Portmarnock Golf Club is one of Ireland’s oldest golf clubs. Since formally opening in 1894, the club has only admitted men as members, though women are allowed onto the course and though the clubhouse has changing rooms for women. The Irish Equality Authority believes that the club is a discriminating organisation under the 2000 Irish Equal Status Act because it excludes women from membership. As a result the club has lost its status as a “registered club” and has, consequently, been denied its licence to sell alcohol.

In February 2004 a (female) judge of a District Court agreed with the Equality Authority that the club is discriminating women. Section 9 of the Equal Status Act exempts clubs whose principal purpose is to cater only for the needs of members of one sex, but according to the Equality Authority sporting needs do not belong to this category. In June 2005, however, a High Court found that the Equal Status Act allows male only golf. The (male) judge said: “It is permissable to have – exclusively – a bridge club for Bulgarians, a chess club for Catholics, a wine club for women and a golf club for gentlemen.” The Equality Authority appealed the High Court decision to the Supreme Court.

The Irish case, which is still pending, has attracted attention in other countries, such as the Netherlands, where last year a court ruled that a (Calvinist) political party is not entitled to the same government subsidies as other parties if it puts forward only male candidates for the parliamentary elections. In Belgium political parties are not allowed to participate in the elections unless each sex is represented by at least one third of the candidates. A Belgian court will soon have to decide whether a particular dance-hall is allowed to organize activities that are not open to men. Meanwhile in many Western European countries it is becoming more and more common for municipal swimming pools and sporting halls to reserve hours for (Muslim) women only.

It is generally expected that no matter what the Irish Supreme Court decides, the party that is put in the wrong will subsequently bring the case before the European Court of Justice. According to European Union Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 ‘implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services’:

“Differences in the treatment of men and women may be accepted only if they are justified by a legitimate aim, such as the protection of victims of sex-related violence (in cases such as the establishment of single-sex shelters) or the freedom of association (in cases of membership of single-sex private clubs). Any limitation should nevertheless be appropriate and necessary.”

The directive, which must be implemented in the national legislation of all 25 EU member states by 21 December 2007, also states that:

“Once the plaintiff has established facts from which it may be presumed that discrimination has taken place, the burden of proof rests with the respondent.”

If the European authorities decide to give a very broad interpretation to the non-discrimination principle single-sex schools may be prohibited. Even the Catholic Church, with its rule that only men are allowed into the priesthood, might have to defend itself in court.