As of 9:10 a.m. this morning at Tucson City Court, on the corner of Alameda Street and Sixth Avenue, no one had been arrested as Charlotte Gillis and about 10 friends/supporters stood in front of the building to protest what they feel is gender discrimination.
Gillis and eventually three other women took their shirts off to expose breast–with the areolas and nipples taped over to make them “legal.” And a couple of guys got in on the action too, sans tape.
While Gillis went in for her pre-trial hearing with friends, Kristina Stevens and Nate Campbell kept up the protest, while two Tucson Police Department officers looked on.
On her return, Gillis reported that she asked for a continuance so she could raise additional funds to pay an attorney who wants to take her case. Her new pre-trial hearing is set for June 2.
For more information on Charlotte’s case, go to her MySpace page at www.myspace.com/rptlgrl.
This article appears in May 1-7, 2008.
Dear Charlotte Gillis,
Uh, did you just figure out that laws aren’t fair, or fairly enforced?
Did you know that sentencing for minorities is unfair too?
Or that lower-economic-class citizens have their lives severely disrupted for minor drug infractions, while wealthy people who embezzle or violate insider-trading laws get their wrists slapped?
Did you know that people who can afford fancy lawywers can get away with things that others would spend years in jail for?
Just checking because it sounds like you just figured out it isn’t fair you can go around waving your bare boobies whereever you like, even though men can (even men with “man breasts” that are far less appealing to the eye than your flumpy dumplings).
Maybe you should have used the money you spent on those trendy, nasty-ass tattoos to buy a law book at Border’s.
Or maybe you should spend more time parenting your children and less time running around trying to score a symbolic and soon-to-be forgotten victory by getting your ass arrested and messing up your life with an awkward-to-explain permanent record.
Or maybe you should spend more time encouraging more women to protest with you so you’ll make national news instead of getting a passing blog entry on the Tucson Weekly.
You could also write letters to your legislators and get involved in legal and women’s-rights groups and find a more constructive way to make a difference and contribute to the cause.
All in all, I would give you a C+ for effort, and two C-cups for boobies.
Can we get a NSFW advisory here please? Seriously!
Where do you work that images of women in bras are not safe?
Yes, it’s a symbolic protest, Bob. But I’m glad she did it. The law is stupid, the ideas behind the law are stupid, and the double standard is obvious. The prohibition of women’s breasts is asinine. Getting arrested and making a stink about it was her point. That she wasn’t well prepared to fund her own legal needs is unfortunate, as that will provide another avenue for prudish busybodies to attack. But them’s the breaks, as no one ever promised that civil disobedience was easy.
I count five people in that photo including some bulging chumps who could have done my appetite a favor and worn a shirt. Five people shouldn’t make a news story for a respected weekly. Stop giving press to these attention whores.
Michael: Who said we were a “respected weekly”?
You go, lady! I was just thinking the other day how stupid it is that women’s breasts have been sexualized when they have nothing to do with sex. The nipples and areolas can look just like a man’s yet on a woman have to be covered up? How is it less offensive when a man takes his shirt off in public than when a woman does? Especially really fat men whose breasts are bigger than a lot of women? If this is about modesty and morals, both genders should keep their shirts on and if not, both should be able to go topless in the same venues. As a man I have been a lot more offended by topless men with overly hairy chests and big beer bellies, than any topless woman. Seriously, look at the photo of the topless man and woman together and tell me which is more offensive?
Maybe if more people practiced “civil disobedience” we wouldn’t have the problems we have today. Like the government TELLING us how not to live, where not to live, what not to eat, how not to parent and what not to wear. Governments were created to protect our rights and to serve us. Has anyone heard of the common law? No victim no crime, no penalty no time.
“Consistent with the eternal tradition of natural common law, unless I have harmed or violated someone or their property, I have committed no crime; and am therefore not subject to any penalty.”
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
In response to Bob – yes, all those things are unjust and should be rectified. What are YOU doing to help change any of those things? At least Charlotte has chosen a cause and stood up for her rights. As YOU said – it shouldn’t be about who is the most funded. It should be about what is right and fair. Good Luck, Charlotte!