Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

记住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新闻&特写

« 较新的 | 较旧的 »
29 May 2007

gay melbourne bar wins right to ban straights and lesbians

If you are a lesbian, heterosexual man or woman in Melbourne, the management of a gay bar can now legally refuse you entry after a tribunal ruled that the bar has the right to protect their gay male patrons from being harassed and/or "gawked at" as if they were exhibits in a zoo.

In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in Australia, a gay bar in Melbourne can now legally turn away heterosexual men and women as well as lesbians despite the fact that Australia's equal-opportunity laws prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

Top of the page: A sign outside the Peel Hotel (above) explaining the rules.
The management of Melbourne's Peel Hotel sought an exemption from Australia's anti-discrimination laws and won a landmark case at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last week.

The establishment first filed its case last December seeking to legally deny heterosexuals entry to the club citing that its gay male patrons were upset at being gawked at and made fun of by heterosexuals and in some cases, being derided and/or are physically abused.

Tom McFeely, owner of the nightclub which already has a monthly "Boys Only Night" at which women are barred, told local radio that while there are more than 2,000 venues in Melbourne catering to heterosexuals, his is the only pub in Australia's second-largest city catering to homosexual men.

He said that while the pub welcomed everyone, its gay clientele had expressed discomfort over the number of heterosexuals and lesbians coming to the venue over the past year.

"We've had instances in the past where, for example, a buck's night has come up to the Peel or a hen's night - our whole atmosphere changes immensely," he said.

"Heterosexuals have other places to go to; my homosexuals do not," he said. "The only place they can feel comfortable and safe is the Peel."

In the tribunal's exemption decision dated May 24, Tribunal Deputy President, Cate McKenzie, wrote: "If heterosexual men and women and lesbians come to the venue in large groups, then their numbers may be enough to "swamp" the numbers of gay male patrons. This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create. Sometimes, heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons. Entry of these groups would undermine or destroy the unique atmosphere which aims to foster and not frighten or discomfit its gay male patrons."

The pub, which is said to be popular with Melbourne's Asian community, will now be able to advertise that it will turn away women and non-homosexual men and its door staff will be able to ask people whether they are gay.

Supporting the tribunal's decision, Victoria's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission Chief Executive Officer Helen Szoke said in a radio interview: "They have, in the past, had experiences where their predominant clientele, which are gay men, have been subject to harassment and hostility and instances of violence and also have felt as though they've been like a zoo exhibit, you know, with big groups of women on hen's parties coming to the club."

Disagreeing with critics that the move discriminates against heterosexuals and lesbians, Szoke says the decision is in fact consistent with the equal opportunity provisions because it defends the rights of gay people.

"The reality is it's these exemptions exist to protect groups in our community who are subject to being treated less favourably or treated unfairly compared with other groups and in this case, what we know is that there are many options for heterosexuals males to enjoy a safe, social environment," she said in the same interview.

While the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby spokesperson agreed it was important to preserve an environment predominantly for gay men, the tribunal's decision has attracted criticism from the gay community and mainstream alike.

The unnamed owner of gay and lesbian dance venue The Market Hotel, Spiro Condos, was quoted in The Age as saying: "The correct attitude is what is important when choosing patrons," he said. "I understand a need for the ruling, however it is taking a backward step for our fight for equal rights.

"It's a very sad day when two friends, regardless of their sexuality, can't go into a venue and dance together."

Andrew Burry, a gay man in Melbourne, who wrote in his Fridae blog about the issue told Fridae that he supports the Peel's decision to seek the exemption having experienced "challenging behaviours" by both groups of heterosexual women and men at the Peel.

Although he does not agree with discrimination in any form and would not ordinarily support such an arrangement, he feels that "it is necessary for The Peel to seek this broad right to refuse entry to heterosexuals simply in order that they can exercise their discretion in some situations where they feel that their gay patrons may come under risk from homophobic behaviours, taunts or vilification by groups of heterosexuals who, with the assistance of alcohol have come to The Peel on some kind of adventure. I have experienced challenging behaviours by both groups of heterosexual women and men."

"The general issues with women tend to be that they put their handbags on the dance floor while dancing, try to pick up gay men - even me! - and make comments like 'what a waste'. There are also reported to be straight men that go to The Peel because it is reputed to have available straight women. There is some view that straight men drink and become aggressive and are more likely to be overtly negative towards gay men that they perceive as competition."

While the Peel Hotel is excluding patrons based on their sexuality, another hotel in Melbourne has been granted a 'Male Only' status by the Australian legal system. The nine-room Laird Hotel, which operates three bars on its premises and is popular with the leather and motor club community, has been an exclusively gay male venue since having its application to the Anti Discrimination Board approved in 1998.

Readers: Do you agree with the bar/tribunal's decision to refuse entry to heterosexuals and/or lesbians? If you have any positive and/or negative experiences involving heterosexual men/women at the Peel or any other gay bar (please state name of bar and city) and/or other thoughts on this issue, please post them in the comments section below.

Australia

读者回应

1. 2007-05-29 21:02  
A bit of background here for those of you who have never been to Australia. We have a lot of trouble with young people full of alcohol on the weekends and not knowing what to do with themselves. Many straights can think of nothing better to do than to go to a gay venue and get very rowdy indeed. To the point of disturbing or even assaulting gay patrons. This has to stop.

There are already women only gyms in Australia. It is a bit pathetic to think that all men are rapists as some of us are gay and revolted by female genitalia so we would not come to a gym to ogle the women but if they want to exclude all men from their exercise area, well fair enough. The sanctity of private property should ordinarily override political correctness. No private club should be forced to admit members of the opposite sex.

By that reasoning , a pub on which the landlord pays rates and or rent in the reasonable expectation that he will get patrons of the sort he wishes to cater to, should be allowed to exclude others. They wont go away when they are noisy boozed and argumentative. They will only go away when it becomes clear that they are trespassing.

You may have other troubles in Singapore but thank Heaven rowdiness is not one of them. Good luck to the Peel.
回应#2於被作者删除。
回应#3於被作者删除。
回应#4於被作者删除。
回应#5於被作者删除。
回应#6於被作者删除。
7. 2007-05-29 22:03  
I totally agree with the owner of the Peel Hotel. Good on him for having the guts to defend the essence of a gay bar/venue. There are very good reasons why gay bars are called gay bars, they're places where gay men are safe to do what you want to do. Try holding hands or showing affection to your partner or gay mates in a straight bar/venue and you'll understand why there are needs for gay men only bars. Also for those of you who knows Oxford street will know how it had degenerated as the straight clubs moved in over the years, bringing with them drunken insecure gangs of straight youth and regular physical assults to the very few places that gay guys felt safe. Sometime political correctness can get carried too far or maybe it's some conspircy by some homophobs to drive us out from our very few comfort zones. As to bringing a few gay friendly straight friends to a gay bar, try this one. If gay guys like to hang out around straights, they wouldn't have choosen to go to a gay bar to begin with would they?
8. 2007-05-29 22:09  
I think it is great news, i may even go to Melbourne now for a weekend, i have been to the Peel before and can understand the previous problems, i just hope one just one bar in sydney will do the same soon because too many here are just as mixed as straight clubs.
9. 2007-05-29 22:33  
I raise my hands and legs to support this. This rules should be extended to gym as well. We should have gay only gym area and bath room. Most of the customers of the gym in KL here are gays. Why not? Well, I think it will never happen in this country.
10. 2007-05-29 22:46  
It appears that it is not a good idea to " ban" the other people except gay men to enter the hotel. On the contrary, it is politically incorrect to prohibit gay men to stay in an ordinary (perhaps heterosexual, as stererotyped?) hotel either as it is aganist sexual discrimination. I think, instead, the hotel may state clearly that it caters for the gays while all people are welcome. Doesn't it sound better?
11. 2007-05-29 23:25  
Well, I probably wouldn't know of how rowdy straight guys can get, but banning...lesbians?

Oh dear, the mental image of a butchy girl taking on a macho mary and socking him one in the face (he then bursts into tears) has me falling off my chair. No, wait, its just that the tilt-back lever got disengaged.

Why ban people of any (ie, non gay-male) sexual orientation? It equally violates their freedom of movement!

I think the pub has to review their idea of equality. It's equal rights, not equal DEPRIVATION.

The owner of The Market Hotel has his words spot on, but I wonder if his intentions are truly altruistic.

Quote:
The nine-room Laird Hotel, which operates three bars on its premises and is popular with the leather and motor club community, has been an exclusively gay male venue since having its application to the Anti Discrimination Board approved in 1998.
UNQUOTE.

If irony was water we'd be in the pacific ocean! "EXCLUSIVELY GAY" and "Anti Discrimination Board"...!!! I wonder if the words EXCLUSIVE and ANTI-DISCRIMINATION are mutually compatible.

Perhaps it would be better to address the root of the problem. Bar rowdy groups, regardless of orientation, and evict troublemakers.
12. 2007-05-29 23:27  
Furthermore "Andrew Burry, a gay man in Melbourne, who wrote in his Fridae blog..."

One person's view point managed to take up 3 paragraphs, approximately a third of the page. No opposing view or opposing blogger was mentioned!

Read with discernment. The argument may be unfairly loaded.
13. 2007-05-29 23:57  
Hahaha and what will they do tomorrow?
Bars will try to ban blond gays or feminine one cuz they'll want to create a real-macho-bear-gay atmosphere?...
There are too much sectarian groups in LGBT world, that's ridiculous.
Okey I can understand that could be irrating to see more men than girls in a lesbian club or the contrary, but what would we say I that was a straigth bar which had get THE RIGHT to ban people who have too much gay tendencies?
What's the hell dude!
I can't stand that because it's with these sort of things that we will return to the time where all sorts of descriminations were accepted.
If they don't want to have heterosexual persons or women in their place, they just have to make private nights where only members with pass can enter...
Tsss!
14. 2007-05-30 00:10  
haha well done! I can say i've been to The Peel before it barred me out.

it should belong to the boys only.

thats fair!

well done! Now ladies, step it up plz!
回应#15於被作者删除。
16. 2007-05-30 00:18  
Well, there are always two sides to a coin as there are always extremists in any issue or activity. Gays should of course exert their rights but not at the expense of others. There is that great wisdom and tact in balancing, leveling, or delivering what is 'just right' and 'just enough'. It's certainly painful and ugly to overpeel!

17. 2007-05-30 00:22  
I agree with Magdalene (Post #6)

The whole issue here is not the fact that we are discussing discrimination, but rather forms of assualt.
Why aren't we, as a group, addressing the bigger issue here. It seems already that there is a fair 'bit of equalization, and not a lot of discrimination, however, the problem seems to be obviously pointed at the behaviour of several bar patrons.

I can see in this situation that my best friend is straight, and my other friends are lesbians, and we all want to go to a gar bar. We go to the bar, only to find out that it is only for homosexual men. Now, not only is that discriminating against my UNdiscriminatory friends, but what kind of an atmosphere does it provide for the gay community.
I pride myself in being gay, because of my diversity, and the diversity within my 'culture'. There are so many different forms of expressions in our world, and just because a bar wants to protect it's clientelle and the environment they are able to bad other people who don't fit into that?

Now lets just say that my friends were allowed in. This can now easily give many patrons inside the bar the 'right' to be rude to my friends, because they are not gay males. They can hit on my straight best friend, and he can easily say he's not interested, but I've known it to happen that gay men aren't that easily shot-down. They can turn around and say, Oh that's right, he's straight.
This is just providing more ammunition for other anti-gay rights movements, and even more segregation within our gay community. Why aren't we getting closer?
18. 2007-05-30 00:42  
So now straight or lesbian have the right to ban us from going to their club?

I think is the club sole responsibility to keep the place safe for everyone.

Next thing you know club will be only for young white boys, so no fat or ugly ppl.
19. 2007-05-30 00:52  
It's about time a gay place bans lesbians.
Many gays can't stand women, lesbians included.
They feel disgusted by the sight of them and especially the smell. Have you ever been to a gay club with 3 or 4 crazy lesbians jumping hyperactively while swaying their elbows and lord........ body contact with anyone near by?

Don't they know how 'bad luck' some gays feel if they were to be touched by a young woman? Or how inconsiderately pesky lesbians are swishing their pony tails in the faces of the annoyed gays.

Honey, just because you're another type of homosexual, it doesn't mean you can hang out with the boys. Have some dignity please and stick to your own kind in your own niche.

You disgusts us boys!
回应#20於被作者删除。
21. 2007-05-30 01:24  
Hmm..

Imagine a place soley for lesbians and NO GAYS, or hetro allowed..
It'll be great news for lesbians, but How does it sound for the rest?

I felt it's kinda like discrimination within our very own LGBT community..
However, i'll be looking forward for a LESBIAN-ONLY place..
=P
22. 2007-05-30 01:46  
...this used to be my playground...
23. 2007-05-30 03:50  
what a shame they can't extend this to the entire planet
24. 2007-05-30 03:54  
by keeping out straights and lesbians, how sure are they that there would no longer be anymore physical abuse towards their patrons from the other gay men who enter? so isit right of me to presume that all gay men would be able to live and party in peace with other gay men without any conflict?

and aren't we all suppose to learn how to live and adapt to different cultures and to have an open mind?
25. 2007-05-30 06:30  
Such ruling should be enforced with discretion. Many gay men have straight friends who aren't homophobic and don't mind partying at a gay club. By prohibiting straights / lesbians into a gay club does not solve the problem entirely!

The ban could give wrong perception to general public that gay men are "stuck-up" and anti-social b'coz they do not want to mix with ppl of other sexualities. I mean, come on, if a gay guy could bring his straight friends to a gay bar, what are the chances of such patrons being homophobic? The authorities should instead look into enacting laws that punish homophobic acts.
26. 2007-05-30 06:35  
All pubs should really be open to straight or gay, the management basically need to keep out the trouble makers regardless of sex.
回应#27於被作者删除。
28. 2007-05-30 07:29  
I am a bartender at The Wickham Hotel, it is a popular and well known gay pub in Brisbane.

I have seen and experienced first had the behaviours that The Peel Hotel has talked about.

I myself have been verbally abused by straight patrons and also seen groups of women on hen's nights come in and think they own the place.

The Wickham Hotel has a second persona upstairs called Mint Bar. It is predominantly for lesbian patrons. The two groups can live together in harmony.

The anit-discrimination act is there to protect minority groups and if a club has to exclude straight patrons to do so, then they should be allowed to.

I wouldn't like to see The Wickham Hotel turn ban patrons based on their gender or sexual preference, but i would like them to have the legal right ask certain patrons to leave the premisis or even refuse entry if they felt the general atmosphere would be altered in a negative way.

If a person is refused entry to one venue, they still have a plethora of other venues to go to, that is the same throughout all major cities in Australia.
29. 2007-05-30 07:30  
I agree with the ruling. But I will add --- only women or straight men accompanied by gay men (proven buddies of the gay men) are allowed. I think this is more fair. I have great lesbians and straight friends who do not discriminate but support the causes of gay men.
30. 2007-05-30 09:18  
Just to make it clear and as I understand it, women (including lesbians) will still be welcome to go to The Peel. All The Peel want to do is ensure that as a gay bar, it can provide a safe and pleasant environment for all its gay patrons who support it week after week. To do this, it needs the right to exclude entry to groups that will change the atmosphere ... i.e. LARGE groups of straight men or women who go mainly for curiosity or an adventure. Under our local laws, in order to ban ANY straight person means you have to have the right to ban ALL straight people. Otherwise the door staff would risk being sued under anti-discrimination laws.

I also understand that lesbians are only included in the ruling to avoid a group of women claiming they were lesbian when they are not.

Andrew
31. 2007-05-30 13:09  
Embarrassing decision for the gay community! Exclusion is not the right answer to fight exclusion! This will have a negative impact on the integration process of minorities in general!
回应#32於被作者删除。
33. 2007-05-30 14:22  
Hen's party in gay club? A bit too much rite! Most of us can't legally get marry and u girls trying to throw salt to the wound ...WELL, unless u r our FAG HAG. hehe

Excluding lesbians, I disagreed as they r our sistas....

Prevent stupid straight man from coming into gay club to search for single woman....I totally agreed!

Being stared like zoo animal, I totally agreed, some stupid straight man and woman just wanna go into a gay club to see how is gay ppls is like...as if we are very different from them!

34. 2007-05-30 14:39  
Well i think that Tom McFeely at the Peel Hotel has made a great path for the future. I have read the comments below and think people need to remember that the Peel is simply asking all women and the hetrosexual community to simply follow OUR list of respects.
35. 2007-05-30 15:21  
What Melbourne has shown to the world is not about EQUALITY but it's only about Exclusitivity.

It is very sad to think that being exclusive can pass off as equality.

As a gay man I am clearly upset at Peel's decision because all it has reflected is that, we gay men have problem with intergrating with the outside world. If i may dare say Australia still has problem dealing with these issues to the point that Melbourne has made us look like a NOVELTY.

Bring this idea to the Scandinavia and it will make us look a backward hicksville, because what we have shown to the world is that "homosexuality" in Australia is still in its infancy and we have massive problem intergrating that to the wider comunity- to the point enligtened Melbourne decides to class gay men as "exclusive" and needs extra care and protection for us. How do you expect the wider community to respect and accept us if we keep on hiding behind these Catch 22 facades?

Not until the day that a gay locale can open its door to a group of primary school children for hot chocolate drink on a cold winter's day, Australia and Melbourne still have a long way to go.
36. 2007-05-30 16:21  
Melbourne it self is a great place to visit but the local Gay's are kinda parochial and dare I say dated and insecure, like the Sydney scene they beleive their own propaganda and are but phillistines, sadly hiding behind closed doors in the Peel, may be if they took agood look at them selves and didn't act like 'queer freaks' maybe pple wouldn't bother go to be entertained, it's all about the negative image they give out, there is no legitimate reason to ban Gay woman at all, ever since the sadly pathetic 'queer' lobby took over the whole Gay scene has gone bland and frightened, this self appointed 'queer' leadership have no courage or vision
37. 2007-05-30 16:21  
that's great. i hope singapore gay clubs would do the same
38. 2007-05-30 18:06  
When I lived in Boston (late 80's) many of the gay bars were frequented by "str8s" because their own bars were boring, and they wanted to know how us homos partied. Someof the bars closed-down when the queers decided they'd had enough party-crashing by the str8s. I remember it WAS occasionally annoying to be hassled on our own turf, but I'd always make it a point to grab a hottie hetero-boy away from his gf and drag him on to the dance floor and grind my crotch into his as I tongued his tonsils...just to show him that he was on OUR court...not his. Many of those boys always came back to the clubs for more (sans gf)... I'm not an Aussie, so I don't understand the subtleties of the gay culture there, but the Melbourne decision to exclude rather than include feels backwards to me, and other cities/countries/states should NOT follow their example in my humble opinion...one step forward, two steps back, mates...
回应#39於被作者删除。
40. 2007-05-30 19:04  
Which brings me to the subject of clubbing elitism- interesting article here by Mark Moore:

http://www.trustthedj.com/MarkMoore/news_article.php?news_id=1982&djid=1726

That may help explain why The Peel has come to such a decision....
回应#41於被作者删除。
42. 2007-05-30 19:18  
Hooray to The Peel and to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. As a regular patron of the Peel I have seen and experienced the bad behaviours of straights and their friends. I have wondered what the hell women are thinking coming in on hens nights and laughing at the gay guys. And quite frankly I don't like it. As was stated in the hearing, there are over 2,000 places for them to choose from so why should we allow them to dilute and diminish the special place the The Peel is - a safe place for gay men to party.

Having read a few of the comments below I don't think some of you have actually read the decision or the sign out the front of the Peel )shown above). People, the Peel 'has the right' to exclude non-gays. It does not mean that you have to prove you are gay to get inside. The sign basically says that if you are offended by gay men and gay behaviour then don't go in. So what? You wouldn't go into a Tabaret if you didn't like gambling would you! But it doesn't mean you can't go in.

It will all come down to how the right to refuse entry is used. I have the utmost confidence that the management and the security staff will use this power in a low key and responsible way. If a bus with drunken footballers or a hens party arrives then I would expect the door staff to refuse them entry. But if a gay guy and his fag hag and maybe a str8 mate comes along I would expect them to be allowed entry. But if inside they created any problems then I would expect they would be unceromoniously ejected.

And a general word to all of those who say we are sending the wrong message. Talk about equal rights is wonderful in theory but open your eyes to the reality of the situation. Gays are amongst the most discriminated minority groups around. Why should we constantly flog ourselves with political correctness and setting a good example when the general community does not give us the respect that you want us to afford to them? Given half the chance they'd put us all on a space shuttle and send us on a one way trip to the moon. Get over yourselves. If you really want to make a difference get politically active and change the laws rather than pontificating over your coffee and tut tutting those who have the courage to actually make a statement. And if you don't like it - don't bother coming to the Peel. There are over 2,000 other places you can go and have a boring night with the straights. The truth is they are really jealous of the great parties us gay guys have at the Peel.
43. 2007-05-30 19:41  
congratulations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
回应#44於被作者删除。
回应#45於被作者删除。
回应#46於被作者删除。
回应#47於被作者删除。
48. 2007-05-30 20:02  
Very well said Andy..... As to Lesbians, I imagine the Peel would still welcome. But I can't see why would any right minded Lesbians be interested in hanging out in a bar full of gay men.
49. 2007-05-30 20:49  
Discrimination in any form is WRONG! Melbourne is a diverse and multifaceted city, not just a gay one! As a gay man I am appalled that the Peel can now openly discriminate when 'selecting' its patrons. If you are 'not gay enough' will you also be turned away?

What next, are we going start building designer gay gated communities, to keep the 'TERROR' of the straights and lesbians out?

There is a definite misogynist element to gay men whom believe they should live in a 'exclusive' gay social group, and this is a fact that I think should be challenged not glossed over as 'anti-discrimination'.

Melbourne is full of bars that attract clientele of diverse mindsets and viewpoints that are not all hinged on their sexual preference.

People from Melbourne who have the capacity to think independently please stop attending the Peel, and attend a more open minded venue that encourages diversity in its patrons!
50. 2007-05-30 20:59  
Simple consideration...how can one turn away heterosexuals when it is not painted on their foreheads- like forcing Blacks to the back of the bus.

If customers are rowdy, then any ownercan ask and escort them to leave. I have done this several times at my father's business. Why must we refuse a whole group of people? Why must we refuse those who might also support us?
51. 2007-05-30 21:40  
Discrimination is just wrong.

Imagine switching positions and having an establishment publish a list of reasons why they will not welcome gays or lesbians.

Any and every establishment has the right to reject patrons who are rowdy or disturb the peace. But to generalise and reject someone for their sexuality is wrong whether it's for their homosexuality or heterosexuality.

If this continues, then we are no better than the homophobes who hate us. It reflects poorly on the gay community as a whole, and makes a mockery of all our efforts to seek equality and freedom from discrimination.
52. 2007-05-31 00:08  
Aww...this can't be right. I'm not going to find acceptance in society through segregation and discrimination. Soon, there'll be 'Straight Only' clubs and bars. What's the difference between this and a 'Whites Only' bar 50 years ago. White men being uncomfortable with Black people drinking from the same glasses gawking at them and now, Gay people ticked off by having straight guys and girls around in the same room.

I wish there could have been a better way to resolve this. The text of the Peel Hotel's signage could be augmented to be a bit more 'all-encompassing' and a bit less apartheid.
回应#53於被作者删除。
54. 2007-05-31 08:45  
This is going to segregate the already fragmented gay community in Melbourne. Banning lesbians from a gay bar is just ridiculous.

I've been to the Peel and judging by how many gay man love dragging their fag hags and lesbian mates there, I am sure the majority of them will be upset with the Bar's decision.

I feel I am representing the hyprocritics. This is the first time I feel ashamed of being gay.
55. 2007-05-31 10:07  
I dont like this idea, because surely now straight clubs can ban gays.

In London (gay) clubs the door staff jut remind customers that it is a gay venue and if they have a problem with that. The door staff also refuse admission if they feel too many male heterosexuals want to go in in a group; they dont have to give a reason. With reasonable door staff that works well
56. 2007-05-31 10:14  
Reading all this makes me wonder where bisexuals would go!? :-)
57. 2007-05-31 13:32  
this is pathetic.. someday someone will put the same sign saying that "the club will be banning gays for the comfort of str8 patrons"... at that time I hope that they gay community will stfu because they initiated it.. You want others to accept you, then you have to learn to accept others as well.. temporal shelter like banning hetro will only give new impediments to the fight for gay rights.. I think The Peel is being selfish in trying to dominate the gay market in Melbourne without thinking of the consequences...
58. 2007-05-31 16:46  
it has long been a normal procedure in most of Europe to screen patrons at venues in Europe... it is always the right of the owners to select clientele and bar anyone they feel uncomfortable with. And such a decision would not be challengeable in court. Also, if a patron misbehaves, the owners have a right to throw them out and/or call police for assistance.

This is so for any establishment, be it str8, gay or whatever... most les venues r women only and a lot of plush str8 venues do heavy selecting at the door... infact, most gay clubs usually have the most liberal door policy... but as i see it, its nothing new really and also the club was at fault if they allowed str8s to abuse their main clientele...
回应#59於被作者删除。
60. 2007-05-31 17:40  
The options of a friend regarding this issue;

'Something has been going on at the Peel for some time now. I tried to write a comment, but I don't have a log in number.

In one sense, it is a good thing that they are making their motivations public. The Peel, it seems, is going off the list as an inclusive pub. This is fine, as long as they let everyone know. But what pubs and/or clubs will be left that foster a diverse clientle?
I must admit I found the bit about having a hen's night in there truly ridiculous. This is the fault of the Peel management, and not the presumed 'hetero' clients themselves. The question remains, who let them in? And why were they let in? And why was this case chosen to illustrate the Peel's agony? A flock of women is enough to sent terror through anyone's hearts - straight or gay. Why? Because everyone hates women, especially groups of them.

If the gay punters are complaining about seeing women about, then why don't they just go to male only nights instead?

All the things that these men are complaining of - being chatted up, being told that it is a waste they're not sexually available, being watched and 'rated' like meat, the threat of violence, the presumption of competitiveness, etc. are all things that women put up with no matter where they go!

Because of this, perhaps they could have entertained the highly likely idea that women go to The Peel and other gay clubs to feel safe, in that they want a night where they won't feel threatened by hetero men, and they can just be themselves.

This inclusive logic, however, would have to take into account women's needs for safety along with the men's. But when it comes down to it, the reality is that there are no safe spaces for women to be androgenous, or to step outside their lower-caste gender.

I think it is naive for women to think that there is any safe place for them, let alone in yet another male dominated area! Just because they're gay doesn't mean they don't carry an idea of exclusive male privilege. That there is no tolerance of women by some of these gay men is not a secret. I mean, what is the use of a woman being there? She's certainly not wanted for sex by these men. Now they're sick of just mocking her from the sidelines. Now they're going to make their distaste public, and have a male dominated legal system to back them up. How can these men bear to tolerate in their midst such a superfluity, such a conspicuous symbol of utter uselessness such as Woman? Now they can use her as a symbol before the law to reinforce their mastery over her by ensuring her absence - or annihilation from the scene all together.

She is a useless category no matter where she is, and it is time that she fully understood this from the very people she assumed where her natural allies, because, she reasoned to herself, they too have suffered under the cruelty of the reigning hetero male regime. It is time woman realises she has no allies. She is utterly alone.

As an outsider everywhere else in a male dominated society, how dare a woman presume that she will be safe or valued with these men just because they are gay? She is still just a pathetic woman who is too stupid to understand how revolting she is to them - how the very sight of her in numbers sends chills down their spines. How dare she look at them? Who does she think she is? A man?

Oughtn't she just go back and accept her 'meat' status in the hetero scene instead of thinking she can escape her low status in the gay scene? Or perhaps she should just stay at home, where all good women belong.

How arrogant is she to presume she could get drunk and muck around with gay men's affections and tastes! Just like everywhere else, her behaviour has been under the scrutiny of men who believe she should behave like they want her to behave; submissively, quietly, and posing absolutely no threat to their supremacy in values and numbers. They have argued that they hate her because of her behaviour, but they really hate her just because of her sex, and nothing else.

The hetero community only wants Woman to exist for men's purposes, and the gay community, it seems, would prefer she just not exist at all because she has no purpose there. But both side to agree on something: If you don't want to fuck her body, then you just fuck her mind. Let her know that she is utterly unwanted, a completely rejected disgusting useless creature, and you can be sure that if her feelings haven't already been cauterised away from all of the constant criticism she has received all of her life, then maybe this time she will shrink away into the shadows and out of the lime light, so that men only may dance 'safely' - or unappalled - all night.'
61. 2007-05-31 19:26  
Discrimination is wrong. The problem is with the behaviour of certain clients. Address that problem...dont discriminate based on what some says is their sexual preference or their gender. This is a huge backward step for anti discrimination and equality.
62. 2007-06-01 00:41  
Re: Posts #13 (DUKENUKEM) and #25(MUSHU).

I am truly amazed at your bigoted and misogynist attitudes towards women. Your mother gave birth to you guys, pardon my direct approach.

It also seems that both of you are from Hong Kong! Ii wonder if anti-heterosexuality and misogyny are proportional to closet-ness of individuals ?
63. 2007-06-01 03:13  
Don't they have door bitches? Why resort to throwing people out?
64. 2007-06-01 06:54  
Straight people in gay bars ARE annoying, rubber-necking around the place as though they're at the zoo, and are generally rather offputting in large numbers. However. There's an old saying: Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right. It is wrong for so many reasons to ban Straights from a Gay bar; actually works against the Equality that we shriek and make such a fuss about in all our corners of the world. Principles are one of the key points that define as as people and as individuals; once we abandon them... well, then we're just Jerks, out for ourselves as individuals. If the gay bar I go to most often decided to 'ban' Straights, on the inside, I'd be a bit glad - But, on a point of principle, I would refuse to go to that place again. I don't want discrimination 'endorsed' in 'my' name or for 'me'...
65. 2007-06-01 08:33  
I have revisited after my initial comment and its immediate responses. The number of comments has since doubled. It is reassuring to know my view is not extreme, that many take this particular case very seriously, and that many gay men want their space without straights or lesbians.

Magdalene (forgive me for spelling your name correctly!) you made the early point that the rest of the criminal law could take care of rowdy behaviour. Well let me tell you that the Australian police are a corrupt bunch of bastards lying cheating and bullying and the women cops are just as bad. They pretend to be gay friendly nowadays because the politicians tell them its the way to keep the state governments in power, but deep down they don't give a shit about anything but compensating themselves for the misery of the kind of work they do. They would rather rescue a dog up a tree than attend a gay nightclub full of vodka-fired lesbians shrieking and demanding in. There are no medals or heroics in that. Plus there are plenty of real crimes in Australia, burglaries etc, that they do occasionally move their fat corrupt arses to investigate to avoid political censure.

So the criminal law will not sort out disturbances. Why not resolve it on the side of our fundamental liberty -something the war on terror has obscured- it's my nightclub and i will choose what sort of people come in here. And if I want to exclude categories of people, it is still MY nightclub, not a public library.

And Magdalene your initial point was fair but your subsequent posts accusing people of misogyny have degraded your arguments to the level of your spelling. We need more analysis less hysteria throughout the gay and lesbian community. This Peel ban upholds civil liberty, political correctness no matter how worthy its motive ultimately kills liberty.
66. 2007-06-01 09:28  
*LOL* yeah!

where do bisexual go to?
67. 2007-06-01 09:28  
If the bars and clubs have a shoot to kill policy, the trouble would go away.
回应#68於被作者删除。
69. 2007-06-01 10:09  
Noting my first comment here, i applaud The Peel's Action, the boys deserve their own sandbox - there are other places to for the girls and straight boys to go. Besides its good distribution of traffic, they're saying - go elsewhere, we don't need yr money here.

It has always been a rule for any clubs/pubs/restaurants to reserve right of entry. The Peel does not belong to the public, what they chose to do, is what they want to do. If some find it discriminatory; then kudos to The Peel. They managed to generate new set of feelings for new set of people.

Like Magdalene, i'm utterly appalled with DukemNukem and mushu too.

But i must say WELL DONE to the 2 boys. They have managed to show how infantile their alleged sound mind is. brilliant display from the elementary school of thought. keep posting what's on your mind or whats left of it.
70. 2007-06-01 16:17  
Tribunal Deputy President, Cate McKenzie, wrote: "If heterosexual men and women and lesbians come to the venue in large groups, then their numbers may be enough to "swamp" the numbers of gay male patrons... Entry of these groups would undermine or destroy the unique atmosphere which aims to foster and not frighten or discomfit its gay male patrons."

"Frighten its gay male patrons?" Makes gay men sound like chinchillas no?!

I don't think it's really the same to compare it to a straight club that might seek to ban gay men. Peel's move sounds somewhat like Affirmative Action where a minority group gets some kind of protection/advantage which is sometimes seen as being unfair to the majority/dorminant group.

I've heard of several straight bars in Singapore that ban butch lesbians on ladies' nights as their presence annoy straight men... but that's another story...

I'm in 2 minds about the issue as I support lesbian clubs that have a no (straight) men policy unless they are accompanied by lesbian friends.
71. 2007-06-01 16:46  
Discrimination in any form is WRONG! Melbourne is a diverse and multifaceted city, not just a gay one! As a gay man I am appalled that the Peel can now openly discriminate when 'selecting' its patrons. If you are 'not gay enough' will you also be turned away?

What next, are we going start building designer gay gated communities, to keep the 'TERROR' of the straights and lesbians out?

There is a definite misogynist element to gay men whom believe they should live in a 'exclusive' gay social group, and this is a fact that I think should be challenged not glossed over as 'anti-discrimination'.

Melbourne is full of bars that attract clientele of diverse mindsets and viewpoints that are not all hinged on their sexual preference.

People from Melbourne who have the capacity to think independently please stop attending the Peel, and attend a more open minded venue that encourages diversity in its patrons!
回应#72於被作者删除。
回应#73於被作者删除。
74. 2007-06-01 19:24  
My friend asked me to post this for her;

'It's really interesting to see that the Peel has placed a ban on heterosexuals considering that on one occasion I was physically kicked out of the Peel by a bouncer there for doing nothing at all but venturing upstairs without knowing that the section excluded female patronage. When the bouncer approached me and rudely challenged my presence I was confused and told him there are no signs to indicate that women weren't allowed and rolled my eyes and went downstairs. As a woman I felt discriminated against.

Next thing the bouncer grabbed me from behind - and I struggled to break free screaming for him to let me go as I was in pain. Many people saw this... he then grabbed me by the arm and shoved me across the club and literally threw me out. I woke up the next morning with bruises. I was going to press charges and I really wish I did.

A few months later, the same thing happened to another female friend of mine, she was physically kicked out of that club, grabbed by her arm in
the same manner...

We described the bouncer to each other, it turned out it was the same one...

After a few similar stories within the year I established a conclusion;

The Peel was practicing its heterosexual free 'right' by physically kicking women out. I shared my stories with other female friends and we all agreed that they were practicing this violent behavior to put women off from coming back - it worked on me anyway, I haven't been there since the incident occurred over a year ago.

So, it really doesn't surprise me that they finally succeeded - this time legally.'
75. 2007-06-01 20:35  
I've been going to the Peel for ten years and the only "challenging behaviours" I've experienced have been from other gay men. I agree with Anthea Gilbey's analysis (BNews) that it's pure misogyny, and I will not be returning to that venue until this position is reversed.
76. 2007-06-02 00:00  
I am from the UK and I am confused.
Why did the owner have to revert to the Tribunal? Is Australian law so different from UK law that the normal channels could have been used to resolve the problem??

In England, a bar owner has the right to refuse service to any person and ask them to leave. If they refuse to do so, a Registered Doorman can eject them using minimum force (all doormen need stringent qualification). In the worst case the Police can be called; The Police also have a duty to move on rowdy groups attempting to congregate outside the establishment.

Why set a dangerous precedent? Who knows how this can be used in the future?
77. 2007-06-02 02:45  
i dont think its fair. or maybe Australia is just too open for the gay male community. its basically a clear form of discrimination. on other countries, especially asian countries, we have been fighting for equal rights. both gay male and female rights but having this kind of law seems to be so odd. i just dont understand why the Tribunal approved these things.not questioning them but thats the reason why we get discrimated as well because based on this, since we know we have the authority we start doing things that is done to us and revenge of this kind is unacceptable, this is just my opinion. not questioning anybody or the law itself... i just find it discriminative...
78. 2007-06-02 07:23  
As a parton of The Peel, over many years, I am very pleased withthe decision. Firstly, it hasto me remembered that it is not banning straaights and lesbians, The Peel has been granted the right to LIMIT ACCESS. This is being overloked by the media.
I have stopped going to other Melbourne gay venues such as The Market and Exchange (who now visciously attack The Peel) as I may as well be in a straight bar. OFten women try to pcik me up and get nasty when I don't respond. I have seen many Sydney venues become unbearable as women arrive, boyfriend in tow, to gakw and feel up the 'poofs' - with bf feeling uncomfortable! I am glad that The Peel has obtained the licence in order to keep the venue gay. I am tired of the trashy behaviour of drunk straight women on the dance floor, and of being felt-up by women. The Peel has won my partonage back again - it is a pitty for the other venues!
79. 2007-06-02 07:27  
RE UK Law, yes our law is different! After liging in the UK for the last 5 years and returning to Australia, I have seen how successful the door staff can usually manage, that said, they do not restrict 'straight' entry.
In Australia ew have very strict and stringent ANTI DISCRIMINATION laws. The Tribunal granted the liceince because of continuing anti gay abuse and harassment to its patrons. The Laird hotel in Melbourne (a 'leather-type' bar) has a strict MEN ONLY licence - obtained in 1998 as does the BODYLINE sauna in Sydney. It is not discriminating to LIMIT entry - and that is what the licence is doing, it IS NOT BANNING ENTRY!
80. 2007-06-02 10:20  
Discrimination in any form is WRONG! Melbourne is a diverse and multifaceted city, not just a gay one! As a gay man I am appalled that the Peel can now openly discriminate when 'selecting' its patrons. If you are 'not gay enough' will you also be turned away?

What next, are we going start building designer gay gated communities, to keep the 'TERROR' of the straights and lesbians out?

There is a definite misogynist element to gay men whom believe they should live in a 'exclusive' gay social group, and this is a fact that I think should be challenged not glossed over as 'anti-discrimination'.

Melbourne is full of bars that attract clientele of diverse mindsets and viewpoints that are not all hinged on their sexual preference.

People from Melbourne who have the capacity to think independently please stop attending the Peel, and attend a more open minded venue that encourages diversity in its patrons!
81. 2007-06-02 16:46  
banning lesbians..this is opressing ourselves!!!!

Godfrey
Sydney,Australia
82. 2007-06-02 23:04  
RE Ferribal (post #49).

Quit being pedantic. I have not mentioned at any one time the use of criminal law.

To bar someone from the establishment is entirely possible with the application of a "Doorman" (quaintly put, in UK terms) aka bouncer.

Quote: Ferribal:
This Peel ban upholds civil liberty, political correctness no matter how worthy its motive ultimately kills liberty.
Unquote.

You fail to mention how this is accomplished. The article also likewise fails to do so.

I also do not see how "civil liberty" can be accomplished through deprivation of the rights of others --unless you are a practitioner some kind of gay-male supremacy.
83. 2007-06-03 01:00  
Hi Special groups often need their exclusive space whether they are gays. lesbians, UK Pakistanis, smokers or Freemasons. So I agree with the ban except I am surprised it extended to ledbians.
In Manchester the gay bars have been seriously damaged by the influx of touristic hetties. Milo Edwards Manchester UK
回应#84於被作者删除。
85. 2007-06-03 02:47  
If we're not banned from going to straight club - while it's uncommon for me to see any guards on straight club questioning my for my sexual orientation , i see it's just plain discriminative to ban anyone from going into a public spot based on sexual orientation.
86. 2007-06-03 10:24  
I have never been to Melbourne, but I have been to gay bars where groups of straight men or women have disrupted the atmosphere that the bar's clients have come to enjoy.

In this case, I feel the bar owner has the rights to manage these situations on a discretionary basis to protect the right of the bar's patrons enjoy the bar's unique characteristics. In particular, this is important for newly identifying gay men who are coming to grips with coming out of the closet. For these men, being confronted by straight men and women could be quite distressing.

At the same time, I do not quite understand the need to also bar lesbian women. Also, I feel the flexibility has to shown towards bi men and also the rights of gay men to bring their gay friendly male and female friends.

On a counterpoint, a woman in Montreal, has just recently brought a case against "Le Stud" a gay bar in Montreal's "gay village" because she was thrown out of the bar when she visited with her Dad, who works in a nearby office. It is not said if her Dad is gay or not.

See the story here:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/05/30/qc-lestud.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070531/le_stud_070531/20070531/

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070530/gay_bar_070530/20070530/

It should also be noted that this case was brought under the Quebec provincial Charter of Rights, the same law that protects the rights of gays and lesbians in this Canadian province.
87. 2007-06-03 10:53  
Just ban those B*TCHes and B*TChes too
88. 2007-06-09 17:10  
Thats absolutely a brilliant idea, just like there are places allow smoking and some others do not, we all have a choice here!!
89. 2007-06-11 21:37  
Discrimination in any form is WRONG! Melbourne is a diverse and multifaceted city, not just a gay one! As a gay man I am appalled that the Peel can now openly discriminate when 'selecting' its patrons. If you are 'not gay enough' will you also be turned away?

What next, are we going start building designer gay gated communities, to keep the 'TERROR' of the straights and lesbians out?

There is a definite misogynist element to gay men whom believe they should live in a 'exclusive' gay social group, and this is a fact that I think should be challenged not glossed over as 'anti-discrimination'.

Melbourne is full of bars that attract clientele of diverse mindsets and viewpoints that are not all hinged on their sexual preference.

People from Melbourne who have the capacity to think independently please stop attending the Peel, and attend a more open minded venue that encourages diversity in its patrons!

请先登入再使用此功能。

Social


This article was recently read by

请选择新闻及专栏版本

精选个人档案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

赞好

合作伙伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement