Discrimination Sans Frontiers

by Katherine Cummings

(The Gender Centre advise that this article may not be current and as such certain content, including but not limited to persons, contact details and dates may not apply. Where legal authority or medical related matters are cited, responsibility lies with the reader to obtain the most current relevant legal authority and/or medical publication.)

Some time ago we wrote about Mission Australia, who sought, and received, an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Board which allowed them to exclude preoperative transwomen from their women's shelters.

Their success led to other women's shelters adopting the same policy, making it very difficult for some pre-op transwomen to find emergency accommodation.

It is understandable that women who have suffered at the hands of men and sought sanctuary are likely to see pre-operative women (or as they might see it, men dressed as women but retaining their male appendages) as a threat and a reminder of the situation they have fled.

It seems unfair, however, to punish anyone for misbehaviour they might commit, rather taking the reactive route of punishing people for the sins they have done.

We all have the potential to commit crimes and misdemeanours, but surely retribution can wait until after an offence has been committed.

Now an even more reprehensible example of discrimination has come to light, as the Peel Hotel in Collingwood, Victoria, has been granted an exemption under the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act to refuse entry to all women and heterosexual men.

The exemption will extend for three years and was granted in order to eliminate "sexually based insults and violence" towards gay men who patronise the hotel.

The manager of the hotel, Tom McFeely, is reported as having said he expected criticism from other patrons but was "not worried about it because to be frank I don't really care what heterosexuals or lesbians think." Most of us could not care less what Mr. McFeely thinks, either, but he is denying members of the public access to a public service on the basis of his prejudice and discrimination and this runs counter to any concept of social justice.

If managers of public houses, shops or other services are permitted to pick and choose their clientele on the basis of their own discriminatory attitudes, where will it end?

Will people be excluded on the basis of religion, colour, age, height, weight, hair-colour? I think I know one class of potential customer who would experience exclusion and discrimination and you won't need three guesses to know I am talking about the transgendered.

Mr. McFeely's exemption should be overturned if there is any legal body to whom an appeal can be made. If he wants to set up a private club for his preferred cronies that is another matter, but he should not pretend it is a hotel for public use.

Polare is published in Australia by The Gender Centre Inc. which is funded by the Department of Community Services under the S.A.A.P. Program and supported by the N.S.W. Health Department through the AIDS and Infectious Diseases Branch. Polare provides a forum for discussion and debate on gender issues. Advertisers are advised that all advertising is their responsibility under the Trade Practices Act. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, though no guarantee is made by the Editor that they will be published, nor any discussion entered into. The editor reserves the right to edit such contributions without notification. Any submission which appears in Polare may be published on our internet site. Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor, The Gender Centre Inc.I, the Department of Community Services or the N.S.W. Department of Health.