A SINGLE-sex travel company for women who want to avoid boozy, bed-hopping mixed tour groups has been grounded.

A judge ruled yesterday that former tour guide Erin Maitland cannot advertise women-only holidays because it could breach the human rights of men.

http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,26366101-5014090,00.html

I really don't think this is breaching any 'human rights'. In fact if anything it enhances the tours for mixed groups who want to drink and get laid, by eliminating the prudish judgemental kill-joys (Just how other people 'bed-hopping' affects a women is beyond me.)

Many of the comments on the article are from men bemoaning the fact that many male only clubs have been closed and female-only gyms are thriving, and it's about time someone stopped the female-only stuff too.

But what kind of attitude is that. If you're pro-freedom for men to have their own space and don't want it closed down, you should be pro-women to have their own space, and fight for that too.

It's what I criticise a lot of feminists for this kind of tit for tat stuff. Like criticising men for years for their boozing and bed hopping, but then when women start to do it call it liberating girl-power. Either you approve of or disapprove of the behaviour. I would also expect many feminists should be agreeing with this ruling, but I'm not holding my breath that's for sure.

I would love a world where women and men could be mature enough to handle mixed company, but obviously there's always going to be girls who are timid, shy, and threatened by all men, and there's always men who want the freedom to let one off without comment and talk about cricket all night without women interrupting and asking what silly mid on is.

The only grounds I can see for starting to curtail all these women-only gyms and clubs is the fact that a lot of women already have their whole house to get away from men, while men have to build sheds in the back yard and invent DIY jobs to do just to get some peace.

It reminds me of the anti-smoker in a way. Many pubs, especially in rural areas were almost dead and hanging on only by the patronage of visiting bikie gangs, nicotine stained men in worn out cowboy hats and toothless solvers of all the world problems. So they ban smoking and so more rural pubs close down. The non-smokers never did forge a revival in patronage so there were telling a few fibs when they suggested the smoking was keeping them away. They had no intent of going to the local anyways. So for some old lonely people a lifeline to some human contact was lost to please a few well patronised pubs in the main cities. Why not allow business to make the decision on who they want as customers?

So if the lady runs the tours will the men actually go or are they just dummy spitters? Are men really screaming out they really want to do a tour that visits rose gardens, tea houses and factory outlets?

I would like a range of business to appeal to a range of people. If it excludes ladies that want to travel in the company of women then it is discriminatory and many will prefer to stay home along with the otthless nicotine addict marginilising people with non mainstream needs.

It is a lot different from days gone by when men only clubs were the only clubs. Women went to knitting clubs or some such trivial nonsense. If women can have women only clubs where politics is discussed, business plans hatched, too much champagne consumed an a bit of gambling thrown in I would love it. It was never about women not being invited to the mens clubs, it was because only men could enjoy such fun.

Ah Missus, you always seem to make sense.

'are they just dummy spitters? Are men really screaming out they really want to do a tour that visits rose gardens, tea houses and factory outlets?'

I reckon they're dummy spitters. Got their nickers in a twist because the feminists lobbied to have their men only pubs shut, and crying 'it's not fair!' now women can have female only stuff.

What they really should be doing is being consistent, and arguing for the right for both men and women to have their own clubs. Ditto the feminists. They should have been outraged that women want to exclude men from their travels if they're interested in equality, not just 'equality for women'.

The Judge is a spastic. Human rights? pft. Like you say it's not as if the men cant go with one of the other zillions of tour companies.

This is the kinda stuff we'll see all the time once we get a Human Rights Act.

BTW: 'If women can have women only clubs where politics is discussed, business plans hatched, too much champagne consumed an a bit of gambling thrown in I would love it.'

Try your local Mother's group;-)

Hi Houellebecq,

"Ah Missus, you always seem to make sense"

Yes must surely qualify for disability pension:)

Missus and Houellebecq, I couldn't agree more! What a load of tossers those male objectors must be.

I have no objection to male only tours- or male only clubs. Good luck to them! Let's not let gender equality spoil the little pleasures of life.

Maybe the tour operator could omit the 'women only' part of her advert next time, and list the activities of this tour as extolling the virtues of a tour of a feminine hygiene factory, and in small print the usual exciting activities that women enjoy, such as winery tours, shopping or whatever else rocks your boat!

Yes I am with you lot - you ratbag retrobates. :)

I don't give a tinkers if women or men want exclusive clubs. Or gay people who want to joint a like-minded group, or bookclubbers, or fishermen, origami or bonsai enthusiasts. Let 'em all do their own thing.

Gawd isn't there enough other worthy causes one can pin their hat on, without creating a ruckus about absolutely nothing.

If women want to start an exclusive women's club to discuss politics, business and snort a bit of champagne they, like men, are perfectly free to do so.

Houlley someone in your link above made a valid comment that men and women should have equal rights but we are not equal. It is not abnormal to wish to spend time with one's gender group if one should choose to do so at times. Mixed company is more fun, but why should this be the only acceptable social setting in law.

The problem with any laws are that they are generally blunt instruments.

A generation ago many men's only clubs proliferated, excluding women not only from the facilities, but from the business networks and contacts that they fostered, and were seen as the bastion of male chauvinism and exclusion.

The legislation being non discriminatory in nature could thus not apply only to men.

The legitimate desire to have female only tours are thus a casualty of this legislation. The repealing of the laws would also allow back the men's only clubs.

This is why I come out in hives whenever any idiot wants to introduce a new law to stop some behaviour (s)he finds objectionable, as sure as nuts there will be something that will come round and bite us in the Rs.

The new human rights legislation that is being proposed is a prime example of where we can suffocated by good intentions.

Society frowned upon a women playing snooker, talking politics etc and that social norm needed addressing. It was never really about her not being able to play against a man, only her right to play. So some laws were required but we have gone overboard now. We should be mature enough to allow choice.

It is across the board. The outraged, those who chose to be offended are trying find places that offend them so they can vent their outrage in a public forum.

Julian Morrow of The Chasers addressed similiar issue in his Andrew Olle speech. Basically that a comedy sketch often will not offend their target audience, which is quite small, but only once the media gets hold of it and targets another audience, those who cannot click on a story quick enough so they can be offended.

So here we have comedy that has to approved by a non audience and tour groups that have to approved by non customers. Stupid.

You know I never understand this “anti-discrimination” legislation in its application to private undertakings.

Who cares that the tour is for ladies only, who cares that the Melbourne Club is men only?

Who cares if a restaurant determines, for the peaceful benefit of its clientele, that babies are not allowed.

The only ones who care are the social meddlers who think that everyone is the same and everyone is equal and that they have the right to the last say on everything.

I can understand anti-discrimination in its application to public/government services, where we are taxed, without recourse or right of refusal but not for private access or services, which we have commercial/monetary discretion over.

Like SM suggested, Laws are blunt instruments… (extremely blunt.. so lawyers can understand them)

TheMissus “Society frowned upon a women playing snooker, talking politics etc”

I have met many women (even married some of them) but I have never ever shook hands with a single “society”

Who cares what “society” thinks, it is a myth, like the “common good”, just a lie used by those who lack real political support to add numbers to their ill-supported beliefs :- )

As dearest Margaret (a lady I have great respect for) said:

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

She also said “I owe nothing to Women's Lib.” And she did not!

H
Good conundrum,
IMO it's the classic case of conflicting 'right' when the solution is in sight.

SM is correct about the law being a blunt instruments. But beyond that he's missing the point.

It seems to me that the problem is relatively easy to mitigate.

Pass a law that allows for Discrimination Dept committee grantable *narrow* common sense exception on application or defense to the Discrimination Act. (no lawyers representation, like tenancy tribunals)

Gender exclusive associations to exist they need to be able to prove that the members have a reasonable fear of sexually based harassment(sunset clauses)requiring be periodically renewed.
An example for the period of the specific tour.

I can understand how some women don't want to travel with a bunch of drunken wannabe Lotharios.
The unwanted attention is often inescapable and can border on harassment.

Sure there are some women who want to sleep their way across a country but it's a hello good bye situation 'their choice'. However, on some mixed gender trips some see the opposite gender fellow travelers with some proprietary rights....fish in a barrel. Yes it goes both ways.

Re men's clubs it would be a difficult to prove that the club members fear sexual based harassment.

It is a sad indictment of our society that these laws are necessary at all. Regrettably many selfish individuals can't trusted to behave and respect other's sensibilities.

What is missed in 'rights' discussions is the accompanying social obligations/responsibility.

Hmmm... ?Lesbian tour groups. I think so. ?too PC to say so. I think so.

Oh Col I get this rush of adrenaline when you mention Margaret! Wooh hoh ho.

Missus,

'So here we have comedy that has to approved by a non audience and tour groups that have to approved by non customers. Stupid.'

So true.

I'm thinking about this tour now, and how they're going to travel the world while avoiding running into any local men. Be pretty difficult in Egypt, but I suppose a lot of tour groups are going to see buildings and scenery and not interested in immersing themselves in another culture.

shadow,

'The new human rights legislation that is being proposed is a prime example of where we can suffocated by good intentions.'

Ooh it's going to be a nightmare. I suspect a whole industry is going to be sustained though, so it's good for jobs! That achieve nothing.

I think the country already has too much of an entitlement attitude to rights with no corresponding attitude to responsibilities. Adding this Human Rights rubbish will only further that.

The first human right will be the right not to be offended I bet.

"The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal refused Erin Maitland's application for exemption from
anti-discrimination laws, saying it was not justified under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights.

The tribunal had previously granted an exemption to another women's-only travel service, but Ms Maitland's
application was the first since the charter was introduced three years ago."
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/womens-only-travel-blocked-20091118-iklb.html

evidence for the crucial requirement in a Bill or Charter of Human Rights for the acknowledgement of every
Australian woman's sole human right to male supervision at law under the nation's archaic men's legislatures
only Constitution.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cruises-to-defy-schoolie-order/comments-e6frg6nf-1225799502521

Now young people are also being denied their 'human rights'. P&O, those nasty human rights abusers!

OK, the evidence is in.

Now, who is still in favour of Human Rights being enshrined in law?

Thought so.

Just the lawyers.

Whistler,

thanks for the extra info. As far as I'm concerned it simply shows the flaws in the legislation.

For once I agree with H it should be ridiculed or at least changed to allow for legal games.

Pericles
Codifying human right on a micro situation is at best using a demolition ball to crack an egg.

In my mind Human rights are at best limited and should be at most codified that way.

Bring back Ultra Shakespearism "first execute all the lawyers"?

examinator,

human rights legislation is an excellent candidate for consideration at the inaugural sessions
of the women's and the men's legislatures of the parliament of an equal rights republic.

“It has been a few days since I visited this particular pursuit of the irrelevant and I see a few have made comment to my previous post

Houlle “how did the wedding go”…

Perfectly thanks H.. I will send you a pic through the usual channels .. not sure what we used for the toast, I just paid the tab but whatever it was it suited my palette and the new Mrs took 3 days to come back to earth…. I might modestly add, as a function of the wedding… not the honeymoon :- )

I get your point about standards. Some things are best reviewed and if no good reason is found to change them, be left as they were. Marriage is like that and the “Gay Union” agenda is not a valid reason to let every deviant and twisted mind front up for a marriage union.

Pontificator “See you have told us something about you, you're a homophobe. Who would have guessed!”

Call me what you want, your view and name calling is stupid anyway.

Homosexuality is “abnormal” and I do tolerate the “abnormal”.

However, that does not entitle the “abnormal” to be given the exact same treatment as if they were “normal”

any more than those abnormal folk who seek wedded bliss with animals (or their cars) or NAMBLA, deserve to be awarded “equal opportunity” with “normal” heterosexuals.

Please ignore my previous post.. it has come to the wrong thread….

I must have been having a “blonde” moment

Pericles “Now, who is still in favour of Human Rights being enshrined in law?

Thought so.

Just the lawyers.”

Yes, the successes of workcare inspectors mean Workers compensation injuries are on the wane

Whistler “human rights legislation is an excellent candidate for consideration at the inaugural sessions
of the women's and the men's legislatures of the parliament of an equal rights republic.”

It ain’t ever going to happen.

I fail to see why you try to flog that dead horse

We have a unified parliament, the history of political “devolution” is very brief (and devolution based on gender non-existent).

Nor is it marked with many “successes” the Czech:Slovak devolution was peaceful… but I do recall wars fought to ensure the unity of the state (or ‘states’ in the matter of the US civil war of secession and various other (less than peaceful) incidence in Yugoslavia and Chechnya etc.

Even the Czech:Slovak devolution was geographically based and not “gender based yet occupying the same geography”

Regarding “anti-discrimination legislation” or all the other pointless pursuits of the inept and feeble, the following is an apt quote

"Yet the basic fact remains: every regulation represents a restriction of liberty, every regulation has a cost. That is why, like marriage (in the Prayer Book's words), regulation should not 'be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly'.”

(And a prize to the first person who can answer the question “guess who I am quoting”)

Col,
Given your mindset one could guess 'Mad as a Maggot on Meths Maggie'.
Keep you prize (a piccy of the above) my parrot prefers the Janet Albrechtsen's ' opinion pieces ' to crap on. (they don't frighten him so much). Besides one shouldn't do that to ancient historic fools.
:-)

If we're going to quote, how about this
one:

"With various readings stored his empty skull,
learn'd without sense, and venerably dull!"
(Winston Churchill).

This isn't directed at any one in particular,
I just thought that I'd throw it in, just to
show that I'm a "deep" thinker as well.

As for Houellie's topic ...
Let them do whatever they want.
In the US there's a female travel agency
that provides women with "outdoor adventures,"
such as - sea kayaking the Adriatic,
climbing Bulgaria's mountains
or exploring the Panama. If some women
want to have adventures with their sister,
mother, bestfriend, work colleague... let them.
The same goes for the guys.
What's wrong with them in NSW?

Does this mean that there will no longer be
single-sex schools in NSW? No more single-sex
sport's clubs, no more obstetricians or gynecologists?
What about beauty salons? fitness clubs or gyms?

Could Erin have registered her business in another
state and work from home in NSW? (I believe there
are some people who have "offshore" business regos -
so they don't have to pay taxes).

Just a thought.

Col Rouge you so much sound like denis thatcher ...
it ain’t ever going to happen ... it ain’t ever going to happen
well it did! .... lol

A couple of quotes about the awful Thatcher:

<< She behaves with all the sensitivity of a sex-starved boa constrictor. [Tony Banks (The Independent, October 1997)] >>

<< There’s one thing I know I'd like to live long enough to savour,
That’s when they finally put you in the ground,
I’ll stand on your grave and tramp the dirt down.

"Tramp the Dirt Down", a song written about Thatcher by Elvis Costello >>

<< Loathsome, repulsive in almost every way. [Jonathan Miller] >>

Indeed, the last one could be applied to her fans as well.

The other day I was outside one of those "female only" gyms, there was a dog tied to the pole outside the building. This dog looked rather
depressed and anxious. So I told it "it is not because you are a dog that you can't go inside, it is because you are male", cheered the dog up no end.
I mean what is this debate all about, legalised discrimination is everywhere these days

you've nailed it Lav. the Australian Constitution's provision for men's
legislatures only is the greatest legalised discrimination of them all!

Sorry whistler, I've heard your mantra many, many times, but I've forgotten its foundation.

>> the Australian Constitution's provision for men's
legislatures only is the greatest legalised discrimination of them all!<<

When you say "the Australian Constitution's provision for men's legislatures", what exactly are you referring to?

It seems to suggest that women are constitutionally excluded somehow, when all the evidence appears to contradict that. I'm sure you've explained it before, but could you refresh my memory?

On a general note, it seems to me that we have become so accustomed to the idea that all forms of perceived discrimination should be automatically legislated against, that we fail to see the utter stupidities that it has created.

All in the name of "Human Rights".

It's a game being played by politicians and lawyers, and we are all the losers.

"There is nothing in the black letter law of the Constitution of Australia to say that women should
be prohibited from being elected to Parliament, yet women were prohibited from being elected to
Australia's first Parliament.

Why? ... because that was the intention of the Westminster Parliament which enacted the
Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900, a parliament which prohibited women.

The intention of those who enact legislation accompanies law.

Australia's Constitution has never been amended to overturn the intention men boss over women
which accompanied its enactment.

The Westminster Parliament enacted men's legislatures only.

The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 allowed women to vote and to stand for Parliament
but this did not overturn the intention men boss over women because legislation enacted
under a Constitution cannot change its intention.

Australia's Constitution provides for a Referendum to change intention.

What the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 did was extend male supervision of women to
the nation's legislatures."
http://2mf.net/power_and_control:_rape_and_the_Constitution.htm

moreover, the provision of a women's legislature in Australia's federal parliament is the
natural culmination of the men's legislatures provided by the nation's federation Constitution
granting women the right to vote and admission to the parliament in 1902.

a Referendum to amend the Constitution to enact legislation by agreement between a women's
legislature and a men's legislature is required to confirm the transition to gender equality.

Ah examinator, re “'Mad as a Maggot on Meths Maggie'.”

To yourself, in the same spirit

“explosive as an earthworm feasting on elephant excrement”

Whistler “it ain’t ever going to happen …well it did! .... lol”

Only in your fairytale world of make-believe whistler…

Like I said… your expectation of separate legislatures will never happen…

Lie all you want, pretend the pixies will cast moonbeams on your dreams to make them real but the fact remains your aspiration has all the “legs” and get up and go of a retired Irish land mine sweeper (who detonated two mines, one with his left foot and one with his right).

Ah CJMoron.. once again proving he lacks the insight of a tic.. .i suggest you go and find a sunny spot to lay down, have a sleep, dream of chasing cats, maybe lick yourself…

Lav.. that might have been CJ who you met tied up there

Thanks for the reference, whistler.

Although I am forced to concede that the logic displayed on that web site, is as impenetrable as that which you yourself present here.

Would I be right in concluding that you are the author of that piece as well? So, in the place of an explanation of the basis for your argument, you simply restate the argument.

Well, we allow our politicians to do that, so you are at least following a well-trodden path.

But it doesn't really let you of the hook, either, does it? Because the entire mantra is still unexplained.

You yourself agree (if my assumption on the authorship of the reference is correct) that there is no impediment to women joining the legislature.

Which is a good thing, because they do just that.

You seem to rest your entire case on this statement:

"[it] was the intention of the Westminster Parliament which enacted the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900, [to establish] a parliament which prohibited women... The intention of those who enact legislation accompanies law."

You have somehow determined that an undeclared intention has an identical force to the law itself.

You do understand that that is a ridiculous and untenable position, don't you?

Your logical confusion continues with:

"Australia's Constitution has never been amended to overturn the intention"

That is not surprising, really. An intention can be neither implemented - as the existence of women representatives clearly proves - nor overturned.

It now becomes clear, why you have been forced to reduce your stance to the muddy consistency of an impenetrable and meaningless slogan.

Because when brought into to the sunlight, the entire farrago is exposed for what it is: illogical, emotional codswallop.

I'd strongly recommend a serious review of your organization's PR, whistler. Because however worthy the cause it represents, having a slogan that is so patently ridiculous quickly becomes the strongest possible disincentive for people to explore it.

I know you won't take my advice of course. But you know I'm right, and that's all that matters.

Pericles you asked me to explain the 'foundation' for my views on Australia's Constitution and i did so
by referring to my own writing developed in part from discussions you have read here published on a site
http://2mf.net i have acknowledged previously here is my own.

if you click the 'about us' icon you'll find me: http://2mf.net/philip.htm

i could not have given you a more honest response and yet your reply is derogatory.

if intention doesn't matter why was no woman permitted to stand for election to the first Parliament of Australia?

go read the law if you want to make a contribution about the Constitution.

since 1902 there has been no impediment to women joining Australia's men's legislatures under male
supervision in perpetuity.

If pointing out that your logical processes are badly in need of an overhaul is derogatory, whistler, then yes, I'm guilty as charged.

>>i could not have given you a more honest response and yet your reply is derogatory.<<

And of course you could have given a more honest response.

For example, you ask:

>>if intention doesn't matter why was no woman permitted to stand for election to the first Parliament of Australia?<<

Since it is your claim that intention is key to the omission of women, the honest approach is to support it with evidence. And simply quoting yourself, I regret to tell you, does not constitute evidence, from any possible angle.

It is not up to me to explain to you why it was an "intention" that no woman was permitted to stand. One might also justify the absence of wombats, on entirely the same grounds.

>>since 1902 there has been no impediment to women joining Australia's men's legislatures under male supervision in perpetuity.<<

If I read you correctly, ("under male supervision"), you are suggesting that there is a specific impediment to a woman becoming prime minister. Or Governor General, for that matter.

Can you show some evidence of this?

From a credible source, that is.