I must have missed the "public outrage" over photos of a naked judge at a nudist camp.


Certainly no one I have spoken to or heard from is particularly bothered, offended or concerned.

Following a recent story about photos of the judge being posted (then removed) from a nudist club's website, the Sensible Sentencing Trust (SST) issued a press release on the topic.

It said: "Pictures of a naked Judge at a nudist camp have resulted in public outrage and a call for the Judges actions to be investigated." [sic]

Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.

Quite apart from the grammatical errors, that raised a few eyebrows. Was there really public outrage that a man, who happens to be a judge in his professional life, chooses to be part of a nudist club?

Katie Holland.
Katie Holland.

Unless I am missing something, it's not a crime to be a nudist and in this day and age it hardly seems scandalous.

It might prompt a giggle and a nudge nudge, but surely nothing a reasonable person has the time or inclination to be outraged about.

SST's Garth McVicar appeared on Paul Henry's show yesterday, where Henry openly spoke about about being a nudist.

McVicar argued that by having the photos taken down the judge had made it into an issue and could open himself up to blackmail.

Henry called the press release "ludicrous" and for the first and quite possibly only time, I agree with him.

Related articles:

Judges are people too and as long as they are not doing anything illegal in their spare time, or their hobbies don't affect their ability to perform their function, then it's no one's business but their own.

Claims of public outrage are simply making a mountain out of a molehill.