Vera Supreme Court Case

The brains of some humans

Resolution 217/2023 by Spain’s Supreme Court, of February 13, finds a violation of fundamental rights by the administration of a community of homeowners in Vera, Almería, known as Natura World. The sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain correctly upholds the rights of all individuals to wear anything or nothing whilst on their own property - including that which is in shared-ownership - according to their personal desire and irrespective of whether they may be in full view of others. For an estimated 60% of the population of Spain who live in a Community of Owners regulated by the Law of Horizontal Property, this decision may finally provide them with confidence to walk naked amongst their neighbours without fear of infringing the law.

Put simply, a corrollary of the right to wear clothes is an equal right to wear no clothes.

It is reported by ABC de Andalucia that “textiles won” (against “naturists”) in a legal battle that has been ongoing for several years; whereas, the actual battle may not have been between “textiles” and “naturists”: rather, the battle at Vera may have occurred between individuals with attitudes which respect the autonomy of others (represented, in this case, by “textiles”) and indivudals who wish to impose authoritarian rule (represented, in this case, by “naturists”). It is important to note that any reference to “textiles” or to “naturists” only refers to individuals who claim to represent those groups (at the particular place and time); not to either of those social groups as a whole.

Another reason cited by the Supreme Court of Spain is that the prohibition of swimming costumes in the swimming pools had no justification because the Community Statutes had not received the required level of agreement amongst co-owners. This sheds a bright light on the overcomplexity of relevant Spanish legislation, which remains incomprehensible to a majority of humans (including those who know Spanish language). Neither the Supreme Court judgement nor several reports in Spanish and US media mention another factor which may be playing in the backgound, namely: dishonesty and corruption within the Spanish property development, real estate, ‘community administration’ and legal industries. Junius suspects that the legal industry on the southern coast of Spain may be particularly bad, thus facilitating bad behaviours in other industries. It seems that dozens of properties at Natura World were sold to buyers who did not know that their real estate purchases may have been intended, designed and built as part of a designated-naturist community. The fact that local and provincial courts made incorrect interpretations of the Law of Horizontal Property also raises concern about the competence of the judiciary at those levels.

It must be recognised that ‘naturism’ (referring to an individual preference for not wearing clothes and/or swimming costumes) - just like textilism - is a lifestyle choice which might change throughout the lifetime of any individual human. As such, a person (or a family) might purchase real estate property within an accepted naturist zone whilst preferring that lifestyle, but might subsequently decide against that lifestyle (or vice-versa, for a textilist in a textile area). So, just as any imposition of nudism violates the right to equality in a naturist area; so, the imposition of textilism - equally - violates the right to equality in all textilist areas, impinging upon freedom of movement and rights to privacy.

The appeal of the plaintiff owners of Natura World (Vera, Almería, Spain) was correctly upheld by the Supreme Court of Spain, since acts of force were never justified to prevent them from enjoying the rights that correspond to them in the regime of horizontal property. The legal assurance of individual property rights, eloquently described by John Locke and others, have been a vital component in human progress since at least the Age of Enlightenment (yet to reach conscious awareness in some humans).

Naturism was correctly described by Spain’s Supreme Court as a personal choice and “perfectly respectable and legitimate”. It has been practiced by Ancient Greeks, by Hindu sages, by indigenous peoples of multiple cultures (prior to colonial imperialism) and increasing numbers of individuals and families today. In reference to the “indemnity for moral damages of 1000 euros for each of the claimants” - prescribed by the Supreme Court - Junius thinks that the amount for damages may be correct, but not in the form of moralic acid. Just “1000 euros for damages” would be enough; without reference to morality.

Thoughts arise from this month’s Supreme Court judgement (outwith ‘Natura World, Vera’), for example:

• In Spain generally, it seems that 60% of the population of that country might be justified to feel more confidence to practice naturist lifestyles anywhere within the bounds of any shared real estate property (’comunidad de propietarios’).

• For any cabbage-brained blockheads at the naturist ‘Community of Owners’ of Costa Natura, it must be recognised that property rights are now officially more important than the rights of community leaders to make authoritarian decisions or to issue authoritarian rules.

• For humans in any country of the world who value individual autonomy: bringing any issue to the highest court of your land might create interesting possibilities for human progress.

- Junius

P.s. To correct some suspected misinformation which appears to have been reported by the Supreme Court and media, Junius has never encountered any naturist venue, anywhere in the world, where nudity is mandatory in “gardens” (or outside of swimming pools, hot tubs or saunas).