August 2024 Case Update

Dear friends,

We are members of LAVA (Lesbian Action for Visibility in Aotearoa). We are bringing a potentially ground-breaking claim in the New Zealand Human Rights Review Tribunal, against Wellington Pride for refusing us a stall at the annual Out In The City fair in 2021.

We are seeking your support to promote our campaign for awareness and fund-raising.

Legal and expert costs of more than $NZ5,000 (£2,400) have been met by LAVA to date. Another $NZ23,000 (£11,000) is owing, and the estimate is a further $NZ57,500 (£27,600) for the two-week hearing either late this year, or early next year. The total of these sums is approximately £40,000.

We appreciate that you may be in a position to make a donation to support our cause, or you may not. However, we hope you will be willing to share the website link explaining our case (https://www.lava.nz/our-case) with your social media or subscription followers. LAVA is a typical gender critical lesbian group, with the usual concerns and strategies and you can read more about us, the case and the plaintiffs below.

Background

In March 2021 we booked a stall at the Out in the City fair, intending to display a map of Wellington sites of historical, political and social significance to lesbians. Our intention was to make this history accessible to younger lesbians and others who were unaware of it.

The booking was accepted, but four days before the event, Wellington Pride emailed us saying that due to the “nature” of LAVA, our booking was cancelled. They further claimed that LAVA is trans-exclusionary and our presence would make the fair unsafe for trans people, stating that all participants should “stand side-by-side with the most marginalised of the marginalised including our transgender whanau [family] and the marginalisation they face on the daily” (sic).

Wellington Pride have never asked for details of the proposed LAVA stall, and they did not respond to our request for a meeting to discuss the issue.

On the day of the fair, LAVA displayed the map at a demonstration outside the event. Pride supporters, including some Board members mounted a noisy counter-protest, holding signs bearing slogans such as “Fuck Terf Cunts”. At one point they surrounded us, chanting in our faces such things as “pack your shit and go”. Lesbians from stalls inside the event were harassed when they came outside to show us support.

After much consideration, we lodged a claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, that Pride unlawfully discriminated against LAVA on the basis of our political opinions about trans issues and women’s rights, and because of our views that sex and sexual orientation exclude trans women from being women and lesbians. We say that in inviting applications for stalls, Pride was offering a service, and so could not discriminate on the basis of political opinion (sections 21(1)(j) and 44 of the Human Rights Act 1993).

Pride denies that LAVA’s opinions are “political opinions” and sets out the multiple circumstances that, in its view, demonstrate LAVA’s support for “anti-trans rhetoric” and for known “anti-trans activists”.

Victoria University of Wellington political philosopher, Ramon Das, has provided an expert opinion that LAVA’s views on these issues are political opinions, and will appear as a witness for us.

We are represented by Nicolette Levy KC, who is instructed by Franks Ogilvie, lawyers of Wellington. Ms Levy acted for Speak Up For Women (SUFW) in 2021, securing a judgment from the High Court of New Zealand requiring Palmerston North City Council to allow SUFW to hold a meeting to discuss proposed self-ID amendments to the Births, Death, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act. The Supreme Court of New Zealand has confirmed that that case was correctly decided. Ms Levy also acted for Speak Up For Women in a claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal against Christchurch City Council for discrimination on the basis of political opinion. This claim was settled, with an agreed joint statement being published.

LAVA’s case is important for everyone with gender critical or sex realist beliefs, because the debate over whether views such as ours are "worthy of respect in a democratic society" has not yet been had here. No New Zealand Court has confirmed that such opinions are political and that discrimination against people for holding these views is prohibited by the Human Rights Act 1993. In our country political and ethical beliefs are protected, but not philosophical beliefs, as in the United Kingdom. “Political” has traditionally been given a narrow interpretation, but has not been tested by a case of this nature.

Thank you for considering our request for your support. We have attached a pdf of the information about our case so you can forward it to your contacts if you wish.

In solidarity

Hilary Oxley and Margaret Curnow