It’s 7:00am. You crawl out of bed, groggy, stretch and then stumble your way downstairs to brew a pot of Columbia’s finest. It was hot last night, so you slept naked to stay cool. Thinking nothing of it, you walk into the kitchen completely nude to make said coffee, only to see a woman and her son walking across your yard on their way to school. The woman freaks upon seeing you naked inside your own house, and has you arrested for indecent exposure.

Such was the fate of one Eric Williamson last week, a victim of the law gone wild. Williamson is alleged by the local police to have “wanted to be seen naked” for his nude-brew escapade. While the safety of brewing and drinking coffee at the same time while naked may be debatable, there is no disputing that doing so while inside your own home is an entirely plausible endeavour. Ultimately, the concept of private property implies that what transpires on that property is protected from condemnation so long as the actions are not adversely affecting others’ well being.

This case raises obvious flags, even for a fledgling Law 1 student such as myself. Williamson’s personal conduct may be questionable on normative grounds, but not as a legal matter. The woman and her child — it will undoubtedly be argued in Williamson’s defense — forfeited any right to allege “indecent exposure” by entering onto Williamson’s property, by peering through Williamson’s windows and by then going so far as to allege they were then offended as such by the conduct they witnessed therein.

Interestingly, the Williamson case follows with one of the first cases presented to Law 1′s here at Windsor Law. In R. v. Clark, a man was convicted of indecent exposure for being spotted masturbating in his own living room by neighbour’s over 100m away. The accused was charged under ss. 173(1)(a) and 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.  Section 173(1) makes it an offence to wilfully do an indecent act (a) “in a public place in the presence of one or more persons”, or (b) “in any place, with intent thereby to insult or offend any person”.

The question thus becomes: since when is a man’s private kitchen considered a public space? At what point did Williamson’s actions (merely standing nude in his own kitchen) supersede as the legal issue the woman’s imposition of her ‘peeping’ on Mr. Williamson? Is Mr. Williamson not entitled to the privacy of his own home? Should not the woman and her son have immediately looked the other way upon seeing Mr. Williamson and continued walking to school out of respect for Mr. Williamson’s privacy?

In a critique of this case, Michele Catalano at PajamasMedia offers an interesting hypothetical role reversal of the Williamson case. Her article is a great read and is recommended for insights superior to my own. As Catalano surmises, “The sanctity of our house is the last bastion many of us have.” If we cannot do something as harmless as brew coffee in the nude without the fear of being peeped on by a nosy neighbour, is there any realm of privacy left untouched by the law of the land?

Catalano goes further, suggesting an endemic bias against men for situations involving indecency. She suggests the following role reversal, “What if the tables were turned? What if Williamson were a woman and a man walked by the house instead of a woman? What if that man happened to look into the window, staring long enough to see that the woman inside was naked? Would he call the cops to say he was flashed? Probably not, because he would end up in handcuffs for being a peeping Tom. A woman looks in on a naked man and thinks he is committing a crime. A man looks in on a naked woman and she thinks he is committing a crime. Weird how that works.”

Indeed Catalano’s hypothetical presents the law with confounding and plainly hypocritical standards by which men are often held. Certainly there could be statistics to suggest men are more prone to offensive indecent acts, but is not the law supposed to rule without prejudice to such statistics? This is not to suggest the ignorance of precedent, which is completely different and entirely applicable in specific cases. But if Williamson here is considered guilty to be proven innocent, the burden of reverse onus must be proven as such. In this case, there is no such grounds.

The law is running wild. The lesson here is to put your boxers on before you hit “Brew”. Otherwise you just might be feeling the cold sting of handcuffs instead of the warm jolt of caffeine.

– Robert Onley –