can be sure us nudists
will tolerate other users wearing swimming wear.”
Concerns about nudists flouting the government decision led to the
police raid on Sunday. There, police found 140 people on the beach at
12.30pm, 80 of them naked.
Police spoke to a number of people, explaining present legislation and
community expectations, before the nudists were asked to get dressed
and leave the beach. More nudists were moved on at 4pm when the police
returned.
Although the nude bathers were only issued with formal warnings,
Maroubra police superintendent Gavin Dengate stressed that if the
practice continued, infringement notices for offensive conduct and
charges for wilful and obscene exposure were possible.
“Police remind the community that Little Congwong beach is not a
registered beach for nude bathing under Section 633 (nude bathing) of
the Local Government Act,” Supt Dengate said. “There are signs on the
beach advertising this fact, and they have been subject to frequent
vandalism.”
Randwick councillor Robert Belleli said nudists should accept the law.
“La Perouse is very different to 80 or 90 years ago when it was not
populated,” he said. “There is tourism and it is very family
orientated now.”
Should Little Congwong be a nudist beach? Tell us what you think in
the box below.
http://southern-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/barely-legal/
Gerald Ganglbauer
leila writes:
Posted on 1 Mar 10 at 08:03pm
i went to little congwong on saturday it really is the best and
most friendly nude beach in sydney. its much bigger than lady jane and
more accessible than obelisk. everyone who went to the opera house in
their birthday suit for the photoshoot should get down to little
congwong and support it being clothing optional.
bren writes:
Posted on 27 Feb 10 at 04:26pm
i lived in sydney for 10 years and my wife and i loved little cong
wong beach.this is terrible what is happening to our society when
perverted councillors are trying to close down sydneys best free
beaches.we still visit cong wong with the kids when we are visiting
sydney.man some of these councillors are so uptight.it is the most
stupid thing in the world to have to wear clothes to swim and makes no
sense in our climate change era.how much carbon is produced making
drying shipping swimwear that is not needed .this is the result of
private schooling by religious zealots brainwashing easily led
children into their twisted perverted views of the world. long live
nudity on australias beaches
Matthew writes:
Posted on 26 Feb 10 at 11:29pm
Yes Little Conwong absolutely is and should be a nudist beach.
Those of us who head there and choose to take our clothes off make it
so.
How can nudity be a crime? The thought of the human body as
something illegal is just absurd.
The people who decide to go there and strip off have every right
to do so. If people are offended by nudity then Sydney has a majority
of other beaches where there isn’t topless sunbathing, skinny dipping
or nudity that they can visit. There is no need to head to that few
hundred metres of sand that is Little Conwong and have their moral
panic button pressed.
The police action is abhorrent and a sign of these conservative
times we are living in. Come on NSW we can do better than this. How
about we focus our efforts on reducing violent crimes in our
communities and let those of us who want to take our clothes off and
sit in the sun in peace.
On Monday under Spencer Tunick’s artistic organising over 5000
people will be naked on the steps of the Opera House. Crime of all
crimes! Should we all be arrested for taking part in this in
Keneally’s police state?
We all have a body, let’s celebrate our humanity and our freedom.
Yours in solidarity.
John writes:
Posted on 26 Feb 10 at 05:02pm
I wish to support the push for the beach at little Congwong to be
legalised clothing optional. Who remembers the polls held over the
years, 92% support for the beach being leagally clothing optional on
19/12/06 and the 91% vote (320/32) on 5/11/08? Nudists have the right
NOT to be discriminated against by people like Cr Bob Belleli. There
is obviously an overwelling public need for a legal clothing optional
beach in the southern Sydney area, one that can be attended by
singles, couples and families without fear of being victimised or
judged by narrow minded old-fashioned dictators, persons that don’t
have the public interest in mind but only there own agenda.
PC writes:
Posted on 26 Feb 10 at 12:44pm
So many considerate emails from supportors of Little Congwong
being gazetted legally clothing optional, only a few nay sayers which
has been reflected in polls the Southern Courier has conducted on this
very subject in past years. Who remebers the 92% support for the
beach being leagally clothing optional on 19/12/06 and the 91% vote
(320/32) on 5/11/08?
This beach is in a NSW National Park and therefore under NPWS
jurisdiction above the mean high water mark (MHW) . Below the MHW is
the concern of NSW Waterways Authority. So Randwick City Council only
has jursidiction over the footpath leading into the Botany Bay
National Par. Sorry to remind Cr Bob Belleli of that fact again. Yes
police do have overall jurisdiction over this and any other public
places in NSW, but their resources are better utilised elsewhere as
the primary charter of police is for the protection of life &
property.
There are actually FOUR beaches in the La Perouse area, and of
course LC has the longest walk from any carpark.
Take a look at the latest Google Earth photo of Little Congwong
and then compare it to Congwong Beach. There is 20:1 prefered
patronage on the small beach!
http://www.freebeach.info
redbelle2 writes:
Posted on 26 Feb 10 at 10:17am
I travel to the beach for sun baking and good swimming
conditions . It has always been a friendly beach I see no reason for
the beach to be closed as a nude one! It should be an optional nude
beach with sign
Shane Anderson writes:
Posted on 26 Feb 10 at 01:01am
Just a couple of points to note for the people trying to ban this
beach as clothing optional. For a start, the beach is extremely
isolated from your avg ‘tourist’, to the point you actually have to
walk for 20 minutes to reach it! These same ‘tourists’, in most cases
come from a “modern” and “realistic” society where nudity is classed
as a part of life and not a CRIME! ‘If’ Randwick Council were SERIOUS
about looking out for the community, they’d surely be hard pressed to
find a better reason than prosecuting vandals spraying graffiti and
damaging most of the surrounding area which they see a long time
before they even see the sand. The areas are patrolled by police
during the day, in an attempt to harass humans as nature intened them
to be, however where are the police when all the drunks are smashing
bottles in the night and vandalising the place, leaving even the
average “tourist” or member of the public to cut their foot open with
no medical facility in sight? Clearly the Randwick Council has their
priorities wrong!
Shane Anderson writes:
Posted on 26 Feb 10 at 01:00am
Just a couple of points to note for the people trying to ban this
beach as clothing optional. For a start, the beach is extremely
isolated from your avg ‘tourist’, to the point you actually have to
walk for 20 minutes to reach it! These same ‘tourists’, in most cases
come from a “modern” and “realistic” society where nudity is classed
as a part of life and not a CRIME! ‘If’ Randwick Council were SERIOUS
about looking out for the community, they’d surely be hard pressed to
find a better reason than prosecuting vandals spraying graffiti and
damaging most of the surrounding area which they see a long time
before they even see the sand. The areas are patrolled by police
during the day, in an attempt to harass humans as nature intened them
to be, however where are the police when all the drunks are smashing
bottles in the night and vandalising the place, leaving even the
average “tourist” or member of the public to cut their foot open with
no medical facility in sight? Clearly the Randwick Council has their
priorities wrong!
Ian writes:
Posted on 25 Feb 10 at 09:13pm
Oh dear, could somebody please remind Randwick council that this
beach is under NPWS and oops there is no 3rd tier of Government under
the constitution. That is Randwick (insert ABN) does not exist and
they should shut up - in particular Cl Belleli - who seems to have his
own agenda and is out of touch with comunity and real life. It is none
of his business! Or perhaps he showers with his clothes on? Nudists
have the right NOT to be discriminated against by people like him…
GET A LIFE MAN!
Nick the Pom writes:
Posted on 25 Feb 10 at 12:26pm
Crikey.. I always thought you aussies were relaxed and open minded
but how things have changed. This is an ideal beach for clothing
optional due to it’s location and surely there are enough beaches
elsewhere for those who prefer to wear bathers!! Come on guys....
lighten up
Brusle writes:
Posted on 25 Feb 10 at 11:21am
“La Perouse is very different to 80 or 90 years ago when it was
not populated,” he said. “There is tourism and it is very family
orientated now.”
I have found that nude beaches the world over are a popular
tourist destination for couples and families alike. So the fact that
there is now more tourism and are children around shouldn’t matter.
What the police SHOULD do is arrest the few (if any) perverts that
think a nudist beach has anything to do with sex (which it has NOT).
They are normally easily picked out from the genuine law-abiding
nudists that are just there to enjoy their day off in the buff.
John writes:
Posted on 25 Feb 10 at 09:13am
This is 2010. Thousands of people will be naked at the Opera house
this weekend. Surely all beaches in Australia should be clothing
optional. I don’t see why this is a problem for families. Skinny
dipping is an Aussie tradition and I can not see how this can be an
offence.
Paula writes:
Posted on 25 Feb 10 at 08:43am
Here here, Stephen, Jack, Sara, Kem!
Olivia, true it’s not REGISTERED. But it has been predominately
accepted as an unofficial clothing optional beach for about 40 years.
It has only been in more recent times, that the status of the beach
has come into question - due to a minority of individuals who refuse
diversity.
I don’t think Belleli’s argument that “La Perouse is very
different to 80 or 90 years ago (…) it is very family orientated now”
holds at all. Yes, MAIN La Perouse beach is a very popular
destination for a great many people – including families. However,
the beach in question is secluded.
A ways walk from the main beach, surrounded by bush area, LC is
not a beach one can view from the main beach (or even surrounding
property!). Thus the families Belleli claims to be speaking for are
at no risk of an awkward view of anything!
What Belleli fails to take into account is that LC is family
friendly. Couples support clothing optional bathing have brought
their children to this beach for years! These families have
contributed to the community (yes, community) that has been a feature
of Little Congwongs 40 year clothing optional make up.
Vicki writes:
Posted on 25 Feb 10 at 08:33am
Why are we wasting police resources on this? Have we we become so
precious and narrow minded that ,for something that is done all over
the world, La Perouse can’t accept? It’s about time Little Congwong
was finally registered as a nudist beach.
Maria writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 06:18pm
I can’t see why the nudity at the small and isolated beach
suddenly become an important issue in 2010.
Laurence writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 05:45pm
I agree with Kem’s comments. NSW (and Australia in general) is
blessed with such a multitude of very fine beaches. Only three of
Sydney’s many beaches are designated clothing optional. All three are
far more visible to the passing public, especially Lady Jane Beach.
Little Congwong Beach enjoys a finer expanse of sand than the other
three beaches, and even then not quite in the league of any of the
sizable beaches around. Com’on Sydney, let our naturists continue to
enjoy skinny dipping on a beach that has long tolerated such practice-
after all wearing clothes, rather than going bare, should be
considered the “unnatural” act.
Helen writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 05:09pm
Jack believes that La Perouse “isn’t the most exciting place in
the world” and “not that amazing.” He is obviously not a local as he
shows a complete ignorance of the fact that this beautiful area is
steeped in Australian history and has a proud Aboriginal community
with all the cultural significance that this implies. In short - it
belittles the residents of this suburb,which has so much to offer, to
reduce it to a debate on nudism.
Naked bodies are not required to improve the scenery as Jack
suggests. What we need is for people to respect the law - the
Australian law that is - not that of Europe.
Little Congwong is not and never has been a clothing optional
beach. For too many years families have been forced to detour to reach
Brown’s Rock to go fishing and youth groups on bushwalks forced to
take the long way to Cape Banks because they do not wish to be
confronted by nudity.The inconvenience to visitors and locals caused
by the illegal activity at Little Congwong are never mentioned in the
nudist debate.
There are legal beaches for those that wish to bare all - Little
Congwong is not among them.
Chris writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 04:47pm
I can’t think of a more suitable location for a nude beach in
Sydney than Little Congwong. It is secluded, well away from any public
thoroughfares, doesn’t monopolize the area’s beach resources, and is
too far away from car parks for most families to be bothered going to.
In fact its far more suitable than any of the legal nude beaches -
Lady Bay, Obelisk or Cobblers Beaches - which are much closer to roads
and walkways, far less secluded, and in the case of the latter two,
tend to dominate the local area. The other three beaches have far more
passing boat and pedestrian traffic and receive very few complaints,
so why should Little Congwong be considered less suitable than the
others? There is definitely another agenda going on here, and naturism
is just the latest target of the nimby’s, prudes, social
conservatives, religious zealots and generally people who have nothing
better to do than spend their time imposing their values on absolutely
everybody they can find. What happened to tolerance, valuing
diversity, and live and let live?
Rob writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 04:41pm
Yes, it should. What is the big deal. Is there some sort of social
harm? I don’t think so. The beach before you get there is a clothed
beach if you want just go there. Do the wowsers walk all the way there
just so they can have a look and say its disgusting. I think they are
the sick ones.
richard green writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 03:51pm
The nearest local residents would have to be about 500 metres away
from Little Congwong beach, the place is surrounded by bushland and
golf courses, so how can they be offended unless they are peering
through telescopes? As for sexual shenanigans in the surrounding
bushland, this has been well known for years and no one-not the
Police, not the National Parks and not the local council has wanted to
take any responsibility for patrolling this stretch of bushland, or
installing surveillance. This is despite the murder of a tourist and
an unrelated knifing of a fisherman by a deranged man who had wandered
onto the beach some years ago. Except for a handful of the “regular”
nudists telling these deviants to get lost, there is no protection for
members of the public on the beach. The moves to close down the beach
are a cheap shot by a few conservative, homophobes and demagogues.
Exhibitionists and voyeurs are found at every Sydney beach. A friend
who grew up at Bondi often tells me of the perverts she used to
encounter on a daily basis growing up. Police and Rangers patrol
Bondi, why should the nude beaches always be “no go zones”?
Bob Reed writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 10:40am
Little Congwong situation makes it is an ideal beach for nude /
clothes optional bathing. The NSW state government’s own criteria
wants nudist beaches to be fairly inaccessible and expects people to
have to go out of their way to access them. La Perouse already has a
large beach for those who wish to remain clad. In a democratic
society people living in the southern suburbs also have a legitimate
right to go to a beach for recreational nude swimming and sunbathing
if they wish. No one is forced to go nude on any nudist beach, it is
a matter of personal choice. Without doubt, parking is a problem at
La Perouse and because Little Congwong is popular as a nude bathing
beach the nudists get the blame for lack of parking too. The fact is
‘wowsers’ cannot see if people are nude or not on Little Congwong
Beach unless they use binoculars. Lastly what a horrendous waste of
police resources when all they can find to do is harass members of the
public who are doing nothing more than getting an all over tan and
minding their own business. With real problems out in society, nudist
sitting on a beach isn’t one of them.
Helen writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 10:24am
We love la parouse and just because something has been going on
for years doesn’t mean it can’t be changed for the better the open
nudity is one Thing the illegal culture of the beach is another .It’s
discusting what goes on there gay sex and pick ups on the beach and in
the bush,lots of perving and discusting sexual perversion.it’s a
beautiful beach and should be for all to use who do not practise
obsene behaviour.it’s very shameful what goes on at these nudist
beaches including pornograghy and abuse of these kinds these kinds of
places attract it.I can’t wait to go and enjoy little congwong when
it’s been cleaned up,we went on Australia day and it was appaulling to
see people flauting there sexual issues I took my little girl and
left .Go somewhere where it’s legal keep your bodies to yourselves we
don’t want to see this behaviour anymore there it will be outlawed and
I’m glad the police are on our side .
Graham writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 10:20am
What a waste of time and resources. Police and nat. Parks know
they’ll never get a fine or conviction to stand in a court and are
just playing a bluff campaign. It’s been a nude beach for 50 years
and is well known as such so as Gavin Dengate says “infringement
notices for offensive conduct and charges for wilful and obscene
exposure were possible” the likelyhood that they will be issued is
unlikely. The local Council Police and Nat Parks don’t want to issue
a fine and have it challenged and overturned . . it’ll all be over
then. So perhaps that’s the solution . . . fine a handfull of
regulars so we can fight it out once and for all!
Katina writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 09:09am
Seems that Mr Belleli has changed his argument from “nude is
inmoral” to “nude attracts sexual activity” to “move with the
times” (this last one quite incongruent). Mr Belleli, the people
engaged in sexual activity and drugs at Centennial Park, Coogee or
other clothed places are actually...clothed! Do not justify your
personal issues towards nudity with such petty arguments.
And Olivia, I do respect your views; so I would recommend that if
you don’t feel comfortable around all that nakedness...go to other
beach, there are other 2 in La Perouse and even the access to them
it’s easier!
PC writes:
Posted on 24 Feb 10 at 08:35am
To add further interest to this debate the following was quoted in
the Daily Telegraph website on Monday 23/2/10.
Randwick councillor Robert Belleli said the real issue was illegal
sexual activity - not the nude sunbathing.
“I have had a lot of complaints about sex in the bushes,” Cr
Belleli
said.
“It is not that I have a problem with nudists but I don’t like
illegal
sexual activity, especially with kids around. They are breaking
the
law.”
NSW Free Beach Action has been lobbying Randwick City Council,
State Ministers with portfolios covering Local Government and Climate
Change & the Environment to legalize clothing optional bathing at
Little Congwong for years. Over 1,000 petitions have been delivered
to each authority, however each authority always tries to shift the
onus for any logical decision to gazette this beach legally nude to
another stake holder within this trilogy.
Interestingly, NSW Free Beach Action’s loudest opponet to Littlle
Congwong’s gazetting under the NSW Local Government Act is Councillor
Belleli even though our members totally disapprove of inappropriate
behaviour and would be the first to report such to police if the beach
were legally gazetted nude
bernie roberts writes:
Posted on 23 Feb 10 at 10:12pm
I’ve been going nude at little congwong since 1989, I have never
seen any inappropriate behaviour on the beach, its popularity has
increased the past 2-3 years, I have also seen families with their
young children naked at the beach!
The Facts are that Congwong beach is popular with both “anglo” &
middle eastern families, Little Congwong has been popular with the gay
community for a long time, to a casual observer at the end of the day
he or she may ask who left all this rubbish on Congwong beach? (thats
the big beach) Little Congwong on the other hand is kept clean! I’ve
actually seen a man raking it & collecting rubbish , the man in
question is a nudist,
Councillor Belleli states “ there is tourism & its very family
orientated now” tourism ? from where ? the pink $ brings in millions
to the NSW economy, “family oriented” yes there are nudist families !
Cllr Belleli move with the times, dont let your repressed self
deprive you of the pleasures of nude sunbathing! your attitude reminds
me of the denial by the catholic church that there was no child abuse!
Nudists are not perverts or child abusers! read the press, most
abuse is from “family members” move with the times!
col writes:
Posted on 23 Feb 10 at 03:28pm
I think it would be great if at the next Randwick counciil
elections residents could vote yes or no to nudity acceptance at
Little Congwong beach. My gut feeling is there a just a minority of
residents trying to have there say over the majority of residents.
kem writes:
Posted on 23 Feb 10 at 02:06pm
Here’s an interesting idea for concerned folks and families - go
to one of the thousands of beaches in NSW where nudity isn’t an
established practice! Including the one right next door!
Nudists have been using this beach for 40 years, and arguments
citing ‘concerned families’ are a thinly disguised front for a couple
of loudmouthed bigots and moral evangelists.
Jack writes:
Posted on 23 Feb 10 at 12:37pm
If it’s an established practice in the area, then why can’t the
law be changed to reflect the tastes of the people? Let’s be honest,
La Perouse isn’t the most exciting place in the world and it is right
next to the fligt path in a bay that is taken up by a port industry.
There are two beaches next to each other and it’s pretty accepted in
europe to have nudist beaches (not even clothing optional) right next
to clothed beaches. Allowing the beach to be legally recognised as a
nudist or even clothing optional area, La Perouse might just get some
more people to the area, justifying more shops and amenities leading
to greater council income leading to better services for residents.
Like I said… it’s La Perouse… it’s not that amazing. A few naked
bodies won’t ruin anyone’s view, it would probably improve it.
sara writes:
Posted on 23 Feb 10 at 12:30pm
Life is too short to wear clothes the whole time!
bernice writes:
Posted on 23 Feb 10 at 12:08pm
This varies greatly by jurisdiction. In Germany you will find
people legally sunbathing nude in city parks. In Denmark, all but two
beaches are clothing-optional (that is to say, nudity is permitted).
In most western jurisdictions (including Canada) it is legal to be
nude on private property so long as you can’t be seen by others
outside the property. Consequently, all naturist clubs are legal. You
may find the answer by checking naturistspace . org out…
Olivia Vrah writes:
Posted on 23 Feb 10 at 11:18am
Little Congwong beach is not a registered beach for nude bathing
or tanning, these people need to think there are families around and
if they want to be nude they should do it in there own back yard, its
disgusting and not acceptable.
stephen writes:
Posted on 23 Feb 10 at 10:24am
In March, over 2000 people of all shapes and sizes will strip off
on the steps of the Sydney Opera House and pose for Spencer Tunick’s
photographs.
Is this nudity also obscene, disgusting and illegal as has been
suggested by the police raid on Little Congwong beach? Or is this art
and therefore not subject to the same laws?
It would appear that when the Tourism Authority or local council
has the potential to reap financial reward from an event, the laws are
easily bent to suit themselves.
People making such a song and dance about an isolated nudist beach
should move out of the dark ages and acknowledge that the incredible
waste of tax payer’s dollars and police resources to police a nudist
beach that has been such for over 30 years is just pathetic.
Isn’t that against the law Mr Belleli.