The purpose of the stuff in the WA case was to harass, as a puerile revenge for the fact that the women had complained about quite innocuous pinups. It was harassment, not "discrimination", although I'm sure the men were quite discriminating in their choice of pictures.

Let's face it, the women who men want to look at have no problem with men looking.

As a side note, I'm extremely affronted by the faminist propaganda "porn" that infests workplaces dominated by women. Why should I have to put up with "Girls can do anything" and "Girls: building the future" when I attend the office of my children's school? It's genuinely discrimination against boys and yet there is no possibility that I can complain, because the Antii-discrimination Commission has no heads of power to hear my claim.

If Miss Pringle is genuine about wanting to stop discrimination, perhaps she could start at her educational institution and campaign for equity for boys who seek to do higher study.

Yeah, right...

I'm sorry antiseptic, but you are wrong. The claim in this case was discrimination, not harassment. I am writing this quickly so as to nip any repetition of this error in the bud.
Helen

The claim was discrimination, because the Act existed. The intent was harassment: they complained about "victimisation", to use your word.

In the same way, the Bolt case was based on Racial Discrimination, when it was really about defamation. The battleground was carefully chosen.

A display of a calendar is no more than a display of a calendar, unless it is intended to harass or discriminate. The judge and the law are made simple ad absolute because they are intended to prevent frivolous complaint and hence a lot of misuse of court resources.

Complaining about other people's quiet enjoyment of the female (or male, have you seen some of the calendars aimed at women who like looking at men, not to mention Cleo) form is intended to prevent their quiet enjoyment of their own workplace.

It's harassment, Miss Pringle.

<The extra edge that kept audiences riveted was her charm, her good looks and her deliberate use of feminine wiles to add punch to her arguments and wrap men, and most importantly Kerry Packer, around her little finger. Ita's story is living proof of the power of what British sociologist Catherine Hakim calls "erotic capital" - an overlooked human asset she claims all women should exploit more fully.>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/putting-erotic-capital-to-work-in-the-workplace/story-e6frg6zo-1226136165361

<We hear constantly about men in trouble over sex. Men in trouble for not keeping their trousers zipped, for groping and harassing women, men caught out looking at pornography, or gazing at women in the wrong way. But what we never hear about is men's restraint, the remarkable stoicism of current generations of heterosexual men who cop it sweet, despite their immense frustrations>
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/lust-for-life-20110820-1j3ed.html