Re: Club Orient

There was no photography allowed on the C/O side of the beach and there still isnt. It was never illegal to have a camera on the beach,you just couldn't use it. Who knows what you are actually photographing. Only you. Hence the prohibition. Heard the senic shot argument used lots to no avail . No Mrs Hill I am not incorrect as I never quoted French law. As Steve at Club O explained to me the Club had the right to police the beach and confiscate cameras as well as delete photos. There is currently signage to this effect on the beach right now and Cedrick and company reportedly are enforcing it.

But by whose authority can it be enforced? Beach is public to high water mark.

You know I wish I knew what your name was, as I feel silly addressing a post to Hdrdr. But there unfortunately IS no Club O at the moment, only the Perch Lite. And, as far as I know, no security at this point. And again, I will state that French law says that no one can take your picture without your consent. No one will confiscate any camera or delete photos unless the person is taking pictures of people that don't wish their pictures taken. I frankly don't know what authority they ever had to confiscate cameras, probably only that the gendarmes said they wouldn't do anything about it if they did. But regardless, it's a moot point UNLESS someone is taking pictures of people who don't want their picture taken.

We've been going to Club O beach since 1989. I'm sure that someone who didn't have anything better to do has taken my picture on many occasions and I really couldn't care less. But more importantly, I don't GET this 'me versus them' mentality that some folks--not necessarily you--have about the Club Orient beach. The beach and Club O were always clothing optional. Which means that anyone can walk there on the beach or sit down on the sand or rent a chair or bring their own chair. And that's fine with me. It's a beach, a beautiful beach, where people should relax. If going to that beach or talking about it makes someone so uptight, they aren't getting what the place is supposed to be.

There are still many here who remember this beach from ‘back in the day’ before there were any laws or rules or preconceived ideas of what was and wasn’t acceptable. I have this very sincere fear that if people keep pushing their own’ particular agendas, one of these days the French powers that be will ban ALL nudity and just be done with what used to be acceptable. Remember people, it was a deserted beach of particular beauty and remote enough that people didn’t care what the odd and occasional visitor did there. That certainly isn’t the case anymore.......

I figured my girls would also get roasted. It’s just the way I’m built. Strangely, my mid-section and legs barely notice the sun at all.

Speaking of signs, was there ever any plan to replace the big Club O sign? I believe it disappeared during the hurricane before Irma. It was pretty explicit regarding photography on that end of the beach.

Well all I can say to that is if you spent that much time there then you know what I have said is the absolute truth. On our first visit to Club O we were given a tour and an orientation of sorts. The overiding theme was the Clubs comittment to the protection of your privacy. The Clubs security did, on many occasions sieze cameras and delete photos. Yes it was mostly cruisers . On a personal level I could care less but Im not dependant on that kind of privacy back in the world. Many people are. My wife is a whole different story. Ill know firsthand what the deal is very shortly.
It is a beautiful beach and I hardly spend any time on this nonsense when Im there, however there have been times when I needed to step between a jerk and my wife.Not that it should matter but she is an extremely attractive lady and I am , as I should be, very protective of her. We have the right to be left alone and not harrassed by these idiots who think we are there for thier amusement. That section of the beach was established for just that reason and the photography prohibition is there for that reason as well. Disagree all you want. Thats my take on it.

Privacy on a public beach? How can the "Club" override French law?

hdrdr--Again, you're not getting my point. I know that they regularly seized cameras, and/or deleted pictures, but it was only when someone had their picture taken without their permission, as for example, someone just walking down the beach snapping shots. And I still not am certain they could do it LEGALLY, but they did it. Again, it is not allowed under French law to take someone's picture without their permission. What is the remedy under French law if they do? I THINK the answer is some type of a lawsuit, and not self help like that. And I also wouldn't be surprised if the gendarmes told Stephen they wouldn't do anything if someone complained that their camera was taken or destroyed... ...which is not the same as saying it was legal.

I get your point I just dont agree with it. Ive only stated things I have personally witnessed and experianced. I dont suppose anything that may or may nor have been said to Steve. I do know what he said to me. Ive no reason to doubt him. It was never any different in my ten years as a Club O patron. Security had the authority and used it to protect thier guests. I will suppose this, that in all the years Club O patrolled the beach and detained people and searched photographic equipment, deleting material found to be in violation of policy. Im quite sure if they were operating outside of thier authority the Collective would have stopped it. Word on the other SXM sites is that Cedrick has assumed that responsibility. Self help is not always inappropriate but Im not as well versed in French Law as in the statutes here, however I wont hesitate to protect my wife or anyone else I care about.

The side was a Club O sign and pertains to that property, not the public beach.

This is really a silly argument.

The facts:

In France it is not legal to take a picture of an unwilling subject, regardless of where they are. Period.

How this effects the beach in front of the Club O property:

The management had signs up declaring the property to be a camera-free zone. The implication was that this covered
the beach too, but of course that would probably have not been enforceable had it ever been brought to the authorities or
Court's attention. To the best of my knowledge neither ever occurred over a dispute over a camera. (Remember,
no one can hold a candle to the US when it comes to rampant litigiousness...)

It was in the Club's self interest to make patrons and visitors comfortable, and this occasionally included shielding them from
jerks with cameras. Security would take cameras and/or film away if they witnessed blatant use or got a complaint. Yes, they'd
do this on the beach too. Again, see the caveat on my last point. AT THE SAME TIME, if a regular patron or visitor known to
Security took a quick picture of themselves and/or willing subjects they generally could do so with little issue.

Club O is unfortunately not currently in operation. The beach concession is being run by a former Employee who
probably agrees with the previous management's feelings in regards to making patrons feel comfortable. There is
no current security however, so the previously mentioned jerks may have better luck taking pictures than
they previously did. Again, still illegal. If a fellow patron decides to toss a camera in the sea that is also probably
illegal, but it's unlikely to be frowned upon by anyone on that section of the beach.

That pretty much sums it up. I do know that the gendarmes got involved once that I witnessed. They backed Club O.
Done with this, I wouldnt really call it an argument, just opposing viewpoints.

They do have two similar signs now on the actual Perch Lite and Cedrick told me last week, there is a big sign on order to replace the one you are talking about.

But there is no Club O so that side will be different and non enforceable.

Jenni--Exactly! You are correct. And it is totally opposite of Hdrdr's position, even though he claims he agrees with you.

There were many visable camera “stoppages” during our recent two weeks. More than before the storm.

I attribute this to many of those occuring with folks that arrived on welcomed ATV tours. There is a open space between two large swaths of chairs. Folks would get off ATV, hear some info on the place, get a beer or drink at perch and take a quick stroll to that open space to see some water. All were easy “please no photos” stoppages.

Evidently, there was a pretty good confrontation just before our arrival when a visitor took some pics of a family with children. That guy’s camera is now a miniature reef.

Seriously Carol ?? Wow !

She said basically what I said, which is that they didn't have legal authority to do what they did, but they did it anyway AND that the only people who are in trouble with taking pictures are those who take pictures of others without their permission. Your position, I think, is that they had legal authority to seize cameras and throw them in the sea AND that no one is allowed to take pictures, regardless of whether the subject consents or not.

hdrdr you will win this battle even though you stated what Club O management told you when
Club O was still open. They are a few on here that are Judge and jury and what they say is
gospel in there little world. Look at how many times they post. 13000 +, 67000+, and about
9000 so it looks like all they have to do is just sit around and post their opinions. And others
like us that like to get on here to try to get some updates on what is going in St Martin will
not be tolerated. They will just close the post.
I have been staying at Club O for many years and what you say Steven said is what I have
always seen. Legal or not

Hdrdr try SXM Naturism and SIMLPLY SXM on Facebook and you can get a lot of good info rmwuth out all the hassle

Legal or not, enforced or not, debatable or not, there’s still such a thing as courtesy. Would you feel comfortable if someone was making use of a camera on the nude beach you happened to be occupying? I certainly would not. I would not bring a camera simply out of respect for other beach goers. If my bare butt winds up online, I will be beyond upset. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t think of any reason to take pictures there, other than lustful reasons. I would forget what is legal and what can be enforced, and instead consider basic courtesy.

" but I can’t think of any reason to take pictures there, other than lustful reasons."
I would not have a problem if someone was walking the beach and took a selfie with the ocean, boat or landscape as a backdrop. Heck I might just do it myself and God help the person that would try to stop me.

Well they would have stopped you when Club O was open😎

While Jenniboston is correct that there is currently no Club O security, the no picture taking policy is being activity implemented by both Cedrick and the employees at Perch Lite. I watched with some amusement, on our most recent visit, when one of the young ladies at Perch Lite asked a tourist what part of no picture taking didn't he understand as he prepared to take a picture out towards the water. There is a sign in the sand as you walk towards the water from the current parking lot which states picture taking is not allowed. Whether this restriction is legal or not is another issue but it has been strictly enforced since my wife and I have been going to the beach in front of Club O. What I have always wondered about is how Club O has been able to prevent the beach vendors from plying their trade on the Club O beach? Is that portion of the beach really public or does Club O have an understanding with the French side authorities to limit beach access?

Wasn't inplying before Irma but now it isn't Club O anymore.

As fairly suggested to me and others in the past, there are topics that we need to agree to disagree on. No harm done. Let's just move on.

Considering that I’m getting multiple suggestions on what to do with my situation, I’d suggest we’re just naturally debatey creatures.

Tom--Agreed.