baby changing?

metrovelvet

If an establishment does not have baby changing facilities can they ask you to leave to change a nappy even if you do it without taking the baby out of the pram/buggy?

Maximilian

Of course. Frankly what you are suggesting sounds pretty disgusting. Baby poo smells.

Trojan911

metrovelvet wrote: »

If an establishment does not have baby changing facilities can they ask you to leave to change a nappy even if you do it without taking the baby out of the pram/buggy?

They can ask you to leave, but it would show a remarkably backward attitude if they did so for the reason you are asking about.

Maximilian

what if it were in a restaurant for example.

Trojan911

Maximilian wrote: »

what if it were in a restaurant for example.

It can be done very discreetly in a pram (I'm going on the baby being a newborn or within six months) 1yr or older pop into the ladies or gents, they are the ones with smelly poo.

Hobart

Maximilian wrote: »

Of course. Frankly what you are suggesting sounds pretty disgusting. Baby poo smells.

I think you will find most poo smells, not just that of a baby. Do we know what kind of establishment the op is talking about? Would it make a difference?

johnnyskeleton

It's arguably refusing service to a person on the grounds of family status, but that's a very tenuous argument.

oh well

would it not be refusing to allow a person on the premises on the gounds of unsocial behaviour ?

hullaballoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

If an establishment does not have baby changing facilities can they ask you to leave to change a nappy even if you do it without taking the baby out of the pram/buggy?

If you're talking about a pub, and I think you are, then of course they can ask you to leave. They can and will also ask you to leave if you decide to breast feed. It's not in any way a backward policy. You have to remember that you are in a pub - i.e., a public house and there are other people around you.

Changing a baby in public (not in the ladies/gents) is unhygenic and the health and safety of other customers is important.

I can feel a rant coming on... I'm going to let it go, though.

Maximilian

Couldn't agree more. By the way, if anyone tries to change a nappy on this forum, I'm taking out the banstick.

seamus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's arguably refusing service to a person on the grounds of family status, but that's a very tenuous argument.

I don't think so. I would imagine that the establishment could easily say that the person and her child were more than welcome, it was just the act of nappy changing that was disallowed.
Fair game tbh.

Trojan911

hullaballú wrote: »

I can feel a rant coming on... I'm going to let it go, though.

I also feel a rant coming on but I will let it pass also... (Takes a deep breath.... exhales )

I just hope that a pregnant woman, who is within the venue having a meal with her family/friends, whos waters have just broken isn't asked to leave on unhygienic grounds while she waits for the ambulace or carraige to the hospital.

And any venue that asks females to leave whilst breastfeeding is, in my opinion, very backward in their attitudes.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

I don't think so. I would imagine that the establishment could easily say that the person and her child were more than welcome, it was just the act of nappy changing that was disallowed.
Fair game tbh.

I take it you don't think there is an argument rather than that you don't think it is tenuous.

Equality Authority wrote:

"Indirect Discrimination" happens where there is less favourable treatment by impact or effect. It occurs where people are, for example, refused a service not explicitly on account of a discriminatory reason but because of a provision, practice or requirement which they find hard to satisfy. If the provision, practice or requirement puts people who belong to one of the grounds covered by the Acts at a particular disadvantage, then the service provider will have indirectly discriminated, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

So the practice of asking someone to leave to change their child, or the practice of not having changing rooms or even some other facility such as a bathroom could amount to indirect discrimination on the basis that a person with a child is put at a particular disadvantage. There is an exemption where the discriminatory practice is necessary to prevent embarrasment, but it could be argued that there is no reason why they shouldn't have some facility or some temporary measure to accomodate baby changing.

Obviously if a person with a child goes into a shop in a shopping centre and is told that they have to go to the changing rooms on the 3rd floor this would be reasonable and proportionate, but what about a service where you will be on the premises for a few hours and which doesn't have any connected facilities for baby changing. Since babys need to be changed often, it would act as an effective bar to going onto that premises with your child because you will be asked to leave if your baby needs to be changed.

Victor

hullaballú wrote: »

They can and will also ask you to leave if you decide to breast feed.

Whats wrong with breast feeding? Its not like you are sneaking sweets into the cinema, there is no competition with the proprietors business.

Hobart

hullaballú wrote: »

They can and will also ask you to leave if you decide to breast feed. It's not in any way a backward policy. You have to remember that you are in a pub - i.e., a public house and there are other people around you. Changing a baby in public (not in the ladies/gents) is unhygenic and the health and safety of other customers is important.

I can feel a rant coming on... I'm going to let it go, though.

A quotation from Maureen Fallon of the dept of Health, supplemented by a comment from the Equality Authority:

"We want women to understand that as long as they are happy to breastfeed in a public area the owner, manager or staff members (on their own behalf or on behalf of other customers) are not allowed to ask a breastfeeding mother to use separate facilities or to ask her to leave the premises. It is, in fact, their duty to protect breastfeeding mothers from any unwelcome attention or comment" she explained.

Mr. Niall Crowley, Director of the Equality Authority said "breastfeeding is an equality issue, mothers should be able to feel confident and comfortable breastfeeding in public. The Equal Status Act can contribute to this as it protects mothers who are breastfeeding from disrespect or harassment when they access or use a wide range of services. The Equality Authority has already intervened to resolve claims by breastfeeding mothers who were asked to leave venues because they were breastfeeding"

While also being a "backward policy", it would also appear to be discriminatory.

johnnyskeleton

Hobart wrote: »

While also being a "backward policy", it would also appear to be discriminatory.

The problem is that unlike in other countries where there are positive requirements for equality - e.g. wheelchair accessability etc, which companies have to have (subject to a number of exemptions), in Ireland it's much more of a "Hey that's discriminatory, you should do something about it" type of approach by the Equality Authority.

So while saying to companies you should let breastfeeding mothers breastfeed on your premises, the Equality Authority nevertheless ignores that a lot of women (IMO anyway) would prefer a facility in which to breastfeed, thus avoiding any inconvenient rulings such as requiring companies to have such facilities.

AckwelFoley

I personally would gag if somone changed a babys nappy beside me in a resturant...

As for the breast feeding... id have or do not have a problem with that. Babies gotta eat too.

Victor

Hobart wrote: »

While also being a "backward policy", it would also appear to be discriminatory.

Look, when you give birth, we'll allow you breast feed in restaurants too.

Or if you feel that the requirement to have given birth is too much, we can dose you up with a load of experimental hormones, progesterone and oxytocin and then you'll too have lactating manboobs. You may need to adopt or borrow a baby. However, the HSE will probably take the acquired child off you on the grounds that the milk you are giving it is laced with experimental hormones.

So whats the next scene: Splitters or What have Romans ever done for us?

Overheal

This reeks of indecent exposure... and unlike breastfeeding isnt there hygeine to consider? I dont want to eat next to someone showing off their baby poo. And what happens if the little tyke launches a squirter?

AckwelFoley

And what happens if the little tyke launches a squirter

.. you wont need to add any more vinegar to your chips.

hullaballoo

My apologies. My paragraphing appears to have left something to be desired and caused some confusion. I'm not saying for a second that breast-feeding in public is unhygenic.

I conflated my points. They're quite simple. Changing nappies in public is unhygenic. Breast-feeding in public is generally fine but may be inappropriate in a pub. I'm not thinking of it as being rude - I'm thinking of it from the point of view of the baby's health. Pubs are inherently unhygenic places. There are a lot of contaminents around that can make feeding babies in pubs dangerous, irrespective of whether it's breast-fed or not.

I think it's inappropriate to have babies and small children in a pub from a parenting point of view. Pubs are dens of inebriation. It doesn't matter if it's a Sunday, either, because that seems to confuse people. Any time a pub is open, you will have drunks and other unsavouries there. You will need (from the parents' point of view) to keep close fetters on your children for their safety: I've seen kids being knocked flat by drunk people who don't see them - had drinks (hot and cold) spilt on them - slipping on a spillage - slipping because they're kids and have crap balance etc. and a myriad of other incidents in pubs in which children were involved.

The goings on in pubs are not really for children's eyes or ears. Personally, I remember being a child and absolutely despising going to the pub. Thankfully, the occasions were few and far between and didn't last too long.

johnnyskeleton

snyper wrote: »

.. you wont need to add any more vinegar to your chips.

...and your €30 bottle of Australian Chiraz will taste slightly better.

johnnyskeleton

hullaballú wrote: »

They're quite simple. Changing nappies in public is unhygenic. Breast-feeding in public is generally fine but may be inappropriate in a pub. I'm not thinking of it as being rude - I'm thinking of it from the point of view of the baby's health. Pubs are inherently unhygenic places. There are a lot of contaminents around that can make feeding babies in pubs dangerous, irrespective of whether it's breast-fed or not.
...
The goings on in pubs are not really for children's eyes or ears. Personally, I remember being a child and absolutely despising going to the pub. Thankfully, the occasions were few and far between and didn't last too long.

You can't refuse someone (i.e. a mother) service on the basis that it is in her best interest and the interest of her child not to be there. Moreover, to refuse a mother service on this ground is no different than to refuse service to a woman on the basis that she will have her ass pinched, get chatted up by drunken idiots and when she does kiss a man get branded as a lady of negotiable affection if she were to enter into a nightclub.

Hullaballu wrote:

Any time a pub is open, you will have drunks and other unsavouries there.

Unsavouries? How dare you? [throws down gauntlet and falls backwards from chair]

Hobart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The problem is that unlike in other countries where there are positive requirements for equality - e.g. wheelchair accessability etc, which companies have to have (subject to a number of exemptions), in Ireland it's much more of a "Hey that's discriminatory, you should do something about it" type of approach by the Equality Authority.

So while saying to companies you should let breastfeeding mothers breastfeed on your premises, the Equality Authority nevertheless ignores that a lot of women (IMO anyway) would prefer a facility in which to breastfeed, thus avoiding any inconvenient rulings such as requiring companies to have such facilities.

Is that really the case? Would a breastfeeding mother not be protected from discrimination under the Equal Status Act (2000 - 2004)? I also think that there is specific protection for breastfeeding mothers in public houses under the Intoxicating Liquor Act (2003).

The provision of facilities is a bit of a moot point, as personal choice comes into it.

hullaballoo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You can't refuse someone (i.e. a mother) service on the basis that it is in her best interest and the interest of her child not to be there. Moreover, to refuse a mother service on this ground is no different than to refuse service to a woman on the basis that she will have her ass pinched, get chatted up by drunken idiots and when she does kiss a man get branded as a lady of negotiable affection if she were to enter into a nightclub.

It really astounds me the extent to which people put words in your mouth on this site. I never said that you could refuse service on any of those grounds. What I said was that it's inappropriate in certain circumstances to have babies and toddlers in pubs.

I did say, however; that pubs will refuse people. They can do so at their discretion - and they don't tend to give reasons. The rationale for this is that they reserve the right to refuse admission. If they give a reason, and this is subsequently found to be discriminatory and illegal, they face penalties. So in effect, the legislation has made it easier for pubs to refuse service, since they are not obliged to provide a reason.

Before anyone imputes any hidden meaning into my post, I'm going to say now that I don't entirely agree with this state of affairs. I'm just relaying the process as I see it.

Unsavouries? How dare you? [throws down gauntlet and falls backwards from chair]

You wouldn't believe how often I've seen that actually happen. People get confused between stools with backs and those without backs.

Hobart

hullaballú wrote: »

I did say, however; that pubs will refuse people. They can do so at their discretion - and they don't tend to give reasons. The rationale for this is that they reserve the right to refuse admission. If they give a reason, and this is subsequently found to be discriminatory and illegal, they face penalties. So in effect, the legislation has made it easier for pubs to refuse service, since they are not obliged to provide a reason.

While that may be the case, Hulla, do licensed establishments have the right to refuse on arbitrary grounds? Is this an actual right they have? Could, for example, a racist publican refuse to serve non-whites on the basis that he can do whatever he wants? Or are you simply stating that they can do this, no matter what the rights or wrongs?

hullaballoo

Hobart wrote: »

While that may be the case, Hulla, do licensed establishments have the right to refuse on arbitrary grounds? Is this an actual right they have? Could, for example, a racist publican refuse to serve non-whites on the basis that he can do whatever he wants? Or are you simply stating that they can do this, no matter what the rights or wrongs?

I'm not sure of the alternatives you've given me there, since it seems to me that both are equivalent. However and in order to clarify: publicans don't have to give reasons for refusal. If they do, they open themselves up to all sorts of cries that the reason is discriminatory. The practical upshot is that publicans who are in reality refusing on discriminatory grounds, (which is clearly wrong) can get away with it because the potential complainant won't be able to ground his complaint i.e., he won't have a reason to state for his having been refused service.

Of course, I'm wholly willing to accept that when a situation arises where a group of people (or a number of people, separately) are refused service and it turns out that they have some common trait that the publican could properly face a complaint of discrimination.

I must stress that I don't agree that the ease with which publicans can discriminate is right. I must say that I know of a few establishments who have door policies that I think are quite dispicable. However, I acknowledge that the publican has a right and duty to maintain an orderly house and that it's sometimes in everyone's best interests to refuse certain people and not have to give them a reason (e.g., where someone is known to be aggressive, a publican may wish to refuse him service, but might not wish to excite his aggression by telling him he's aggressive).

Hobart

hullaballú wrote: »

I'm not sure of the alternatives you've given me there, since it seems to me that both are equivalent. However and in order to clarify: publicans don't have to give reasons for refusal. If they do, they open themselves up to all sorts of cries that the reason is discriminatory. The practical upshot is that publicans who are in reality refusing on discriminatory grounds, (which is clearly wrong) can get away with it because the potential complainant won't be able to ground his complaint i.e., he won't have a reason to state for his having been refused service.

Of course, I'm wholly willing to accept that when a situation arises where a group of people (or a number of people, separately) are refused service and it turns out that they have some common trait that the publican could properly face a complaint of discrimination.

I must stress that I don't agree that the ease with which publicans can discriminate is right. I must say that I know of a few establishments who have door policies that I think are quite dispicable. However, I acknowledge that the publican has a right and duty to maintain an orderly house and that it's sometimes in everyone's best interests to refuse certain people and not have to give them a reason (e.g., where someone is known to be aggressive, a publican may wish to refuse him service, but might not wish to excite his aggression by telling him he's aggressive).

I suppose what I'm asking is can a publican refuse service to somebody for any reason? Is he within his rights to do this, or is there legal protection for the individual in a situation like this?

I can appreciate that if a publican says "I'm not serving you because you are pregnant" that there would be a case to answer. But if a publican simply said "I'm not serving you" and when challenged, he answered "because I don't want to" is that his/her right? Is the publican protected from prosecution in the latter instance?

hullaballoo

Hobart wrote: »

I suppose what I'm asking is can a publican refuse service to somebody for any reason? Is he within his rights to do this, or is there legal protection for the individual in a situation like this?

I can appreciate that if a publican says "I'm not serving you because you are pregnant" that there would be a case to answer. But if a publican simply said "I'm not serving you" and when challenged, he answered "because I don't want to" is that his/her right? Is the publican protected from prosecution in the latter instance?

It seems to me that the position is that the publican can refuse, saying, "I'm not serving you" and when challenged, can say, "I don't have to give you a reason".

Once he keeps his reasons to himself, and no one can actually say that the publican has some underhand reason, then though there might be an issue, it will be practically impossible to come up to proof. That holds true unless the publican has a change of heart and comes out with some sort of admission as to the reasons for his decision. Otherwise, he can just use his immunity under reserving right of admission.

I must caveat this all by saying that I don't know the ins and outs of any of the relevant legislation. I'm just going on my understanding from practical experience insofar as I've worked in a pub through many of the recent legislative changes and my reading of the relevant association guidelines.

johnnyskeleton

Hobart wrote: »

Is that really the case? Would a breastfeeding mother not be protected from discrimination under the Equal Status Act (2000 - 2004)? I also think that there is specific protection for breastfeeding mothers in public houses under the Intoxicating Liquor Act (2003).

The provision of facilities is a bit of a moot point, as personal choice comes into it.

They are protected from discrimination under Equality legislation, but when it comes to the provision of facilities, I think they could take a much more active role. The Equality Authority doesn't seem to have the political clout that it should have i.e. the ability to make changes across the board rather than dealing with specific complaints on a monetary compensation basis.

johnnyskeleton

hullaballú wrote: »

It really astounds me the extent to which people put words in your mouth on this site. I never said that you could refuse service on any of those grounds. What I said was that it's inappropriate in certain circumstances to have babies and toddlers in pubs.

hullaballu wrote:

Breast-feeding in public is generally fine but may be inappropriate in a pub. I'm not thinking of it as being rude - I'm thinking of it from the point of view of the baby's health. Pubs are inherently unhygenic places. There are a lot of contaminents around that can make feeding babies in pubs dangerous, irrespective of whether it's breast-fed or not....
I think it's inappropriate to have babies and small children in a pub from a parenting point of view. Pubs are dens of inebriation. It doesn't matter if it's a Sunday, either, because that seems to confuse people. Any time a pub is open, you will have drunks and other unsavouries there. You will need (from the parents' point of view) to keep close fetters on your children for their safety:

Is that not saying that it is in the child's best interest that they not be breastfed in a pub, and was it not used to further your argument about the justification of a policy of excluding children from pubs? My point is that you can't refuse someone a service because it is not in their best interests, that you think it would be unhygenic or unsafe for them, or whether you think it is appropriate or not.

johnnyskeleton

Hobart wrote: »

Could, for example, a racist publican refuse to serve non-whites on the basis that he can do whatever he wants?

I believe that some clubs may discriminate under the Equality legislation if they are set up for, for example, the furtherance of a religious belief. So a catholic can, on my reading of it, be refused service at his local orange lodge (although strangely it's never arisen).

hullaballoo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is that not saying that it is in the child's best interest that they not be breastfed in a pub, and was it not used to further your argument about the justification of a policy of excluding children from pubs? My point is that you can't refuse someone a service because it is not in their best interests, that you think it would be unhygenic or unsafe for them, or whether you think it is appropriate or not.

Again I have to take issue with you putting words in my mouth. I think you're painting a bad picture of me (though I accept that what I'm saying is not uncontroversial).

I'm not trying to justify the policy on a moral basis. I'm just saying there's scope for publicans to exclude people for their own reasons without offending the laws that are in place in this regard.

Effectively what I'm saying is that you are morally right; you can't justify an exclusion on the basis that it's for their own good in this instance. However, what I'm pointing out is that publicans don't have to justify the exclusion of certain individuals.

Hobart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I believe that some clubs may discriminate under the Equality legislation if they are set up for, for example, the furtherance of a religious belief. So a catholic can, on my reading of it, be refused service at his local orange lodge (although strangely it's never arisen).

I assume that there are some exceptions, the CWA comes to mind. I don't know if your point about the Orange Lodge holds merit, as I expect it is based on membership etc...

hullaball&#250 wrote:

However, what I'm pointing out is that publicans don't have to justify the exclusion of certain individuals.

I suppose that that is the nub of the argument, or at least my argument, is this lawfully the case? Any idea what the relevant legislation is?

johnnyskeleton

Hobart wrote: »

I assume that there are some exceptions, the CWA comes to mind. I don't know if your point about the Orange Lodge holds merit, as I expect it is based on membership etc...

The CWA? Communications Workers of America? Concerned Women for America ? Crime Writers' Association? California Waterfowl Association?

All clubs, in theory if not in practise, are based on membership - for example, being refused from a nightclub because it's members only.

Hobart wrote:

I suppose that that is the nub of the argument, or at least my argument, is this lawfully the case? Any idea what the relevant legislation is?

A person claiming discrimination must show that they:
1) are included in one of the 9 grounds of discrimination;
2) have been treated less favourably than a person not included in that ground; and
3) the less favourable treatment was based on that ground.

If you can show 1) and 2) the Equality Authority are likely to infer 3) unless there is other evidence to the contrary. On the facts, someone who says I didn't serve that person, not because they are [whatever], but because I didn't want to is not going to come across very well. A publican saying they just didn't want to serve someone during opening hours and who let in other people during this time is highly unlikely to be taken at his word. Moreover, if the person is asked to leave once they started to breastfeed, the EA can, and should, infer that it was the breastfeeding that precipitated the refusal of service.

That said, it is more difficult for someone to show that they have been discriminated against if a publican just says not tonight, rather than saying I won't let you in because you're a [whatever]. Especially since a publican can just say no at the time, and if called up on it just say "he was too drunk" and will probably get away with it.

As for the legislation, you yourself cited the acts earlier so I'm not going to repeat them.

johnnyskeleton

hullaballú wrote: »

I'm just saying there's scope for publicans to exclude people for their own reasons without offending the laws that are in place in this regard.

I don't think there is if their "own reasons" are discriminatory or indirectly act to disuade a certain protected category of persons from obtaining the services that are on offer.

Unless their own reasons fall within an exemption contained in the legislation, it can be discriminatory if it serves to preclude a protected category of persons from obtaining the services.

And in the case where a publican is acting in a manner which he honestly believes is correct but which nevertheless acts to discriminate against a group of persons, that is still discrimination.

Hobart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The CWA? Communications Workers of America? Concerned Women for America ? Crime Writers' Association? California Waterfowl Association?.

Country Women's Association.

deisemum

Trojan911 wrote: »

I also feel a rant coming on but I will let it pass also... (Takes a deep breath.... exhales )

I just hope that a pregnant woman, who is within the venue having a meal with her family/friends, whos waters have just broken isn't asked to leave on unhygienic grounds while she waits for the ambulace or carraige to the hospital.

And any venue that asks females to leave whilst breastfeeding is, in my opinion, very backward in their attitudes.

My waters broke in the middle of Mothercare and they couldn't get me out the door quickly enough and it wasn't for hygiene reasons either, they didn't want me delivering in the shop and neither did I

I don't know what type of venue the op is on about but it you're able to change a nappy in a pram or buggy then you can take the pram/buggy to somewhere more private and not inflict the smell on everyone present and also think of the baby or toddler and respect it's dignity.

Maximilian

deisemum wrote: »

I don't know what type of venue the op is on about but it you're able to change a nappy in a pram or buggy then you can take the pram/buggy to somewhere more private and not inflict the smell on everyone present and also think of the baby or toddler and respect it's dignity.

I would have thought everyone, myself included, would agree with that.

A person once described babies as "a loud noise at one end, and no sense of responsibility at the other end". I think some parents seem to forget that not everyone in this world is favorably disposed towards human offspring.

If I saw someone change a baby's nappy, in the pram, in close proximity to me & indoors, I would either leave, ask them to leave or ask someone to get them to leave. I might also get sick in my mouth just a little bit. Its disgusting and I can't imagine anyone who would do as the OP suggests having any class. Go change it in privacy somewhere, the toilets seem like a rather obvious choice.

All this talk of discrimination is frankly ridiculous. It not discrimination at all. Its hygiene, its basic manners and a lot of words like that.