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.