As the woman complaining apparently had to leave the path and cut across his yard he should file a criminal tresspassing complaint and file for a restraining order

Updated, luj, to make it clear that other reports dispute this, and say it was just the path between the houses.

That was me who posted on the Canadian story in the comments sections of free range.

here is a better article from another paper I post it here as the original link is gone or missing. Sorry!

Probing Insights: Let the poor bastard jerk off in peace!

By Denise Brunsdon

With all those silly same-sex concerns out of the way, the Supreme Court has finally come down with its landmark ruling on masturbatory rights.

While most of us worry that masturbating may lead to a kitten dying, for Nanaimo resident Daryl Clark, jacking off meant a four-month jail sentence.

The case, which began its lengthy tour through Canada’s expensive halls of justice in October of 2000, centered on whether or not Clark had the right to masturbate in front of his living room window.

The saga began on October 28, 2000, when a neighbour was watching television with her two daughters and noticed “some movement” in Clark’s living room.

As any of us would have done when faced with an unclear, but potentially offensive, situation, the neighbour moved to her bedroom to get a better look, and then called her husband, who brought binoculars, a telescope, and a video camera in order to catch Clark mid-tug.

After watching Clark for 15 minutes – a pretty long session – from underneath half-lowered blinds in their darkened bedroom, the concerned couple called the police, who showed up just in time to arrest the creepy man masturbating in his home.

And it’s a good thing the police came. Otherwise, no one would have known for sure whether or not Clark was actually masturbating since he was only visible from the waist up from both his neighbour’s house and the street. It took a police officer to go up to Clark’s house and shine his flashlight directly into Clark’s dark living room, or lair of masturbation, as it were, to verify.

A British Columbian court felt the parents were justifiably “concerned” that Clark could be masturbating while looking at their children, and gave Clark a four-month sentence for having “converted” his living room into a public place.

This decision of course was later overturned by fun-loving Justice MacLachlin and her bad-ass Supreme Court posse, but many questions still remain.

Why did Clark’s neighbours call the police before they could even be sure that Clark was masturbating, let alone surmise that he was masturbating to their children? Is it not possible that the guy thought he was just having some “me time” and that no one was really paying attention? Would it have killed the neighbours to give Clark a quick phone call, or to go over, knock on his door, and say something like, “Excuse me, but could you possibly choke that chicken in the kitchen?” Although I don’t masturbate in front of my living room window, I’ve been known to walk around my apartment naked from time to time with the curtains open. I can’t believe that all this time I was only worried about the occasional peeping tom when really, I could have been arrested for public indecency.

My next obvious question is to the B.C. court that claimed Clark “converted” his living into a public place by masturbating there. What else can one convert through the power of masturbation? And, more importantly, what other activities will make my private space public? If I want to watch a movie in my living room do I have to worry about it becoming public movie night?

The fact is, the spying neighbours would do better to spend more time partaking in masturbatory fun than hating on Clark. Goodness knows that what’s really unhealthy is being so damn uptight.

–with files by Wendy Cox at the Canadian Press. No pun intended.

To help Denise determine whether or not there is a link between masturbating and magic, please email any recollections supporting the possible link to probinginsights@hotmail.com. She also takes questions for future advice columns.

WTF! Our inherited puritannical values that ban public nudity are no longer enough? We can't even enjoy our natural state in the PRIVACY of our own homes because of a few whackjobs who cant mind their own fucking business- outrageous

This case is normal, isn't it? It follows the time-honored principle: If a man peers through a window at a woman naked in her house, the man gets arrested. If a woman peers through a window at a man naked in his house, the man gets arrested.

So it seems we don't know the straight story yet. But if it was 5:30 in the morning, there's no way he could have seen anyone outside.

And something I'm wondering about: who the heck has full-length windows in their kitchen? If you did, where would your counter space be? If I was walking around naked in our kitchen and you looked in our windows, all you'd see would be my beer belly. So how would you know if I was naked or just shirtless?

So "mommy, I can see his pee-pee" is the new rape, eh?

The woman should be charged with criminal trespass at the very least. Even with the shades up, you still have an expectation of privacy in your own home.

Abner! Come look at what the Stevensons are doing now!

"My next obvious question is to the B.C. court that claimed Clark “converted” his living room into a public place by masturbating there."

The act of masturbation converts the locale into a public place. Who knew?

This whole thing is ridiculously absurd. First of all, what was a woman doing outside with a small child at 5:30 in the morning? Why was she looking in the guy's window to begin with? Was is just a casual glance, or was she looking with intent to see something that would disturb her? (Not that she doesn't sound a little disturbed anyway.) The only way we would ever have been outside that early was if my mom had to take my dad to work so she could have the car for the day (this was back in the days of the 1-car family), or if we were leaving early for a long car trip. And at that age, none of my brothers or I would have been the least bit awake enough to determine whether or not we had seen anybody, nekkid or not. This imbecilic bullshit has just got to stop.

Oops...I meant what the "Stephens's" are doing now. In case anyone watches Bewitched reruns. I probably misspelled it, too.

We used to have a condo in Spokane that was directly across another set of condos. Friday and Saturday nights were SHOWTIME! I thought it was just an unspoken rule.

Unless someone demonstrates that he was NOT inside his house, the disputed details don't matter.

Axman has a good point: All you have to do to see how ridiculous this is is to play the reverse the sexes game.

Regarding that one-year gap for sex partners that can lead to sex offender status: The folks at Glenn Sacks' site are always outraged when a woman molests a teen boy and gets a tap on the wrist, but even they don't seem quite prepared - much of the time - to say that the statutory rape laws should be gender-blind when it comes to couples who are much closer in age than a student and teacher usually are. (Of course, age closeness shouldn't matter for teachers and students - you break that boundary, you're going to get arrested or at least fired, period.)

I suggest the following:

To be automatically ruled statutory rape, regardless of gender, there must be at least a three-year difference between the two parties, UNLESS the younger party is under 14. Then, maybe, the age gap should be no more than one year or two.

Fair enough?

interesting. maybe the whole thing is a fabrication by a friend of the mother in an effort to get the father completely removed from the kid's life?

In any event, the woman who started this whole thing needs to be hit with a 2x4. Repeatedly.

My opinion is if you're looking in my window, you deserve what you see.

"The saga began...when a neighbor was watching television with her two daughters and noticed "some movement" in Clark's living room"

That reminds me of the poor guy in Marina del Rey whose dead body was propped up on his balcony for a week. No one took any notice, because they all said they thought it was a Halloween display:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marina-death17-2009oct17,0,3558556.story

Apparently the only way for a man to escape the unwanted attention of the puritanical nanny-state in his own home is to be not only completely still, but dead.

This is like burglars who sue because they robbed a house in the winter and the walk hadn't been shoveled, and they slip and fall on the ice as they carry the loot out.

True story from Thailand: A female teacher, whose duty it was to teach sex education,. showed her students erotic films. Some parents complained--the school district backed her up.
It was Thailand, so who knows? Maybe she made love to the School Superintendent. But it also shows how little other nations take sex complaints seriously.
Still, we have become obsessed with sex in America. You guys say I think about sex too much, but if I saw a nude person inside their own house, I would quickly check for quality (while mildly embarrassed), while politely keeping on my path forward.
The BOTU poops down on this lady who complained.

EEEEK!!

It's a MAAAAAAAN!

And he's got a PEEEEEEEENIIIIS!!

Shoot first, ask questions later ... .

Just to be clear, posting in these forums without wearing clothes at that time is an act of perversion we cannot tolerate!

Darn, and I thought everyone posting here was at least wearing pajamas. :-) Isabel

Wait, you mean it's not illegal to spy on someone WITH A TELESCOPE and then videotape them IN THEIR OWN HOME?

Canadian couple sounds seriously, seriously fucked up. If anyone in this post deserves a sex-crime arrest, it's them.

I suggest the following:

To be automatically ruled statutory rape, regardless of gender, there must be at least a three-year difference between the two parties, UNLESS the younger party is under 14. Then, maybe, the age gap should be no more than one year or two.

Arizona Revised Statutes as of the last time I checked: It's not a crime to have consensual sex with a minor under 16 if you're no more than three years older than she is or at any age if you're both in high school. A girl of 16 is fair game.

Seems like a common sense law to me. Of course, as our red state turns Big Brother Blue I'm sure someone will let loose with a mighty "What about the children?!" and the next thing you know some high school senior's gonna be in prison for letting a freshman suck him off.

So, Amy, how do I know that those precocious 16 year-old strumpets aren't just waiting to jump my middle (but well)-aged bones when I venture out of the house? Makes a fella weak-kneed at the thought! I'm so fearful .... :P

There once was a man from up north,
who played with himself, for sport.
His neighbor, who was fail,
looked illegally, and did wail,
"Deviant! Get thee to jail!"

I'm going to nit pick here. It wasn't 5.30 in the morning, it was 8.40 and she was walking her kid to jail (sorry, I mean school).

Honestly, he's in his house, so why doesn't he have the expectation of privacy. Does this lady make it a point to look in everyone's home when she walks by them? She's an idiot.

Nice poem chronotrigger.

Beth the system you describe resembles what's in place in Pennsylvania. For 13 - 15, there's an allowable 4yr age difference. There's no allowance for children 12 and younger. The age of consent is 16.

A friend of mine is in the Pa. State Police and has told me that he agrees with the law. That it protects kids against predatory adults without snaring innocent teenagers. And it prevents vindictive parents from filing charges against boyfriends they don't like. As for adults having sex with 16 year olds, there are federal laws that can be brought to bare if they cross state lines or engage in certain types of communications. So the police can 'find a way' to deal with those cases.

There once was a woman from Lexiter,
To whom young men through sex at her.
One day to be rude,
In town square she laid nude,
and let her parrot, a pervert, take pecks at her.

"I'm going to nit pick here. It wasn't 5.30 in the morning, it was 8.40 and she was walking her kid to jail (sorry, I mean school)."

This seems to be a key disagreement. The guy says he made coffee at 5:30. She says she walked by at 8:40. Which was it? I personally suspect that (a) she saw him at 5:30, (b) she told the police that this is the way she walks her kid to school at 8:40, and (c) she intentionally let the two unrelated facts mix.

In any case, I agree: in your own house, you have an expectation of privacy. If he didn't plaster himself against a window, her charges should have been laughed at.

As has already been said: reverse the genders, and see how laughable the whole case is. "Man sees naked woman in her own house." He would be charged for trespassing and peeping.

I used to enjoy walking around naked in my house but always had the feeling I was being watched. Guess I'm not as paranoid as I thought.

"Darn, and I thought everyone posting here was at least wearing pajamas."

Just the cat, and honestly I have to post these awful puns for him. Stubby toes. Can't type. And don't even get me started on his limericks.

bradley, that's an interesting point... I don't know about where they live, but around here, all schools are in session by 8:00.

School starting times vary around here, CD. High school starts at 7:30 a.m., my girls get the bus at 10 past. Middle school starts at 8, the bus comes at 7:40; elementary school (K-5th grade) starts at 8:45 or thereabouts, and yes the girls walked. Took them maybe 15 minutes. In any case, if the guy was making coffee at 5:30 a.m., I still want to know what that woman was doing outside with her kid at that hour, that she saw him. Or maybe it's as bradley is suggesting and she didn't disabuse the cops of the notion that she really wasn't walking her kid to school later than the time she says she saw the guy. Somethin' ain't right...

I am confused here. If someone is peeking into my home, two thoughts go threw my head. The 1st is are you checking the place out to rob. The 2nd is are you a peeping tom. Did the police forget these concepts? Or is it because she is a woman she has to be a victim?

She and her daughter have admitted to two crimes yet nothing has happened. Could this be just the setup for a civil law suit?

What do you have to do now a days, turn your home into a fortress that allows no light in? What's the point of windows? Seal up your windows and see what happens, the police will be all over your house because you have to be hiding something.

A truly PC world is going to end western civilization.

"She and her daughter have admitted to two crimes yet nothing has happened. Could this be just the setup for a civil law suit?"

If I read the story correctly, the child in question was actually a 7 year old boy which makes it even more bizzare. Isabel

Huh.

I live in a historic district in the same county (well, not the same county since it's a municipality within the same county-the divisions are weird) and my house is a tour stop. Which I did not know when I moved in. I also spend quite a bit of time wandering about partially or not clothed. Which would not a be problem because I live in the uppermost storey and if you're just walking by you wouldn't stop and look at the top storey. EXCEPT WHEN 30 PEOPLE ON A TOUR STOP AND LOOK IN THE TOP STOREY.

Hi. Very interesting Post. Not really what i have searched over Google, but thanks for the information.