• Neato
    link
    English
    -52 months ago

    I see the judges/jury also missed the point of the exhibit. Or rather, they are now part of it.

    • Zagorath
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • livus
        link
        fedilink
        82 months ago

        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.

    • @muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 months ago

      The only way to not be part of it would be to ignore it. The judges chose to do the right thing and not ignore sexism and thus become part of it. I guess when u look at the art piece as a whole the artist sought to make a statement about sexism and the courts said fuck your sexism not in our country.

    • @galoisghost@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      02 months ago

      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

      • @abhibeckert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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

      • Neato
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        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.

        • @pixxelkick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          12 months ago

          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.

          • Neato
            link
            English
            22 months ago

            Wait so a judge will change his judgement depending on if he likes you? That’s a bold admission.