Personally, I’m more interested in this from a legal perspective than I am from a moral one. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, morally, but I’m fascinated to see if the case gets up, what other implications it could have.
But also:
The opportunity to extend the performance aspect of Ladies Lounge was embraced by the artist and 25 female supporters, who entered Tuesday’s tribunal hearing wearing a uniform of navy business attire. Throughout the day’s proceedings, they engaged in discreet synchronised choreographed movements, including leg crossing, leaning forward together and peering over the top of their spectacles. Apart from the gentle swish of 25 pairs of nylon clad legs crossing in unison, the support party remained silent. When the proceedings concluded, the troupe exited the tribunal to the Robert Palmer song Simply Irresistible.
The legal aspect is crystal clear. It’s blatantly illegal to ban entry based on gender with very few exceptions (such as toilets or domestic violence shelters). I expect the court will be angry that it even went to court at all.
The purpose of a judge is to settle disagreements. When both sides of a court case agree with the facts, then there is nothing for the judge to do, and it should not go to court at all. It should be settled out of court.
It’s likely to be a really short case “did you have a policy to ban men?” “yes”. “case closed; moving on to damages”… but the thing is, even though the meat of the case will be over almost instantly… there will still be weeks of work done in the lead up to the case, by both legal teams, but the court, by the judge, preparing the jury if it’s a jury trial, etc (imagine how angry your boss would be if they had to give you paid time off work, delaying project schedules, over this case).
If you want to make a political statement, the court room is not the place to be doing that. At a minimum I’d expect the court to force one side to pay all of the legal fees of the other side, and on top of that the court might charge them with abuse of the court process which could result in punitive fines and also discipline against the lawyers involved (they could even be banned from practicing their craft). Judges don’t have a sense of humour and they are not interested in political debates.
Mona’s legal team will be relying on the tribunal’s interpretation of section 26 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act, under which a person is permitted to discriminate against another person in a situation designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute – in this case gender.
It is under clauses like this in most of Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation that organisations such as male-only clubs and women-only gyms are able to operate.
Are you a legal expert? Is the fact that this is “art” not a more complex legal issue?
edit: Quote from the article:
“Mona’s legal team will be relying on the tribunal’s interpretation of section 26 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act, under which a person is permitted to discriminate against another person in a situation designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute – in this case gender. It is under clauses like this in most of Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation that organisations such as male-only clubs and women-only gyms are able to operate.”
Art is entitled to profit. Museums, cinema, theater, music concerts, all of those are art and are business. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories. Artists are humans that need a livelihood as well and are also entitled to the revenue of their art to afford their continued creation of art.
Personally, I’m more interested in this from a legal perspective than I am from a moral one. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, morally, but I’m fascinated to see if the case gets up, what other implications it could have.
But also:
Sublime.
Chefs kiss🤌💅
Respect for the choreographed movements during the tribunal.
The legal aspect is crystal clear. It’s blatantly illegal to ban entry based on gender with very few exceptions (such as toilets or domestic violence shelters). I expect the court will be angry that it even went to court at all.
The purpose of a judge is to settle disagreements. When both sides of a court case agree with the facts, then there is nothing for the judge to do, and it should not go to court at all. It should be settled out of court.
It’s likely to be a really short case “did you have a policy to ban men?” “yes”. “case closed; moving on to damages”… but the thing is, even though the meat of the case will be over almost instantly… there will still be weeks of work done in the lead up to the case, by both legal teams, but the court, by the judge, preparing the jury if it’s a jury trial, etc (imagine how angry your boss would be if they had to give you paid time off work, delaying project schedules, over this case).
If you want to make a political statement, the court room is not the place to be doing that. At a minimum I’d expect the court to force one side to pay all of the legal fees of the other side, and on top of that the court might charge them with abuse of the court process which could result in punitive fines and also discipline against the lawyers involved (they could even be banned from practicing their craft). Judges don’t have a sense of humour and they are not interested in political debates.
Sounds like someone didn’t read the full article:
His opinions are too important for things like “reading articles”.
Are you a legal expert? Is the fact that this is “art” not a more complex legal issue?
edit: Quote from the article: “Mona’s legal team will be relying on the tribunal’s interpretation of section 26 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act, under which a person is permitted to discriminate against another person in a situation designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute – in this case gender. It is under clauses like this in most of Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation that organisations such as male-only clubs and women-only gyms are able to operate.”
I’d say no. It’s a business, and it discriminates based on gender. Seems pretty black and white.
If they weren’t an actual business and didn’t make profits, then that would make more sense from an “it’s art” defense
Art is entitled to profit. Museums, cinema, theater, music concerts, all of those are art and are business. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories. Artists are humans that need a livelihood as well and are also entitled to the revenue of their art to afford their continued creation of art.
Yeah imagine movies or theatre shows costing money to see. Crazyness.
You clearly didn’t read the article. A very typical, privileged response.
Although, you are experiencing the Ladies Lounge in the way it was intended.
Plus this sort of bullshit clogs up dockets and takes time away from cases that actually need judicial intervention.
Pretty sure you don’t get paid time off work for a civil case you chose to bring.
Unless you mean using annual leave, in which case your boss can get fucked, it’s none of their business what you use it for.