Naked cycling in Cork in 2011
Conor writes:
For anyone interested in freedom of speech/expression in Ireland I think it’s worth reading this gem (below) which I dug out from an old email explaining why the World Naked Bike Ride was cancelled in Dublin in 2011 (but for some reason given the go ahead in Cork).
Thu, 14 Jul 2011 Subject: Re: Dublin Bike Ride; ‘The team have failed to get Garda clearance to hold the ride as planned on Friday. The Gardai were quite firm saying that they would prevent the ride from taking place. The main reason for this is that the public may become upset because of naked/seminaked cyclists riding the public streets of Dublin. In their opinion this could lead to assaults taking place. The Gardai feel that they have to uphold law & order for all citizens even if this is a minority ( those few that may get upset as seeing naked / semi nakedcyclists ) They weren’t even willing to accept the ride going ahead if riders wore underwear. That could lead to upset as well. However the Gardai wouldn’t have a problem if the naked bike ride was held in private away from the public streets. The Dublin Naked Bike Team will be looking into the legal situation of holding the ride at sometime in the future.’
Templemore logic at its finest. Ireland: where #JeSuisCharlie doesn’t even extend to getting on a bicycle in your underpants.
Good times.
Pic: Cork Independent
Yep, the comparisons between these crusty exhibitionists and the cartoonists is uncanny!
‘Freedom of expression’ me ar$e.
This is just exhibitionism.
Elevated bums in covered in Lycra are bad enough.
Arseholes using the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag.
How can you see that from here?
Computer, enhance.
“The Gardai were quite firm”
C============3
‘where #JeSuisCharlie doesn’t even extend to getting on a bicycle in your underpants.’
so, the absence of underpants was the issue
They were just working to their briefs
the gardai were rightly concerned at the increased amount of skidmarks.
Thigh me up thigh me down
That is a lot of nasty grazes waiting to happen.
‘The Gadrai stated: To be quite honest it is our experience that the majority of people who wish to appear in public naked should never be allowed to appear in public naked. Add to this the obscene amount of jiggle that cycling over bumpy terrain would provide we have to think of public safety as this would doubtless distract any vehicles driving in the opposing direction.’
The Gardai even.
Hahahahahaha that man is wearing a g-string on a bike hahahahahaha what a zany character hahahahaha
Is it just me…or has the lad 4th from the left, split his boxers…?
No you’re right…you’ve both split your boxers.
The shaven headed one with the big blue heart tattoo? Isn’t that Sinead O’Connor?
I don’t think he’s wearing any Paul, I think some people spray-paint items of clothing on themselves, to hide the wobbly bits, but technically they are still naked; however, I think yer man forgot to fill in the cracks.
It’s hypocrisy, Bodger, there’s no other word for it.
Bandwagon ———-> Let’s jump on it.
So is Je Suis Charlie going to be the justification for every and any level of daftness purporting to be in the name of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I think I’ll bring my prize fighting killer pitbulls into a creche and play death metal over loud speakers because, you know man, I should be allowed to express myself freely.
For the last time! “Je suis Charlie” does NOT mean I am Charlie Hebdo!!! Charlie is everyone, anybody, a random person. So “Je suis Charlie” means I am everyone, anyone. That is all.
I’m every woman
It’s all in me
Anything you want done baby
I do it naturally
Whoa whoa whoa
An aggressive yet doubtless straightforward dating profile.
Not really the point, Gers. Whether it means I am Charlie Hebdo, or I am everyman, it shouldn’t serve as justification for any loony to go ‘I want to, therefore I shall, because otherwise you’re infringing on my rights’.
i’m charlie hebdo, and so is my wife.
I think the Charlie was originally a dig at General de Gaulle…
‘Oh look – a bandwagon’. There is a vast difference between the freedom of the press to publish what they wish without fear of reprisal, and a bunch of idiots who want to get their kit off just for kicks. Public decency laws exist for a reason. Anyone that keen on having the danglies on public show should google Spencer Tunick and stick to that (and good luck to them). This is NOT the same thing as freedom of expression.
I can agree that the #jesuischarlie concept is being used to by groups to promote their own agendas.
An Aussie RWNJ, Cory Bernardi, being one:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/charlie-hebdo-attack-prompts-renewed-calls-for-racehate-law-changes-in-australia-20150112-12m7d6.html
‘Section 18C was used successfully against conservative columnist Andrew Bolt in 2011 over a column he wrote in 2009 in which he accused a group of Aborigines of seeking advantage because of their skin colour.’
I would respectfully argue that the above is unequivocally incitement to hatred, a much more serious charge.
I am familiar with Bolt and his form. I am glad 18C is there, to stop him and Bernardi from showing their true racist colours.
True dat.
Cycle naked. It brings colour to the cheeks :)
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Surely clothing is advisable when cycling. Even thin clothes will protect your skin if you dismount unexpectedly.
Saddle sniffing.
That is all.
euwwwwww
While I’m as unwilling to see a bunch of auld ones airing their rashers and saussages in public as the next person I think there’s a point here. If I understand the post correctly they conceded to ride in underwear – no different to what one would wear at the beach or what Glenda Gilsen or whoever the latest leggy cleb-type sports on Grafton Street when promoting chocolate bars/betting apps on a regular basis.
If this is the case they break no public decency law but the gards prohibited them from holding their event because the guards couldn’t guarantee they wouldn’t be attacked by random passers by. Now explain to me what the difference is between a cyclist in her underpants and a protester on a ‘slut walk’ (a term I’m not fond of but an idea I wholeheartedly support).
The gards punished the potential victims of an assault because they could not guarantee protection against the potential criminal actions of others. Looks like a very regressive policing decision to me and based on moral and attitudinal considerations rather than legislative ones. It’s akin to saying ‘she was asking for it’.