• 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.