What they said ...`It's important you are able to feed when necessary. If there are prohibitions on where women can breast-feed, it increases pressure on them to give up feeding' Ms Christine Campbell, Victorian Opposition spokesperson on family services
`... it's a matter of choice, a matter of taste - it's also a matter of just common decency' The Victorian Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, commenting on breast-feeding.
On April 8, 1998, the Victorian Government defeated a private members bill to alter the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act.
The purpose of the bill had been to amend the Act so that it specifically outlawed discrimination against nursing mothers. Its aim was to ensure that women would be able to breast-feed their children in all public areas covered by the current Equal Opportunity Act.
The debate surrounding the issue was quite extensive. It seemed to generate a good deal of interest in the letters pages of both major Victorian dailies. Both the Australian Medical Association and the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia supported the proposed amendment and opposed the attitude adopted by the Victorian Government in general and the premier, Mr Kennett, in particular.
Background
The private members bill seeking to alter the Victorian Equal opportunity Act was put forward by Ms Christine Campbell, the Victorian Opposition spokesperson on family services.
Ms Campbell's interest in the issue seemed to derive from an incident which occurred on New Year's Eve, 1997. Mrs Jane Gately-Leggett, a mid-wife visiting Victoria from Queensland, was part of a group that was asked leave the food hall at the Crown Casino where the friends were having lunch. The group was asked to leave because Mrs Gately-Leggett was breast-feeding and was not prepared to go to a baby-changing area.
One of Mrs Gately-Leggett's companions later contacted Ms Christine Campbell.
Crown casino later indicated that it had a policy of not discriminating against anyone. A spokesperson for Crown said that the complex supplied excellent baby-changing facilities, however, mothers did not have to use them. Crown did not dispute that the incident had taken place.
Ms Campbell indicated in January, 1998, that she would be seeking to strengthen the Equal Opportunity Act to ensure that all Victorian women who wished to breast-feed their children in public would be able to do so.
When the bill came before Parliament, it met with the particular opposition of the Victorian Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett.
On the day on which the bill was to be voted on, a group of women sat outside Parliament House and breast-fed their children. Some sat in the public gallery and also feed their children.
Mr Kennett objected to what he claimed was `distasteful ... force-feeding'.
There are a number of Internet sites dealing with the issue of breast-feeding in public.
In July of last year, the North American state of California passed legislation confirming the right of nursing mothers to breast-feed in public. California is the 13th state to make such an affirmation. The Internet has news items on this legislation.
A similar group in Canada, INFACT (The Infant Feeding Action Coalition) has established a website supporting the rights of breast-feeding mothers. This is an informative site which, among other things, outlines a number of United Nations and International Labour Organisation conventions which support the rights of breast-feeding women.
All the above sites support breast-feeding in public. Substantial sites opposing breast-feeding in public appear difficult to find.
Arguments in favour of the right to breast-feed in public being specifically guaranteed
There are three main arguments in favour of breast-feeding in public being specifically made legal.
The first is that breast-feeding is beneficial for the health of both the infant and the mother.
Children who are breast-fed are said to have their immune systems boosted and to develop fewer allergies. It is also claimed that breast-feeding helps to establish a bond between the mother and her child and to help the mother regulate her weight after pregnancy.
Gerald Segal, the president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association, has stated, `Medically, it makes a huge difference and it's this magical bond between mother and child.'
Those who stress the health benefits breastfeeding bestows note that breast-feeding can be difficult and that many mothers are not able to do so. Supporters of breast-feeding therefore argue that the community needs to do everything reasonably possible to help mothers breast-feed their children.
According to this line of argument, breast-feeding mothers should not be anxious about being moved on from a public location where they have attempted to breast-feed their children. It has been claimed that this sort of anxiety may well discourage a woman from continuing to breast-feed.
This position has been put by Ms Elizabeth Mooney, a breast-feeding mother who attended a protest in support of mothers' supposed right to breast-feed in public. Ms Mooney stressed the vulnerability of the breast-feeding woman and how readily she could be discouraged.
`It's very difficult to be strong when you've got your blouse undone. You really don't feel in a position of power to start asserting your rights.'
The same point has been made by Ms Christine Campbell, the Labor spokesperson for family services, whose private members bill called for the right to breast-feed in public to be specifically guaranteed by law.
Similarly, it has been claimed that breastfeeding women should not have to keep their breastfeeding children at home because they are uncertain as to where they may be able to feed them in public.
It is also argued that breastfeeding women should not have to feed their infant children in toilets or other, often unattractive, places hidden away from the public view.
The second main argument offered is that the law as it currently stands is insufficient to ensure that women will be able to breast-feed in public places.
According to this line of argument, it is not enough that the Equal Opportunity Act forbids discrimination on the basis of gender and parental status.
Defenders of the current Act claim that prohibiting ill treatment based on a person's sex and/or parenthood will automatically protect the rights of breastfeeding women. Not so, claim the Act's critics. Because the current Act does not specifically mention the right to breast-feed, it is claimed it becomes a matter of interpretation whether a breast-feeding mother should be allowed to do so in a particular public place.
Critics of the Act claim that its uncertainty allows restaurateurs and others to tell women that they cannot feed their infants in particular establishments.
It is claimed that though the woman can later appeal to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal against any interpretation of the Act which she believes infringes her rights, this does not help at the time she is being discriminated against.
According to this line of argument, breast-feeding women will only be secure when the Equal Opportunity Act clearly and unambiguously gives them the right to breast-feed their children in public.
This position has been put by the Australian Medical Association and the Nursing Mothers Association of Australia. Both these organisations have stated that the current law is not specific enough.
It has also been noted that Queensland and the Northern Territory have each passed legislation specifically protecting breast-feeding mothers from discrimination.
The third argument offered is that the problem really lies with the narrow and inappropriate view that some people have of the function of mammary glands.
It has been claimed that those who find breast-feeding offensive have difficulty regarding the breast as anything other than a sexual stimulus. This point has been made by Ms Christine Campbell.
Ms Campbell noted, `People who find breast-feeding offensive are generally people who see the breasts only as sexual objects.'
According to this line of argument, a mother's right to feed her child should not be restricted because of the inappropriate views of others.
Stan Slater, in a letter published in the Herald Sun on April 8, 1998, suggested that people who find breast-feeding objectionable simply turn their heads away or cease to watch.
Mr Slater compares this with switching off the television or changing the channel when something you find offensive appears.
Those who hold this view argue that it is not necessary to remove or hide away everything some people may find offensive. Often, it is argued, the more reasonable response is for the offended person to simply stop looking.
Arguments against the right to breast-feed in public being specifically guaranteed
There are three main arguments offered against altering the Equal Opportunity Act to specifically protect breast-feeding mothers from discrimination.
The first argument is that the law as it currently stands in Victoria offers women sufficient protection. This position has been put by the Victorian Attorney-General, Ms Jan Wade.
Ms Wade has argued that the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or parental status already ensure that women are able to breast-feed in public.
Ms Wade has claimed that Victorian women currently have the right to breast-feed in all the areas covered by the Act. This includes restaurants, hotels and public transport.
Ms Wade has claimed that the Equal Opportunity Act has already been used successfully to defend women's right to breast-feed their children in public.
Ms Wade has noted that in 1985 a mother succeeded in a case against a Geelong hotel. Ms Wade has also noted that as recently as 1994, the then Equal Opportunity Board found that a South Yarra restaurant had discriminated against a mother who had breast-fed her five-week old baby.
Supporters of the law as it currently stands note that in the 1994 case the Equal Opportunity Board deliberately refrained from attempting to set the policies of all restaurants.
There are those who claim that this supports the view that breast-feeding may not be appropriate at all times and in all locations.
Secondly, it has been claimed that it may be preferable not to give breast-feeding the status of an absolute right.
According to this line of argument, there are people who will be offended by breast-feeding and so lactating mothers need to use discretion as to when and where they feed.
This view has been put by the Victorian premier, Mr Jeff Kennett.
Mr Kennett has claimed, `Some people do find it offensive to have babies being breastfeed in very obvious public places.'
According to this point of view, there are members of the public who would feel that their rights had been infringed if faced with the sight of women breast-feeding their children.
This point was put by Mr Michael Arratoon in a letter published in The Herald Sun on April 8, 1998. Mr Arratoon wrote, `If I am dining in a restaurant and a "liberated" mother decides to "demand feed" her baby, am I expected to politely and discreetly turn my vision away? Is my "equal opportunity" not threatened?'
Mr Kennett went on to claim `... it's a matter of choice, a matter of taste - it's also a matter of just common decency and I don't think that is best covered by legislation.'
This argument would seem to suggest that strengthening the law in favour of breast-feeding mothers might encourage them to breast-feed more frequently and openly. It implies that this would be inappropriate as it could upset some observers.
The third argument offered is that mothers sometimes have alternatives and so do not always have to breast-feed their babies in public.
This point has been made by Premier Kennett, who has noted, `There are, in many cases, facilities available for people to breastfeed elsewhere.'
It has further been suggested that campaigning for the right to breast-feed in public may be a misdirection of energy.
Those who make this claim argue that breast-feeding in public is inappropriate not just because it can give offence to others but also because the baby often finds noisy, public venues unsettling and because the mother is often ill-at-ease in them.
According to this line of argument, supporters of breast-feeding would be better served ensuring that all public venues supply suitable, pleasant, private locations where mothers can comfortably breast-feed children.
Corrie Perkin, the editor of the Living supplement in the Age has claimed, `Public places are exactly that - public. They're noisy. They're busy. They have Muzak. Babies hate them. Mothers (usually) hate them.'
It has also been noted that women do not have to breast-feed babies in public locations. There are those who claim that nursing mothers should offer their children water, juice or previously expressed milk if they are in a place where it is not appropriate to breast-feed.
The suggestion has also been made that it is not necessary to feed infants on demand and that the child can simply not be feed if he or she becomes hungry in a location where breast-feeding is inappropriate.
Further implications
After the defeat of the last bill, it seems unlikely that there will be any further attempts to alter the Equal Opportunity Act specifically to allow breast-feeding in public places under the current government.
The immediate consequence of the debate surrounding the bill may be to discourage some women from breast-feeding in public and perhaps at all. There was not the general and unequivocal support for breast-feeding which its supporters had hoped for.
It may also encourage some restaurateurs and others to suggest that women refrain from breast-feeding on their premises. This is because, contrary to the assurances given by the Attorney-General, Ms Wade, the Victorian Premier, Mr Kennett, has argued that where and when a woman should breast-feed is a matter of `taste' and `decency'. This would seem to suggest that there may well be occasions on which it is not tasteful or decent to breast-feed. Once this is allowed, then it is likely that those who object to breast-feeding in public will be more ready to make their objections known and to demand that mothers not publicly feed their children in this manner.
It is possible that were a Labor government elected then the issue might be raised again as the person who put forward the private members bill is a shadow minister and member of the current Victorian Opposition.
The issue may also flair again if another restaurateur, security guard or public transport official requests that a woman stop breast-feeding her child and she takes the incident to the media or otherwise makes it public.
Sources The Age
9/1/98 page 3 news item by Meaghan Shaw, `Offensive? Who me? I'm just trying to have my lunch'
10/1/98 page 9 editorial, `Prudery sucks'
16/1/98 page 15 comment by Amy Forest, `Defending the right to bare the breast'
10/2/98 page 11 comment by Wendy Bowler, `Nursing a Victorian view'
7/4/98 page 3 news item by Sushila Das, `Babytalk: when mum's the final word in taste'
8/4/98 page 16 editorial, `The premier and breastfeeding'
9/4/98 page 3 news item by Sushila Das, `Kennett blows his top as mothers open theirs'
9/4/98 page 16 letter from Dr Michael Marks, `Breast is best'
9/4/98 page 16 letter from Michael Hallpike, `The definition of offensive behaviour'
9/4//98 page 16 letter from Karen J Dods, `Breastfeeding an issue about rights of baby'
9/4/98 page 16 letter from Margaret Page, `Another view on breastfeeding'
12/4/98 page 8 comment by Catherine Deveny, `They're just a nice pair out for lunch'
13/4/98 page 13 comment by Corrie Perkin, `Mothers should do themselves a favour'
13/4/98 page 13 comment by Jane Sullivan, `MPs should zip their lips'
14/4/98 page 17 comments by Eli Greenblat, Dr Anthony Elliott and Ellen Holt, `Breastfeeding in public: Is it offensive?'
The Herald Sun
6/4/98 page 3 news item by Regina Titelius and Kristin Owen, `Keeping abreast of laws'
6/4/98 page 3 news item by Kristin Owen, `Bid to ban mums bias'
7/4/98 page 11 news item by Kristin Owen, `Kennett no to law for mums'
7/4/98 page 18 editorial, `Mother and (hungry) child'
8/4/98 page 20 letters from Stan Slater and Michael Arratoon, `Watch out, there's a suckling baby'
9/4/98 page 10 news item by Kristin Owen and Vanessa Williams, `Breast battle in vain'
9/4/98 page 22 letter from Elizabeth Hester, `Problem not with mothers'
The Internet
It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.
There are a number of Internet sites dealing with the issue of breast-feeding in public.
In July of last year, the North American state of California passed legislation confirming the right of nursing mothers to breast-feed in public. California is the 13th state to make such an affirmation. News items dealing with the Californian legislation can be found at http://www.fensende.com/users/swnymph/Midwife/cabreast.html
A British organisation, CRIB (Campaign for Rights in Breastfeeding) has produced a series of arguments in support of women being able to breast-feed in public. Their material can be found at http://webzone1.co.uk/www/cathus/crib4.htm
A similar group in Canada, INFACT (The Infant Feeding Action Coalition) has established a website supporting the rights of breast-feeding mothers. This is an informative site which, among other things, outlines a number of United Nations and International Labour Organisation conventions which support the rights of breast-feeding women. This material can be found at htt://www.infactcanada.ca/newsletters/winter97/humright.htm
All the above sites support breast-feeding in public. Substantial sites opposing breast-feeding in public appear difficult to find.
Back to previous page
