It's been speculated that the plaintiff in the court proceeding, Mr. Lau, actually brought the lawsuit in secret collaboration with MONA and/or the artist. He could've done it as a media stunt to boost the popularity of the exhibit. There are several reasons why this may be the case:
Reason 1: The plaintiff did not engage with the media at all to bolster his position in the public's eye. This is highly unusual for a civil rights lawsuit like this, where the court of public opinion can be consequential. Reason 2: The plaintiff did not ask for punitive damages even though he was entitled to by the statute. This is highly unusual, as asking for punitive damages is one way to gain leverage in the settlement negation process. Reason 3: The plaintiff represented himself rather than hiring a lawyer. Now, you might think the plaintiff chose not to hire a lawyer because he is himself a lawyer. However, all lawyers understand that self-representation is generally a terrible idea because of how the legal process works. Being a lawyer yet still choosing to self-represent makes this whole thing suspicious. Reason 4: The court eventually ruled in favour of the plaintiff but gave the museum a whole month before it must open up the exhibit to visitors of all genders. It is strange that plaintiff did not protest the court's order and ask the court to make the exhibit immediately available to everyone. The judge noted that the plaintiff had an opportunity to protest but he did not.
I'd be curious to see the response were this a men's only exhibition. I imagine women would be climbing over each other to get that lawsuit filed. I think what Mr Lau is doing is drawing attention to the hypocrisy involved.
@@theworkoflime653 Its more than just satire, it is real world sexism. Lessons of the past have not been learnt and the bigotry continues. The lesson to every woman who visits is that it is ok to exclude men, and the lesson to every man is maybe they should do the same and exclude women. Nothing positive about it at all.
It's been speculated that the plaintiff in the court proceeding, Mr. Lau, actually brought the lawsuit in secret collaboration with MONA and/or the artist. He could've done it as a media stunt to boost the popularity of the exhibit. There are several reasons why this may be the case:
Reason 1: The plaintiff did not engage with the media at all to bolster his position in the public's eye. This is highly unusual for a civil rights lawsuit like this, where the court of public opinion can be consequential.
Reason 2: The plaintiff did not ask for punitive damages even though he was entitled to by the statute. This is highly unusual, as asking for punitive damages is one way to gain leverage in the settlement negation process.
Reason 3: The plaintiff represented himself rather than hiring a lawyer. Now, you might think the plaintiff chose not to hire a lawyer because he is himself a lawyer. However, all lawyers understand that self-representation is generally a terrible idea because of how the legal process works. Being a lawyer yet still choosing to self-represent makes this whole thing suspicious.
Reason 4: The court eventually ruled in favour of the plaintiff but gave the museum a whole month before it must open up the exhibit to visitors of all genders. It is strange that plaintiff did not protest the court's order and ask the court to make the exhibit immediately available to everyone. The judge noted that the plaintiff had an opportunity to protest but he did not.
Sounds like a fn South Park episode
I'd be curious to see the response were this a men's only exhibition. I imagine women would be climbing over each other to get that lawsuit filed. I think what Mr Lau is doing is drawing attention to the hypocrisy involved.
This is literally the whole point lol. Throughout history, there has been many high end spaces where women were not allowed. It's satirical.
@@theworkoflime653 Its more than just satire, it is real world sexism. Lessons of the past have not been learnt and the bigotry continues. The lesson to every woman who visits is that it is ok to exclude men, and the lesson to every man is maybe they should do the same and exclude women. Nothing positive about it at all.
More woke rubbish! ✌🏽❤️💛🖤🎶🇦🇺