The myth of 'reverse discrimination'
The NSW Equal Opportunity Tribunal is currently hearing a case brought by Brett Halliwell against the owners of the (now closed) lesbian nightclub Sirens. Halliwell claims that he was refused entry to the club because he was male and heterosexual.
Halliwell also sought a reinterpretation of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act to outlaw homosexual discrimination against heterosexuals. This was refused by the tribunal on July 14.
Halliwell says that he knew Sirens was patronised mainly by lesbians, but attempted to gain entry at 2am one night in January 1996. Sirens' owners say he was drunk and barged past door staff without paying the cover charge, then refused to leave until the police arrived and told him he was disturbing the peace. Halliwell claims that he asked repeatedly if he was being ejected because he was a man, and was told "yes".
Whatever the specifics of this case, the idea underlying it — that oppressed groups, because they are organised or have won some formal rights and avenues of redress, are now discriminating against more powerful groups ("reverse discrimination") — is dangerous and must be vigorously contested.
The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act makes discrimination against individuals or groups on the basis of sex or homosexuality illegal. Like the federal Sex Discrimination Act, it does not specifically preclude men from laying charges of sex discrimination.
However, such use of the legislation directly contradicts the intention of these laws, which were direct responses to the women's liberation movement's demand that government ameliorate the systematic discrimination faced by women. Indeed, an important constitutional basis for the Sex Discrimination Act is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, to which the Australian government is a signatory.
In our society, women are systematically discriminated against. Although the effects on individuals vary according to their race and class position, women as a whole work longer hours in drearier jobs and are poorer, more abused, less educated, less healthy, less safe and less confident than men. Many men are discriminated against because of their class or race, but men are not discriminated against because of their sex.
Systemic discrimination isn't just the sum of individual sexist acts. It is embodied in and perpetuated and enforced by every institution in society.
Halliwell's line of argument reduces discrimination to an individual act of unfairness. Such a redefinition obliterates the main point — that the oppression of women is a central pillar of capitalist social organisation.
Individuals who are treated unjustly for reasons other than discrimination have (or should have) recourse through laws that protect individual rights.
While the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation was an important victory for oppressed groups, the Sirens case reveals, yet again, that laws offer inadequate protection and redress.
The political battle around how the legislation is applied continues, as does the need for more fundamental social change to ensure, not just formal, but full equality for women.
This is especially true because governments are attempting to wind back many past gains. These attempts are accompanied by an ideological backlash which tries to convince women that gender equality has been achieved.
Part of this backlash is the argument that oppressed groups no longer need their own organisations, publications or spaces. University women's rooms and women's editions of campus newspapers, for example, are under attack.
In effect, if not intent, such arguments are reactionary. They ignore (or deny) the fact that the existence of sexism and homophobia renders almost every nightclub a "heterosexual nightclub", and almost every edition of campus newspapers a "men's edition".
The right of oppressed groups to create spaces where they feel safe must be defended — not simply because they have a right to be safe, but also because such spaces can assist the organisation of oppressed people for change. The Sirens case shows that homosexuals and women can never really have "safe" places until more fundamental social changes make legal redress against discrimination unnecessary.
By Marina Cameron