Kids and men on planes.

[ducatilover]

i am sixteen yet i am capable of sexaully offending 30 year old woman if i so choose to. i'm not saying i would, but am i also a person who should be moved on a plane? i may be small [55kg/5ft 8-9ish] but i am an adrenaline driven bugger and am certainly capable of violating another person in an unacceptable manner. so why dont we move all children to the back of a plane or an alloted part of a plane? [eg fridge] if they are unaccompanied by a person that has the ability to resist sexaul exploitations that are unwanted?




and no i don not violate other people or rape little kiddies:spudbn:

[Wolf]

But it's not really about fairness. It's about preventing something bad even if it is a little unfair or inconvenient, or even discriminatory towards some people.

And if they'd moved a black man because they had "statistics" that suggested blacks were more likely to be violent than non-blacks, they'd've been lynched by an enraged "righteously angry" mob. And good-fucking-job it would've been, too. I'd've brought extra rope.

It goes on all the time. It is no less unfair that a nondrinker is stopped and checked at a checkpoint in case he's been drinking, or a Muslim cleric from Iran is subjected to closer scrutiny by Immigration officials when attempting to enter our country.

In all fairness to the checkpoints, they stop everyone regardless of race, sex or age - "non-drinkers" and "drinkers" cannot be distinguished by sight as different sexes or races can. I don't feel discriminated against when being stopped and asked to speak into the machine - it's the only way they can tell whether or not I've been drinking. They're not stopping me because I am male or within a certain age group or white, they're stoppping me because they have a job to do and I have arrived at their checkpoint.

The closer scrutiny of Iranians or any other ethnic group is wrong. All people entering the country should be subjected to the same high level of scrutiny - there are more threats out there than terrorism and not all those who sympathise with the terrorists are obviously Islamic or have coloured skin. There is no point in overly scrutinising an Iraqi cleric and ignoring the white bloke seven places back in the queue - the white guy could be smuggling drugs or an escaped felon travelling on a false passport or an Al Queda sympathiser with a degree in improvised explosives.

They are prophylactic measures carried out for the general safety of society, for the greater good even if individual feelings get a little trampled in the process.

Any discrimination "for the greater good" negates that "good". It was not so many years ago that the "greater good" in America involved "keeping them thar niggas outta our kids' schools".

What next for our "greater good"? As terrorism is a major world wide threat, should we go the way of the US in the wake of the Sept 11 tragedies and remove Due Process and allow wire-taps, and random searches based on suspicion? Should we take away all people's personal liberties because there are a minority who abuse those liberties?

Sorry, kerryg, but "It's all right as long as it is for the greater good" is the kind of attitude that stops us from fighting injustice. It is the mechanism by which individuals in society roll over and get walked on and allow the powerful to get away with treating us unfairly. Be they a large corporation with an eye on the "bottom line" or our government, so long as they can couch it in terms of "the greater good" they can guarantee the population will roll over and take it up the arse.

It is unjust that people should abuse children, it is unjust that terrorists should infiltrate areas and use the local infrastructure to conspire and execute their plans - there are many injustices.

Fighting these injustices by being unjust, by discriminating unfairly, is not the answer. If the price for safety from the injustices of our fellow citizens is injustice from our protectors, then we have truly lost.

[ducatilover]

so all this was provoked by statistics and one minded woman?

[kerryg]

And if they'd moved a black man because they had "statistics" that suggested blacks were more likely to be violent than non-blacks, they'd've been lynched by an enraged "righteously angry" mob. And good-fucking-job it would've been, too. I'd've brought extra rope.


In all fairness to the checkpoints, they stop everyone regardless of race, sex or age - "non-drinkers" and "drinkers" cannot be distinguished by sight as different sexes or races can. I don't feel discriminated against when being stopped and asked to speak into the machine - it's the only way they can tell whether or not I've been drinking. They're not stopping me because I am male or within a certain age group or white, they're stoppping me because they have a job to do and I have arrived at their checkpoint.

The closer scrutiny of Iranians or any other ethnic group is wrong. All people entering the country should be subjected to the same high level of scrutiny - there are more threats out there than terrorism and not all those who sympathise with the terrorists are obviously Islamic or have coloured skin. There is no point in overly scrutinising an Iraqi cleric and ignoring the white bloke seven places back in the queue - the white guy could be smuggling drugs or an escaped felon travelling on a false passport or an Al Queda sympathiser with a degree in improvised explosives.


Any discrimination "for the greater good" negates that "good". It was not so many years ago that the "greater good" in America involved "keeping them thar niggas outta our kids' schools".

What next for our "greater good"? As terrorism is a major world wide threat, should we go the way of the US in the wake of the Sept 11 tragedies and remove Due Process and allow wire-taps, and random searches based on suspicion? Should we take away all people's personal liberties because there are a minority who abuse those liberties?

Sorry, kerryg, but "It's all right as long as it is for the greater good" is the kind of attitude that stops us from fighting injustice. It is the mechanism by which individuals in society roll over and get walked on and allow the powerful to get away with treating us unfairly. Be they a large corporation with an eye on the "bottom line" or our government, so long as they can couch it in terms of "the greater good" they can guarantee the population will roll over and take it up the arse.

It is unjust that people should abuse children, it is unjust that terrorists should infiltrate areas and use the local infrastructure to conspire and execute their plans - there are many injustices.

Fighting these injustices by being unjust, by discriminating unfairly, is not the answer. If the price for safety from the injustices of our fellow citizens is injustice from our protectors, then we have truly lost.

Wolf, I said I'd shut up because I didn't think I had anything more to say (I would only be repeating myself) and I stand by that. We could debate it back and forwards forever. I respect the position you've taken and the lucid way you have expressed it..and thanks for not descending to the level of name calling and personal attack that some threads on this forum reach. I think it's valuable that there is this kind of spirited, intelligent and passionate exchange of views. Some of the points you make do resonate with me although we would probably never completely share the same standpoint on thgis...but that's OK, very few issues are black and white.

Over and out

[kerryg]

Kerry that is just so conter the concept of Liberty, that I can't help but quote another Doyen of the Enlightenment, Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That's an interesting quote. It would be interesting to know if he was contemplating the issue of taking prudent and harmless steps to safeguard our children when he wrote that.

Anyway, I should not be prolonging this discourse. My remarks to Wolf above apply equally to you.

Cheers

[Wolf]

This is what I submitted to both Air New Zealand and Qantas through their feedback pages:

Re: The policy on not allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied children on your flights.

It is unjust that children in our society are not safe from harm from abusers and paedophiles. Children should be safe from such things.

However, it is also unjust to discriminate against people in our society based on race, religion, age or *sex*. Likewise it is unjust to convey messages to children that one sex is "safe" and that another is "evil".

To attempt to prevent an injustice by being unjust is ridiculous.

The seating policy is discriminatory and unjust and conveys messages that uphold bigotry.

To convey the message that all men are potential rapists is socially irresponsible and defamatory.

I am the father of two, soon to be three. I am raising my children to respect all people and assess situations on a case-by-case basis rather than react blindly to anyone's prejudices. I would not send my children to any organisation that conveyed messages to the effect that "blacks are evil" or "women are fit only to cook and bear children" - such blatant bigotry is abhorrent to me.

Likewise, the bigotry against males in the seating policy is abhorrent to me and I would not ever send my children by your airline.

Were I to approach a stranger in the street and call him a child molester, I would expect that he would be mortally offended and I would not be surprised if he pressed defamation charges against me.

Were I to approach a woman and inform her she could not be somewhere or do something because she was female I would expect both her anger and swift retribution under the Human Rights Act.

The seating policy is no significant way different from those scenarios.

Approaching a stranger on a plane, solely because he is male, and telling him he must vacate his seat lest he molest a child in a crowded airplane is discriminatory, defamatory and downright insulting.

If I were on a plane and asked to vacate my seat because an unaccompanied child was going to be sitting there I would be mortally offended at the insult to my integrity - even more so if some random woman were moved into my seat because the sexist policy of the airline deems her "safe" and me a "potential rapist".

The world has had enough bigotry and hate-mongering directed at visibly identifiable groups over the centuries without it being enshrined in corporate policy.

You may be assured that when I next have need to travel by plane I will not be using Air New Zealand or Qantas as I have a few "policies" of my own - including not supporting bigotry in any form.

I suggest that the airline needs to look at other ways of ensuring children are safe on flights - ways that do not involve making sexist decisions and conveying the message that one sex is better or worse than the other.

[ducatilover]

thats telling them...go hard dude

[Wolf]

email from Qantas:

Dear Mr xxxxxx,

Thank you for your feedback.

Your reference number is xxxxxx-xxxxxx.

A consultant will be in contact with you shortly. All feedback is recorded and used in our ongoing review of products and customer service.

A consultant will contact me? And what assistance will (s)he be able to offer?

[ducatilover]

what the f**k? consultant? all they do is go "mmhmm yes mmmm okay uh-huh right, mmm yes, judgeing from this we can ignore you?"

[MikeL]

Child Safety - great, I'm all for that, but not at the cost of civil rights.

This is the nub of the problem. It's part of the eternal debate over where to draw the line. You can't talk of "civil rights" as if they were something absolute. I'm not convinced that the actions of airline staff in this instance, however insensitive or clumsy, could be construed as an infringement of any "right". If considerations of "political correctness" and personal grievance were removed from the equation, wouldn't the airlines' policy be seen as a sensible compromise? How many men I wonder, suffered the same treatment and simply shrugged their shoulders and got on with their flight, and their lives?

[Wolf]

And now I have received an email from a woman at Qantas informing me that my email has been passed onto Customer Care for their review - this tells me that so far Qantas have not only sent an automated reply (above) but someone has actually read it and decided which division it needs to be sent to.

Air New Zealand, OTOH, has not even got an automated response system set up to answer "customer enquiries" and no one has yet responded to me to acknowledge they have even looked at my email - and I sent the email to Air NZ some five minutes earlier than the copy I sent to Qantas.
The slack response to customer enquiries at Air NZ (not even an automated "Dear [Insert Name From Enquiry Form] your email has arrived, please wait, you are valued, blah blah") is another reason not to use their services.

Mind you, they may yet respond faster than the office of the Commissioner for Children - I still haven't received acknowledgement of receipt of the email I sent to Cindy Kiro yesterday.

It will be interesting to see what Qantas says to justify their bigotry.

[James Deuce]

No reply from the office of the Commissioner for Children here either.

[Hitcher]

It is events like this that make me nervous to admit to being a man. But hey, I know I'm a man and I'm glad that I am (and so's Lola)...

This whole matter is so stupid on so many levels that it beggars belief.

If one was to compile a "Top 10 risks for children travelling" it is debatable as to whether "being fiddled with in transit" would rate a mention or indeed even rate on a Top 20 list of clear and present dangers.

Airlines who impose such policies are clearly more interested in protecting themselves than children in their care. Their responses in relation to this matter reinforce this view.

[Wolf]

This is the nub of the problem. It's part of the eternal debate over where to draw the line. You can't talk of "civil rights" as if they were something absolute. I'm not convinced that the actions of airline staff in this instance, however insensitive or clumsy, could be construed as an infringement of any "right".

In the past, when people have made prejudicial and arbitrary decisions about coloured people, women and other readily identifiable sectors of our community, the furore has been strong and all sorts of wrath has descended upon the perpetrators.

It is my right, and everyone else's, not to be treated as if we were criminals or treated differently to other people on the basis of some label.

The man had the right to the seat he was in - he had paid for his ticket, been allocated a seat number. Then he was told to move because an unaccompanied child had been allocated an adjoining seat and he, as a male was considered "too risky", then (because there were no available empty seats to move the man to) they split up a couple travelling together as they deemed that the woman was a "safe" travelling companion for the child (for all they know she could have had a history of abuse - they had no means to check any more than they had means to check whether or not the bloke was a safe travelling companion.)

They based this game of musical chairs on the premise that women are safe around children, men are not. They moved him from the seat he was originally allocated because he was a male - not because he in any way behaved in a threatening or dangerous fashion. If they had inadvertently allocated the seat to a woman who, unbeknownst to them, had 15 priors for child abuse, they would have left her where she was.

Fair enough moving someone whose behaviour is unacceptable - anyone, male or female - but to look at an external appearance (yep, he's a he) and base your actions on that is discrimination - no matter what the "reason" or the policy. There is no difference between that and hastily removing your kids from an area because there's some negro sitting on a nearby bench reading a newspaper - both actions are based on an erroneous preconceived notion.

To write a policy that states that one sex is safe and another not is no different than the drafted laws of Apartheid that decreed that non-whites and blacks were not allowed in certain areas - and they got rid of Apartheid.

If considerations of "political correctness" and personal grievance were removed from the equation, wouldn't the airlines' policy be seen as a sensible compromise?

The airline's policy is that women are safe travelling companions for children, men are not. That can never be a "sensible" compromise.

Fair enough their policy on keeping unaccompanied children away from adults where possible (Beemer and her hubby would certainly not complain) but to say that if that's not possible then make a judgement based solely on the sex of the person is crossing the line into discrimination.

The companies concerned no doubt have specific policies written to ensure everything they do does not discriminate against women and "other races" and physically/mentally handicapped people etc and they would never think of drafting a policy to move a person to another seat because of their skin colour. They should not be allowed to write policies that specifically say to move a person based on their sex (not that they would write such a policy against women because that would directly conflict with their no-discrimination-against-women policies.)

If the policy said don't put kids near adults where possible but if it can't be avoided then "Oh, well, tough shit" I would deem it a sensible compromise. The minute they started targeting one group over another, they crossed the line.

You could still point to the violent minority of every race on this planet and "justify" a policy that disadvantages them all in order to protect yourself or others from that minority; you could point to the (minority) of women who abuse children and deem all women to be unsafe travelling companions - these actions would also be inappropriate.

What the airlines did was to latch on to the risk from the minority of men and deemed all men a risk then ignored the risk from the minority of women and deemed all women safe.

[Marmoot]

I missed yesterday's herald but I wrote to the editor about suggesting women and children to wear veil like they do in middle east. Anyone saw this in the Letters To Editor?

I want to know if my letter went on air