How to put on “under the law“ in the different countries of the world? Legal funny things of
In the world exists many legislative strangenesses regulating an attire of people as in principle, and for certain cases of life. What only restrictions difficult to explain or, on the contrary, - permissions you will not meet, having rummaged in legal acts...
We will begin with the general rules raising a smile. In North - Carolinian Mobile for some reason women are forbidden to wear shoes on heels higher than 3,8 cm. Whether in former times owners of hairpins often stumbled, whether undersized men in this city differed in strong unwillingness to look at ladies from below up - it is only possible to guess. In any case, if someone from women wants to break this ban, formally at itself it is necessary to have 20 dollars for payment of a penalty.
By the way, about footwear per se. If she bothers and it will want to wander barefoot, then not everywhere it is possible to throw off her easily. In Texas, in particular, it is required to get at first permission of municipality which costs five dollars. If not to make it, for a razuvaniye self-liberty the police can impose a penalty in an eightfold size from this sum. In Northern Dakota on the contrary - can make responsible not undressed person if he did not remove footwear before going to bed. It is asked: how, except testimony, it is possible to find this fact?
In Arizonian Nogalez braces for maintenance of trousers are strictly forbidden. What this bagatelle did not please the authorities with?! It is difficult to judge, and it is possible to assume anything: for example, maybe, somehow one time from braces at someone broke from a belt and beat out an eye to the owner either a lump to another or just painfully a hlestanul?
In Alabama Anniston there are restrictions for wearing jeans. That is generally they can be put on, but then not to be shown on the main city street at all. Generally, to choose: either jeans, or free route. Directly diplomatic some protocol, neither to give, nor to take. Esthetic taste of the city authorities Karmela (staff New - York) once offended probably a type of the man which had a jacket and trousers of different tone, and in equipment decided to fine for a similar liberty of fans of contrasts for five hundred dollars. This measure was not cancelled meanwhile.
In Australia the ban on a razgulivaniye in black clothes in combination with felt footwear works and with the person smeared with shoe polish is, you see an identification dress of the burglar. The law turns into provinces Victoria special on color of clothes, more precisely, than trousers too: in pink it is forbidden to appear on Sundays in the afternoon.
But if in the homeland of a kangaroo for it the penalty, then in American Sant` - to Kroiksa (State of Wisconsin) the woman who dared to dress up in red is put, has to expect, under the law, arrest and a three-months imprisonment. It must be assumed that today this frightening measure exists only on paper. But exists!
In Italy the man who appeared on the street in a skirt is subject to immediate detention (how to be with tourists from Scotland in national suits?) and in the American Taxon (State of Arizona) ladies are forbidden to leave the house in trousers. The basis in both cases one: clothes of an opposite sex.
In some places honored with special attention dancing dresses. So, in Northern Dakota a hat on the head of any of cheerfully dancing, writing out passionate pases or romantically turned under music - a sufficient reason for forwarding in prison. In Norfolk (State of Virginia) the dancing lady who did not attend previously utyagivaniy herself in a corset - the violator of the law.
A number of precepts of law concerns topless. Under the ancient resolution of city council of Liverpool which is not repealed hitherto the general rule of a ban on emergence with a naked breast contains an exception for dealers in public places of women fish. This rule so old that the local government even tried to protest the fact of its existence. On the contrary, it appears, exists.
In Brazil the instruction, similar in a subject, is formulated quite fancifully: without the top part of a bathing suit it is forbidden to be shown on public beaches … to unattractive women. It is obvious that sanctions about it cannot do without examination of appearance of the lady suspected of ugliness, but the law holds back evaluation criteria. So, the result appears a matter of taste.
And the most strict requirements to a swimwear are kept in establishments for the beach Brighton Bich in the Australian Victoria: the bathing suit has to close a body from a throat to knees. And where such to get today? Unless to order in studio of individual tailoring. Joke, of course.
In Kentucky rules stipulate emergence conditions in beach equipment. In particular, it is said that “any female person cannot appear in a bathing suit on the road … if it is not followed by two police officers or is not armed with a stick“. I understand this: honor and dignity protection of ladies. And in Florida - you represent? - those who in bathing suits, have no right to sing!
Concerning variations on night-clothes there are norms too. And if in Thailand it is forbidden to leave the house, without having on an underwear body, then in Saint - to Luisa (Missouri) even more abruptly: it is impossible to take out the woman who is dressed in a nightgown from the burning house. Frankly speaking, severe customs.
Concerning “nu“ there are such instructions: Brazilians cannot be shown naked in the National opera in San - Paulo; Singaporeans are forbidden to go in such look even on the house, noticed in similar behavior are accused of a pornography. The argument that still, of course, but all - the decision though somehow locates. But that is why in Florida acceptance of a shower in a naked look, and Oxford (Ohio) - the woman`s undressing “at presence“ the man`s portrait is considered illegal, - it is absolutely unclear. To me, at least. And to you?