WIN! Tavern application for topless waitresses denied after objections

Last year Western Australian Tavern The Sixty30 made an application to vary existing trading conditions to allow topless waitresses. Along with other members of the community and the Commissioner of Police, we lodged an objection on the basis that:

  • The use of women’s bodies in sexual entertainment and services is a form of prostitution
  • Sexual trade in women’s bodies both causes and contributes to gender inequality by reducing women to mere objects for men’s use and enjoyment, with adverse impacts on women who are directly involved as well as women as a whole
  • A significant body of research links sexual objectification of women with violence against women
  • Sexploitation venues pose a threat to women, with women reporting increased incidents of sexual harassment, abuse and violence in areas in close proximity to strip clubs
After months of deliberating, we are pleased to report that the taverns’ application was denied, after Liquor Licensing found there was insufficient evidence it would be in the public interest. Read the report here. 
It is also important to distinguish between the public interest and private interests… the application is primarily concerned with the private financial interests of the Applicant and the operators of Perths Best Girls. Accordingly, I reiterate that the onus remains on the Applicant to demonstrate that the grant of the application is in the public interest, and this onus cannot be discharged by simply pointing to a desire to provide additional services at the licensed premises.
The Applicant has failed to produce sufficient, probative evidence to satisfy me that the grant of the application is in the public interest.
Another_Win.png
The tavern had attempted to argue there was demand for topless waitresses (with statements of support, the Commissioner noted, predominantly from male respondents). The Commission responded:
The evidence fell well short of establishing that the variation of the licence was in the public interest. Whilst “Dan the Man”, “Show me pussy”, “Robbo”, “Marshy”, “Bob”, “Jacko”, “Swanny”, “Fido”, and others may want to see strippers at the hotel based on their signing of the questionnaire, there is nothing before the Commission that is capable of establishing that the variation of the licence is in the public interest. 
As always, we are grateful for your support and participation throughout the course of this campaign. Without it, we would not have achieved this victory.

Add your comment

Showing 1 reaction
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2017-03-23 15:53:17 +1100
    Can I please have access to the research you have stated as occurring regarding sexual objectification linking to domestic violence against women?

You can defend their right to childhood

Everyday our young people are exposed to more brands continuing to sexualise girls and objectify women. You can bring change to this sexploitation, stop companies from degrading women and prevent its devastating effects on young people.

Donate Now

From Our Supporters

Join the Discussion