In Australia a judge has ruled against Erin Matiland setting up a women-only tour operator on the grounds that it violates the human rights of men. What’s more surprising than the verdict of an overly-PC judge is the level of support there appears to be for the ruling. The decision would be understandable if Matiland was setting up a restaurant or shop, but it’s a tour operator where people can take it or leave it.
Admittedly, Matiland probably didn’t help her case by justifying the company’s existence on the basis that men like to bed-hop and women are much more virtuous. She could also have avoided court by tailoring her product in such a way that men would be allowed to book a holiday with her, but no sane man would want to. However, she would almost certainly be allowed to run her business in the UK without any problems.
Similar laws in the UK would wipe out quite a few travel companies. But where do you stop? Could a 38 year-old claim that Club 18-30 are infringing his human rights because he is too old for their 35 age limit? Is it fine to run a gay travel company even if you wouldn’t be allowed to run a straight travel company?
I’m not a fan of going to the gym and being on a treadmill with two huge, sweaty blokes on either side whilst there’s a women-only section nearby which is virtually empty. However, I find it hard to explain why I find this disagreeable, yet have no problem with women-only travel companies. Could it be because in the gym both sexes are paying the same amount yet one is receiving a superior service?
I agree that travel companies should not discriminate against people based on creed, race, disability or colour, but anything else should just be companies defining the niche they want to operate in.
Do you agree, or do you think it is wrong to have travel companies that will only sell to very defined sections of the population?
