A. Does the Charter apply? Which sections? As evident in the article, section 2b: “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication,” applies to this case. In this issue, a nudist named Brian Coldin, states that his freedom of expression has been infringed upon as he is charged with several counts of public nudity because of his lifestyle. In Canada, certain laws in forbid this act, which directly affects the ability of a nudist to express themselves. In response to this, Coldin’s lawyer, Clayton Ruby, has said that these charges have limited the expression of nudists and suggest that these laws infringe on Charter rights. However, witnesses have also claimed that seeing Coldin nude in public has caused trauma and unease. But, despite these…show more content… However, he has been charged with multiple counts of public nudity due to Section 174 of the Criminal Code: “Every one who, without lawful excuse, (a) is nude in a public place, or (b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.” Due to this law, Coldin is no longer able to express himself as a nudist in fear of being charged by the government of Canada. As Clayton Ruby mentioned previously, these laws clearly limit the freedom of nudists, since these individuals are prohibited from utilizing their freedom to their full extent. Thus, his freedoms under Section 2b are being infringed because Section 174 in the Criminal Code prevents him from demonstrating his lifestyle and individuality through nudism.
C. Does the reasonable limits clause justify the infringement? Explain. Although Coldin’s freedom of expression may have been infringed, I believe that the reasonable limits clause justify the this violation. Firstly, under the
