Tickle v Giggle is a significant case in Australian discrimination law. While many aspects of it are unique to the Australian legal system, there are nevertheless several lessons that can be learnt from both the judgment itself and the, frankly, incomprehensible manner in which both sides behaved.
What follows is a description and analysis of the judgment. I want to make it clear at this point that I am not an expert in Australian constitutional or discrimination law. Based on this judgment, however, neither were counsel for either party.
This judgement should serve as a stark reminder to those involved in litigating cases of significant public importance that there is a world of difference between political sloganeering and legal argumentation. Both sides in this case at times advanced simplistic but politically salient claims that were of minimal relevance to the legal questions before the court and which served no meaningful legal function, notwithstanding the fact that they may have reflected deeply held views on the topic generally.
Source: (4) No Laughing Matter – by Michael Foran – Knowing Ius