Good. I think the other option - setting a precedent allowing businesses to skirt discrimination laws by claiming their behaviour was art - would have been a rather poor decision.
I don’t really see it this way. Fernwood, a women only gym, is allowed to exist. I don’t really see it as problematic for a discriminated class to seek to foster a space free from those who perpetuate that discrimination. Men-only spaces have existed for quite literally most of civilised history. I don’t think it sets a precedent for protected classes to be discriminated against as “art” because men aren’t a class that needs protecting (from discrimination about their status as men). This whole case just feels like a hissy fit.
Note for any other trans women in the audience: Fernwood as a company is trans-inclusive.
Because there are sections of the law which allow exemption from the gender discrimination section for various reasons, and they have successfully argued that there are benefits to having a women only gym which are important enough to deserve an exemption (to provide substantive equality). They also only allow women patrons, so men are not charged for a service that is not equally provided.
I don’t really see it as problematic for a discriminated class to seek to foster a space free from those who perpetuate that discrimination
Neither do many other people, which is why such examples as Fernwood have received exemptions from the law and why there is a specific exemption in the laws for both female and male only clubs.
I don’t think it sets a precedent for protected classes to be discriminated against as “art” because men aren’t a class that needs protecting
Allowing discrimination based on gender without substantiating the businesses eligibility for an exemption under the law absolutely would set a precedent for the courts. While you may agree with this particular case of discrimination it is not a good idea to open an opportunity for more discrimination in the future - keep in mind it may not always be the type you agree with.
While you may agree with this particular case of discrimination it is not a good idea to open an opportunity for more discrimination in the future - keep in mind it may not always be the type you agree with.
I think this sort of slippery slope argument is a cop out. I agree, there are plenty of situations where discrimination based on gender would not provide a substantive benefit to society. For example, a women’s only supermarket would be ridiculous. This conversation, and the article, is specifically discussing the realm of art exhibitions, and a marginalised groups right to have an exhibit be an exclusive place. I am a woman, and you’re right that it does give me a bias here. As an example though, I’m white, and I would be perfectly okay being excluded from an exhibit that was set aside for Indigenous Australians. I think the cultural significance of art can be really important, while also generally not causing a person harm to miss out on.
They also only allow women patrons, so men are not charged for a service that is not equally provided.
In the example I just gave I’d personally be fine paying regardless for say, the admission to a whole gallery with just one exhibit inaccessible to me. I do see how this could be a problem though. Would it be a good enough resolution then, if that was a seperate ticket than the general admission? What if that exhibit ticket was then free though? Free as in, for anyone of that group even without a gallery ticket.
Ms Kaechele previously told the BBC the case had felt like her artwork was coming to life and signalled she would fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Someone has messed up here, either in their understanding of Australian courts, or their application of English idioms. Unclear whether Kaechele or the BBC are to blame. “All the way to” implies there are numerous other layers to fight through before you get there. But the Tasmanian Supreme Court is the very first appellate court this case could go to. Then it could be appealed “all the way to” the High Court of Australia.
The case is slightly more complicated than the comments indicate. The lawsuit hinged on the women only space being one exhibit in a general admission event; basically someone is making a stink because they paid full price and then were denied access to one thing in it.
I’m not commenting at all here about my feelings on the topic, just trying to relay facts.
I wonder if they think it would be ok for the women to be in the men’s bathrooms at the same museum? Sure there are separatel women’s bathrooms, but do the women’s bathrooms have urinals for them to use if they wanted to?
I don’t think there should be a women only space in a general museum, except to make a point, but the cost of admission is not the argument to win that fight. If it’s to make a point, it shouldn’t be enforced.
The restrooms aren’t an exhibit that you pay for, and it’s common knowledge when you buy a ticket that you won’t be able to use the restroom of the opposite gender as a general rule. Seems a bit hyperbolic.
My personal take: just disclose this at the time of purchase. A simple asterisk on the general admission info noting that some exhibits will be [insert blocking restriction] would make the problem go away.
Restrooms that are past the ticket barrier require a ticket. The ticket/museum discloses the fact that its female only prior to purchase, so common knowledge doesn’t play a part.
I agree, its a poor argument, but its the same argument about something different on offer, that is accepted to discriminate.
The fact that there is an exemption in the law to allow for things like this bit they deem it doesn’t seems wrong to me.
However, the point of the piece seems to be to highlight discrimination and get people to think about it, so its achieved its purpose, if arts purpose can be measured.
The only way to not be part of it would be to ignore it. The judges chose to do the right thing and not ignore sexism and thus become part of it. I guess when u look at the art piece as a whole the artist sought to make a statement about sexism and the courts said fuck your sexism not in our country.
I would say the right decision was made. It’s part of the work. The next act of the artwork moves on to the unhinged ranting of people (mostly male) who didn’t understand the artwork, will praise the decision and think this is a big fuck you to the artist, and will continue to support discrimination when it doesn’t apply to them
I get where you’re coming from, and I understand what the artist was trying to do.
But for me allowing this to go all the way to a courtroom was crossing a line. The judge and everyone else working there have important shit to do, including cases where people’s actual lives are being ruined by discrimination, and they shouldn’t have to waste time participating in anything like this.
There’s a time and a place for artwork and protests. A courtroom is not one of them.
Also, I think it was counterproductive. If you want misogynist dickheads to change their ways, you don’t do it by overcorrecting too far in the other direction. This has just made them even more passionate and even less likely to treat women fairly
From previous articles it was said that the law specifically allowed certain discrimination for some types of businesses like women’s-only gyms and such. It would be quite bad news if such laws were overturned. That wasn’t the one brought up but it was this one:
The museum had responded by claiming the rejection Mr Lau had felt was part of the artwork, and that the law in Tasmania allowed for discrimination if it was “designed to promote equal opportunity” for a group of people who had been historically disadvantaged.
So it was a defense of an already existing law and it failed. I doubt the individual who self-represented was trying to overturn that law, but it didn’t anyways. The judge just said he couldn’t see how it fit.
Also from the article:
Throughout the case, the museum’s supporters, including artist Kirsha Kaechele - who created the work - had used the courtroom as a space for performance art, wearing matching navy suits and engaging in synchronised movements.
Mr Grueber said that while the behaviour of the women hadn’t disrupted the hearing, it was “inappropriate, discourteous and disrespectful, and at worst contumelious and contemptuous”.
Fragile-ass judge. Unsurprising. Declared it wasn’t disruptive at all, but was inappropriate. Fucking lol.
Australian judges are very much not like American ones. With few exceptions, they don’t decide what they think is morally right and then devise a legal justification for that, they read the law as passed by Parliament and they figure out what the most accurate way to apply it is.
They may or may not have realised the point of the artwork, but if Australian discrimination laws are written to make this illegal, their hands are tied. Blame Parliament.
This is what I took from the article. The point of the exhibit isn't really relevant since it doesn't fall into an existing carve out of permitted discrimination.
There’s specific exemptions in these laws for clubs. I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read, I think if they were to do the paperwork to set up the room as a women-only club somehow, they’d be in the clear.
There’s also the massive general exemption of wether or not your actions are discriminatory.
For example, it’s perfectly legitimate to reject an actor who’s gender doesn’t match the character they are being hired to perform. That is not discriminatory. It’s only discrimination if there’s no valid reason to reject someone based on gender.
The court ruled, in this case, that there was no valid reason to prevent men from viewing picaso/etc’s artwork. “We want to make a point” is not good enough.
I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read, I think if they were to do the paperwork to set up the room as a women-only club somehow, they’d be in the clear.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I don’t think the law works like that. Nuance matters in legal proceedings, and finding a loophole like that might reduce your damages but it won’t prevent you from losing the case. When two pieces of legislation disagree (e.g. no discrimination vs allowing women-only clubs), it’s basically up to the judge to decide which one has priority and they’re likely to choose the one that’s most important. Which would be the anti-discrimination law, not the club law. The world is full of contradicting laws - judges deal with this stuff every day all day and cases where the law is clear generally don’t go to court at all.
That’s a good point I can see why memberships can be exclusive things but making exclusion based on race or sex should be illegal. I hope it sets the precedent.
Add comment