i***@economicdemocracy.org
2006-08-05 03:33:11 UTC
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES
The Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) helps women who encounter
difficulty going without tops in public places in Canada and the USA,
and informs the public on this issue.
This website is intended as an information resource. It should interest
women (and men) who understand---or want to understand---that women's
breasts are just fine, and in no way indecent, obscene, dangerous, or
some other version of bad, any more than men's are.
In most jurisdictions in North America, explicit sexual activity in
public view is illegal. That is not involved here! If men may decide to
have exposed breasts without it, so may women.
If women act on this understanding by innocuously having uncovered
breasts in public, they are usually criticized, ridiculed, and hassled,
and may be fined or jailed. Their experiences tell quite the story,
which is gradually unfolding on this site and similar ones.
Our basic claim is that women deserve equal rights. We do not suggest
that women or men should go about with bare breasts. That is every
individual's decision. We do believe that since men may choose to do so
in many situations, women must also be able to at least in the same
situations. Without penalty of any kind.
Women pay severely for North America's leering punishment of their
breasts. Many find themselves the object of unwanted and unwarranted
attention from men in positions of power over them. Many have
debilitating body image problems, hating the breasts on their own,
unique bodies. Many undergo hazardous cosmetic surgery to conform to
some non-existent standard. To please others, many wear bras that
confine and hurt and may be harmful. Many are afraid to breastfeed,
especially with others present.
Why do many women want to let their breasts out of the prison our
society has put them in? They want to be comfortable. They want the
convenience. They want to further their well-being. They want ownership
and control of their own breasts.
They deserve equal treatment under the law.
If you think that the issue of exposed breasts is trivial, or you
disagree with the above, have a look around this site. You may change
your mind.
(More about TERA's purpose with reference to feminist theory is
contained here.)
f you are aware of current femninist theory, read on; otherwise you may
wish to skip this bit.
TERA is aware of the conundrums posed by proposing equal rights. Many
difficult questions arise. Why should women want to do things the way
men do them? Even if so, they should be equal to which men, where, and
how?
Why should men be considered primary and women try to rise to their
position? Why don't we start tabula rasa so that women may do things in
ways that may ignore how men do them? Shouldn't sex or gender
differences allow women to set their own rules?
These are basic objections to classical liberal feminism. While
acknowledging their importance, TERA finds many of them have reduced
effect on the issue of topfreedom, because the basic solution to
women's exposed breasts is so simple: let individual women choose as
they wish. That would suit almost any type of relevant feminist theory.
NEW ON THIS SITE
* VP Julia Goforth describes her experiences in York, Maine. Do the
authorities know whereof they speak? Read on . . .
* More new photos: topfree activitsts describe their activities.
* TERA's VP calmly turns potential trouble into potential
education---for the police. Read about it.
* Judicial opinions that have changed topfreedom history. We start
with the Topfree Seven case and the Arlene Vogt case.
* A chronology of topfreedom events is begun. It's small just now,
but wait . . .
* Outline and summary of the presentations given by TERA near
Seattle on June 1, 2001, with photos.
COMING SOON (we hope!):
* court case decisions (we have a few already)
* topfreedom history (some is already available)
* getting comfortable with topfreedom
2005 June 30. Recently, the Attorney General of the USA had the drapes
removed that his predecessor had installed to cover a female statue's
bare breast. If the current AG wants to show what a fine fellow he is,
he could return the US$8300 or so (plus interest) that it cost John
Ashcroft to install the curtains a few years ago.
Regardless, Justice Department news conferences will no longer be held
in the room with the statue. Too many photo ops?
###############
[Note: in Ontario province in Canada, and in the US state of NY (yes)
it is
legal for a woman to top-free any place it is legal for a man to be
top-free (ie
anywhere a man is allowed to be so-called "topless") -ED]
CANADIAN TIRE ATTIRE
How I used a non-policy to begin educating the police and others.
by Julia Goforth, 2001 July 07.
This is a report of an incident on June 30, 2001 at about 11:00 in a
small city north of Toronto, Ontario. The dry approach reflects the
author's calm, cool control.
------------
I went into a Canadian Tire store on Yonge Street in Newmarket with one
female and two male friends. One of the men and I were topfree, while
the other two chose to wear shirts.
After a half hour of browsing and purchasing, Mr. Allen Dodds, Retail
Manager, approached me with Ms. Tanis Pottage, Manager, and another
store employee. Mr. Dodds told me I was going to have to put my shirt
on. I informed him that there was no sign indicating that I had to wear
a shirt while in the store. He stated that Canadian Tire is private
property and I had to put a shirt on or leave the store.
I asked if this was a store policy. He said it was. I requested to see
the policy in writing. He said that it was not written anywhere.
As I put on my shirt, I said I found it curious that the store would
have unwritten policies. I asked him to please put this one in writing
for me, and that a hand-written copy would be acceptable. He then
accused me of creating a disturbance with his customers. I pointed out
that I was merely shopping and was not creating a disturbance of any
kind. He said that other customers were bothered by my being without a
shirt. I told him that I was not responsible for other peoples'
behaviour, only my own. He excused himself and went outside to talk to
the police.
When he returned, he informed me that the police said that he didn't
have to give me anything in writing. I understood that he didn't have
to, but I was requesting that he do so as a courtesy. He refused.
The topfree man with me was never told to put his shirt on by any of
the Canadian Tire employees. Taking note of this, I asked Mr. Dodds,
"Is this a gender issue?" He said, "Yes." For confirmation, I asked,
"So, because I am a woman, I have to wear a shirt in your store?" He
paused a moment, then said, "I don't want to get into this. I don't
want to argue about it." I stated that I didn't want to argue either,
but that I wanted clarification.
Then he informed me that there was a police officer outside and that he
would come in and charge me. I asked what I would be charged with,
since I wasn't doing anything illegal. He said he didn't
know---whatever the officer wanted to charge me with. I replied that I
would be charged if he pressed charges, so I would like to know what he
was planning to have me charged with.
He threatened once again to bring in the police. I encouraged him to
include the officer in our discussion. Stunned, he excused himself to
speak with the officer.
Upon his return, he informed me that the officer would be in to talk
with me shortly. Then Mr. Dodds left, not to be seen again during the
rest of the incident.
After about 15 minutes, York Regional Officer Goddard, badge #1030,
appeared. The officer, the other woman and the topfree man in my party,
and I all joined Ms. Pottage in the office in the customer service
area. Officer Goddard clarified, "The manager told you to put your
shirt on." I said, "Yes." After a pause, he asked, "So what is the
problem?" I said there was no problem, merely that I had put on my
shirt when I was told to, but that I was asking for their store policy
in writing regarding the wearing of shirts, since it was not posted.
I suggested that to require me to wear a shirt while allowing men to be
without one was illegal.
Officer Goddard informed me that my being without a shirt was drawing
attention from the other customers; that was the reason I was
confronted. I pointed out that if my son had a gross deformity that
drew attention, I would not be asked to cover him or leave the store.
The officer agreed. I then pointed out that this was basically the same
kind of thing. He said he understood, but that this was a "cultural
thing." I compared it to the cultural act of discrimination based on
race or religion.
He offered, "Well, it's going to take some time for society to change."
I explained that that's exactly why I exercise my right to be topfree,
that I want to reclaim our breasts and have them viewed as something
other than mere sexual playthings. I am helping not just women but men
as well, by changing how they view women in general.
Officer Goddard said that the store did not understand the laws about
women being able to go without a shirt, and that because the law was so
new, even the police were unsure how to handle this type of situation.
[Ed. note: the law was only 4.5 years old at this point!] I recalled
that I had once encountered an officer who was so unsure what to do
that he begged me to put my shirt on long enough for him to get into
his cruiser and leave. That sort of action weakened the police's
position and effectiveness in the public eye.
I informed Officer Goddard that as Vice-President of the Topfree Equal
Rights Association, I would like the opportunity to help the police
deal with the public when they receive a call regarding a topfree
woman. I asked whom he would recommend that I get in touch with to
arrange an informative presentation. I didn't want to tell anyone how
to do their job, just offer more viable options on ways to deal with
the issue that keep everyone happy without violating anyone's rights.
He suggested that I speak with the Chief at York Regional Headquarters.
As the discussion came to an end, Ms. Pottage stated that they would
contact Canadian Tire's corporate office and institute a "shirts
required" policy in all Canadian Tire stores.
I thanked Officer Goddard and Ms. Pottage for their professional
attitudes, then asked the officer for directions to another store. He
gave me the directions and then asked, "Am I going to be getting a call
from that store in a little bit?"
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
** ANTI-SPAM NOTE: For EMAIL "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email to
** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes)at economicdemocracy.org instead
The Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) helps women who encounter
difficulty going without tops in public places in Canada and the USA,
and informs the public on this issue.
This website is intended as an information resource. It should interest
women (and men) who understand---or want to understand---that women's
breasts are just fine, and in no way indecent, obscene, dangerous, or
some other version of bad, any more than men's are.
In most jurisdictions in North America, explicit sexual activity in
public view is illegal. That is not involved here! If men may decide to
have exposed breasts without it, so may women.
If women act on this understanding by innocuously having uncovered
breasts in public, they are usually criticized, ridiculed, and hassled,
and may be fined or jailed. Their experiences tell quite the story,
which is gradually unfolding on this site and similar ones.
Our basic claim is that women deserve equal rights. We do not suggest
that women or men should go about with bare breasts. That is every
individual's decision. We do believe that since men may choose to do so
in many situations, women must also be able to at least in the same
situations. Without penalty of any kind.
Women pay severely for North America's leering punishment of their
breasts. Many find themselves the object of unwanted and unwarranted
attention from men in positions of power over them. Many have
debilitating body image problems, hating the breasts on their own,
unique bodies. Many undergo hazardous cosmetic surgery to conform to
some non-existent standard. To please others, many wear bras that
confine and hurt and may be harmful. Many are afraid to breastfeed,
especially with others present.
Why do many women want to let their breasts out of the prison our
society has put them in? They want to be comfortable. They want the
convenience. They want to further their well-being. They want ownership
and control of their own breasts.
They deserve equal treatment under the law.
If you think that the issue of exposed breasts is trivial, or you
disagree with the above, have a look around this site. You may change
your mind.
(More about TERA's purpose with reference to feminist theory is
contained here.)
f you are aware of current femninist theory, read on; otherwise you may
wish to skip this bit.
TERA is aware of the conundrums posed by proposing equal rights. Many
difficult questions arise. Why should women want to do things the way
men do them? Even if so, they should be equal to which men, where, and
how?
Why should men be considered primary and women try to rise to their
position? Why don't we start tabula rasa so that women may do things in
ways that may ignore how men do them? Shouldn't sex or gender
differences allow women to set their own rules?
These are basic objections to classical liberal feminism. While
acknowledging their importance, TERA finds many of them have reduced
effect on the issue of topfreedom, because the basic solution to
women's exposed breasts is so simple: let individual women choose as
they wish. That would suit almost any type of relevant feminist theory.
NEW ON THIS SITE
* VP Julia Goforth describes her experiences in York, Maine. Do the
authorities know whereof they speak? Read on . . .
* More new photos: topfree activitsts describe their activities.
* TERA's VP calmly turns potential trouble into potential
education---for the police. Read about it.
* Judicial opinions that have changed topfreedom history. We start
with the Topfree Seven case and the Arlene Vogt case.
* A chronology of topfreedom events is begun. It's small just now,
but wait . . .
* Outline and summary of the presentations given by TERA near
Seattle on June 1, 2001, with photos.
COMING SOON (we hope!):
* court case decisions (we have a few already)
* topfreedom history (some is already available)
* getting comfortable with topfreedom
2005 June 30. Recently, the Attorney General of the USA had the drapes
removed that his predecessor had installed to cover a female statue's
bare breast. If the current AG wants to show what a fine fellow he is,
he could return the US$8300 or so (plus interest) that it cost John
Ashcroft to install the curtains a few years ago.
Regardless, Justice Department news conferences will no longer be held
in the room with the statue. Too many photo ops?
###############
[Note: in Ontario province in Canada, and in the US state of NY (yes)
it is
legal for a woman to top-free any place it is legal for a man to be
top-free (ie
anywhere a man is allowed to be so-called "topless") -ED]
CANADIAN TIRE ATTIRE
How I used a non-policy to begin educating the police and others.
by Julia Goforth, 2001 July 07.
This is a report of an incident on June 30, 2001 at about 11:00 in a
small city north of Toronto, Ontario. The dry approach reflects the
author's calm, cool control.
------------
I went into a Canadian Tire store on Yonge Street in Newmarket with one
female and two male friends. One of the men and I were topfree, while
the other two chose to wear shirts.
After a half hour of browsing and purchasing, Mr. Allen Dodds, Retail
Manager, approached me with Ms. Tanis Pottage, Manager, and another
store employee. Mr. Dodds told me I was going to have to put my shirt
on. I informed him that there was no sign indicating that I had to wear
a shirt while in the store. He stated that Canadian Tire is private
property and I had to put a shirt on or leave the store.
I asked if this was a store policy. He said it was. I requested to see
the policy in writing. He said that it was not written anywhere.
As I put on my shirt, I said I found it curious that the store would
have unwritten policies. I asked him to please put this one in writing
for me, and that a hand-written copy would be acceptable. He then
accused me of creating a disturbance with his customers. I pointed out
that I was merely shopping and was not creating a disturbance of any
kind. He said that other customers were bothered by my being without a
shirt. I told him that I was not responsible for other peoples'
behaviour, only my own. He excused himself and went outside to talk to
the police.
When he returned, he informed me that the police said that he didn't
have to give me anything in writing. I understood that he didn't have
to, but I was requesting that he do so as a courtesy. He refused.
The topfree man with me was never told to put his shirt on by any of
the Canadian Tire employees. Taking note of this, I asked Mr. Dodds,
"Is this a gender issue?" He said, "Yes." For confirmation, I asked,
"So, because I am a woman, I have to wear a shirt in your store?" He
paused a moment, then said, "I don't want to get into this. I don't
want to argue about it." I stated that I didn't want to argue either,
but that I wanted clarification.
Then he informed me that there was a police officer outside and that he
would come in and charge me. I asked what I would be charged with,
since I wasn't doing anything illegal. He said he didn't
know---whatever the officer wanted to charge me with. I replied that I
would be charged if he pressed charges, so I would like to know what he
was planning to have me charged with.
He threatened once again to bring in the police. I encouraged him to
include the officer in our discussion. Stunned, he excused himself to
speak with the officer.
Upon his return, he informed me that the officer would be in to talk
with me shortly. Then Mr. Dodds left, not to be seen again during the
rest of the incident.
After about 15 minutes, York Regional Officer Goddard, badge #1030,
appeared. The officer, the other woman and the topfree man in my party,
and I all joined Ms. Pottage in the office in the customer service
area. Officer Goddard clarified, "The manager told you to put your
shirt on." I said, "Yes." After a pause, he asked, "So what is the
problem?" I said there was no problem, merely that I had put on my
shirt when I was told to, but that I was asking for their store policy
in writing regarding the wearing of shirts, since it was not posted.
I suggested that to require me to wear a shirt while allowing men to be
without one was illegal.
Officer Goddard informed me that my being without a shirt was drawing
attention from the other customers; that was the reason I was
confronted. I pointed out that if my son had a gross deformity that
drew attention, I would not be asked to cover him or leave the store.
The officer agreed. I then pointed out that this was basically the same
kind of thing. He said he understood, but that this was a "cultural
thing." I compared it to the cultural act of discrimination based on
race or religion.
He offered, "Well, it's going to take some time for society to change."
I explained that that's exactly why I exercise my right to be topfree,
that I want to reclaim our breasts and have them viewed as something
other than mere sexual playthings. I am helping not just women but men
as well, by changing how they view women in general.
Officer Goddard said that the store did not understand the laws about
women being able to go without a shirt, and that because the law was so
new, even the police were unsure how to handle this type of situation.
[Ed. note: the law was only 4.5 years old at this point!] I recalled
that I had once encountered an officer who was so unsure what to do
that he begged me to put my shirt on long enough for him to get into
his cruiser and leave. That sort of action weakened the police's
position and effectiveness in the public eye.
I informed Officer Goddard that as Vice-President of the Topfree Equal
Rights Association, I would like the opportunity to help the police
deal with the public when they receive a call regarding a topfree
woman. I asked whom he would recommend that I get in touch with to
arrange an informative presentation. I didn't want to tell anyone how
to do their job, just offer more viable options on ways to deal with
the issue that keep everyone happy without violating anyone's rights.
He suggested that I speak with the Chief at York Regional Headquarters.
As the discussion came to an end, Ms. Pottage stated that they would
contact Canadian Tire's corporate office and institute a "shirts
required" policy in all Canadian Tire stores.
I thanked Officer Goddard and Ms. Pottage for their professional
attitudes, then asked the officer for directions to another store. He
gave me the directions and then asked, "Am I going to be getting a call
from that store in a little bit?"
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
** ANTI-SPAM NOTE: For EMAIL "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email to
** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes)at economicdemocracy.org instead