I see the judges/jury also missed the point of the exhibit. Or rather, they are now part of it.
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.
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
Or: this was the goal all along, as it sets some interesting legal precedents
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.
I mean, if you clown around in front of the judge you are trying to get on your side, losing the verdict is a pretty ShockedPikachu.jpeg moment.
Like what’d they think was gonna happen? The judge was gonna be super duper impressed by their antics and weigh on their favor?
I can see how the ruling makes sense tbh, an art gallery isn’t really a space of societal advantage for viewers.
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.
Fernwood, a women only gym, is allowed to exist.
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.
