STARK REALITIES OF LIFE
It’s ironic that in exercising his freedom of expression The Naked Rambler is impinging on other people’s freedoms
Guy Grieve’s sympathy for the naked rambler has waned
Ibelieve we should all be free to do whatever we wish, so long as it does not impinge upon the freedoms or opportunities of other people.
With this philosophy in mind I used to feel quite strongly that Stephen Gough – aka ‘The Naked Rambler’ – should be allowed to wander about this country at will, wearing whatever clothing, or lack of, as took his fancy.
Convicted dozens of times (mainly for contempt of court and public order offences) in the past ten years, Gough first came to public attention in 2003 when he set out to walk the length of Britain naked. During this and subsequent journeys he was arrested repeatedly and has served a number of prison sentences. Interestingly, some of his most difficult times have been in Scotland, a fact that had me tut-tutting at our Calvinist prurience and intolerance.
Just a few weeks ago, he appeared (naked) before the Court of Appeal in London, contesting his conviction last October, when he was tried in his absence (as he had refused to wear clothes). He failed in his appeal, unsurprisingly, and has had to return to serve his sentence of two and a half years.
It is interesting that Gough is an ex-Marine – not a profession we normally associate with non-conformists – but his army training will have stood him in good stead in coping with Scotland’s weather, not to mention the midges. I find it tough enough getting bitten on my exposed face and hands, but elsewhere…?
He is clearly made of determined stuff and although endlessly arrested and confined, he just keeps bouncing back. Reading occasional news articles over the years, I admired the man for not submitting to convention, continuing
his yomping around after each release wearing nothing but a pair of hiking boots and socks. But then some time ago I saw a television documentary of his exploits, which made me start to suspect that his ongoing campaign was less to do with freedom of expression and more to do with attention-seeking. There was worrying footage of him walking past a primary school just as parents were collecting their children. It was clear he was just trying to pass by and had no seedy intentions. Yet the fact is that he was a stranger to the children, a middle-aged man stark naked in the street.
As I watched alarmed parents hurrying their young children out of sight, I lost sympathy for Gough. In urban settings his behaviour is not an expression of freedom and independence, I decided, but an infringement of the rights of others. I have no problem with him going around naked in the hills and glens, but towns and cities, by their crowded nature, demand we curb our public liberties in order to ensure we can live and work in close proximity.
Although his behaviour is not directly affecting other people, by going against the conventions of our clothed society he risks making other people feel threatened and anxious. Clearly his freedom of expression here is impinging upon the freedoms of others.
Now is this Liberal thinking, I hear you ask, or the rantings of a reactionary Tory? I’d say the former. I have no beef with people cavorting around remote countryside or within the confines of their own private spaces in zero body cover. Out in public, though, it seems obvious we must accept that we are not truly free, that there is civic responsibility, and in Gough’s case, this means putting on some trousers.
‘Some of his most difficult times have been in Scotland, a fact that had me tuttutting at our Calvinist prurience’