Pinker vs Principle of Equality

Opinion piece by Bárbara Figueiredo published [in Portuguese] in the Diário de Coimbra newspaper

The launch of Pinker was announced last week as the first TVDE (ride-hailing) platform in Portugal exclusively for women—both as drivers and clients. The platform was set to begin operations within a few days, but its license, which had already been granted, was subsequently suspended by the IMT (Institute for Mobility and Transport), raising questions about compliance with the principle of equality.

At issue is a potential violation of Article 7 of Law No. 45/2018, of August 10, which, under the heading “non-discrimination,” stipulates that, in relation to this activity, “users, actual and potential, have equal access to TVDE services, which cannot be denied by the provider on grounds such as ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family situation, economic status, social origin or condition, disability, chronic illness, nationality, ethnic or racial origin, place of origin, language, religion, political or ideological beliefs, or trade union membership.” This concerns the principle of equality, enshrined as a fundamental principle in Article 13 of the Portuguese Constitution.

Fundamental rights—even the most fundamental, such as equality—are not absolute. They may and should be restricted to the extent that such restriction is essential to safeguard other rights, according to a balancing act conducted in light of proportionality. Moreover, what may initially seem to be a limitation of a given right might, in fact, constitute a corrective measure aimed at realizing that very right.

In theory, the Pinker case could be interpreted under this latter hypothesis, as the platform was reportedly created to address a safety issue for women using TVDE services with male drivers. In this context, it could be viewed as helping to combat inequality—positive discrimination, in other words. However, in practice, this might not be the case.

The issue of women’s sexual safety is real (the statistics on sexual violence leave no room for doubt), but justifying this restriction on men’s access to the platform requires an objective assessment of whether there is a specific safety issue for women using these platforms that warrants curtailing equality. Apparently, such an analysis was not conducted. Furthermore, looking a bit deeper, we might ask ourselves as a society whether this is truly how we wish to address the problem: by restricting men’s access, perhaps reducing some statistics (but potentially masking the issue) through a sort of segregation between men and women, which, though different in nature, inevitably evokes memories of other times.