I can well understand Kathy Dettwyler's complete puzzlement at Bev Walker's
posts on the 2 couples refused entry to Sexpo.  Like Bev, I saw the articles
in the Age ( a very respected daily newspaper).

You need to understand our EO laws and how they have been interpreted in the
past to understand what happened.  By law it is illegal to deny goods or
services on the grounds of a person's status (sex, religion, colour etc).

A few years ago, here in Melbourne, a couple with a young baby went to an
exclusive restaurant and were refused service on the grounds that it was
inappropriate to have a baby with them in this restaurant.  The couple (he
was a lawyer) took the restaurateur to court on the grounds of
discrimination.  They argued that a breastfed baby needs to have ready
access to its mother and to deny this was to say that parents of breastfed
babies could not go to this restaurant.  They won the case.

Now the issue has been extended to 2 couples who were refused entry to
Sexpo.  They arereported to be taking it to the Equal Opportunity Board and
the test of the law will hinge on whether the right to restrict entry to
over 18s or the right not to be discriminated against takes precedence.
You're right, Kathy, in your summing up of which rights matter.  It is just
not too clear here at the moment.

While I am glad that the law has recognised the need for breastfed babies to
have ready acces to their mothers, I feel sad that the issue has come up in
this way as I am sure that it will be counterproductive for breastfeeding in
general.

See, not everything is rosy in Australia as some Lactnetters appear to have
thought!

Philippa Thomson
NMAA Counsellor, IBCLC, Acting Director Lactation Resource Centre