ShyGuyInChicago
August 30th, 2010, 04:22 PM
British Airways, Air New Zealand, and Qantas have such policies.
Is this right?
Is this a form of discrimination?
Is this just a misguided policy, that will do little to prevent child sexual abuse? Does it ignore the fact that there also women who abuse children?
Does it treat all men as potential sexual abusers?
Will it prevent children from being befriended by and then kidnapped/abducted by potential child molesters?
Three airlines, British Airways, Qantas and Air New Zealand, have attracted criticism for controversial seating policies which discriminate against adult male passengers on the basis of their gender.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 British Airways
* 2 Qantas and Air New Zealand
* 3 See also
* 4 References
In March 2001, it was revealed that British Airways has a policy of not seating adult male passengers next to unaccompanied children, even if the child's parents are elsewhere on the plane. This led to accusations that the airline considers all men to be potential paedophiles and women to be incapable of such abuse. The issue was first raised when a business executive had moved seats to be closer to two of his colleagues. A flight attendant then asked him to move because he was then sitting next to two unaccompanied children which was a breach of BA company policy. The executive, a head hunter, said he felt humiliated as a result, stating "I felt I was being singled out and that I was being accused of something." British Airways admitted that staff were under instructions to keep men away from unaccompanied children whenever possible because of the dangers of male paedophiles.[1]
This issue again came to prominence in 2005 following complaints by Michael Kemp who had been instructed to swap seats with his wife when on a GB Airways flight. The flight attendant informed him that for an adult male stranger to be sitting next to a child was a breach of the airline's child welfare regulations. This case was arguably even more notable than other cases as the girl's parents were in fact on board the flight but such a policy still applied. Michele Elliot, director of the children's charity Kidscape stated that the rule "is utterly absurd. It brands all men as potential sex offenders."[2]
The most high profile victim of the policy was politician (and now London Mayor) Boris Johnson, who criticised the company after they mistakenly attempted to separate him from his own children on a flight. He stated that those who create or defend such policies "fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority," linking such discrimination to the reduced number of male teachers and therefore lower achievement in schools. Like others, Johnson also raised the policy's flaw in ignoring female abusers and branded airlines with such policies as "cowardly" for giving in to "loony hysteria."[3]
British Airways defended the policy, stating it had been implemented as a result of requests from customers. The company claimed that it "was responding to a fear of sexual assaults."[1]
In January 2010 businessman Mirko Fischer from Luxembourg sued the airline for sex discrimination following an incident where he was forced to change seats as a result of the policy, thus separating him from his pregnant wife. Fischer stated "I was made to feel like a criminal in front of other passengers. It was totally humiliating."[4] On 24th June 2010, Mr Fischer was successful in winning compensation from British Airways with the company admitting sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case. BA paid £2,161 in costs and £750 in damages which Fischer donated to child protection charities. BA said that the "policy was now under review". [5]. In August of 2010, British Airways changed its policy and began seating unaccompanied minors in a nondiscrminatory manner near the cabin crew.
[edit] Qantas and Air New Zealand
In November 2005, it was revealed that Qantas and Air New Zealand have seating policies similar to that of British Airways. The policy came to light following an incident in 2004 when Mark Wolsay, who was seated next to a young boy on a Qantas flight in New Zealand, was asked to change seats with a female passenger. A steward informed him that "it was the airline's policy that only women were allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children". [5]
Mr. Wolsay, a shipping manager, stated he felt the policy "totally discriminatory", and the New Zealand Herald suggested to the airline that the implication of the policy was that "it considered male passengers to be dangerous to children". New Zealand's Green Party stated that the policy was discriminatory and reported the matter to the Human Rights Commissioner.[6]
On learning of the policies several protests occurred including a 22 hour tree top protest by double amputee Kevin Gill in Nelson. He stated that the policy could be the thin end of a wedge with men soon banned from sitting next to children at sports events and on other forms of public transport. Gill also raised the issue of what would happen if the policy had been race based and targeted ethnic minorities rather than men.[7]
The publicity given to the issue in 2005 caused other victims of the policy to publicly describe their experiences. For example, Bethlehem fire officer Philip Price revealed he had been forced to switch seats in 2002 on an Air New Zealand flight to Christchurch.[8]
Cameron Murphy, president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, criticised the policy and stated that "there was no basis for the ban". He said it was wrong to assume that all adult males pose a danger to children.[6] The policy has also been criticised for failing to take female abusers into consideration as well as ignoring instances of children who commit sex offences. [9] As with the British Airways case some critics made the link between such policies and wider problems in society such as the shortage of male teachers. [10]
Some have defended the policy however, with NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People Gillian Calvert stating that there were more male sex offenders than female and thus "in the absence of any other test, it's one way in which the airline can reduce the risk of children travelling alone". She believes that the likelihood of an attack was rare but not impossible claiming "it's only a few men who do this sort of stuff, but when they do it they diminish all men". Air New Zealand spokesman David Jamieson said the company had no intention of reviewing the policy and admitted that it had been in place for many years.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_sex_discrimination_policy_controversy
Is this right?
Is this a form of discrimination?
Is this just a misguided policy, that will do little to prevent child sexual abuse? Does it ignore the fact that there also women who abuse children?
Does it treat all men as potential sexual abusers?
Will it prevent children from being befriended by and then kidnapped/abducted by potential child molesters?
Three airlines, British Airways, Qantas and Air New Zealand, have attracted criticism for controversial seating policies which discriminate against adult male passengers on the basis of their gender.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 British Airways
* 2 Qantas and Air New Zealand
* 3 See also
* 4 References
In March 2001, it was revealed that British Airways has a policy of not seating adult male passengers next to unaccompanied children, even if the child's parents are elsewhere on the plane. This led to accusations that the airline considers all men to be potential paedophiles and women to be incapable of such abuse. The issue was first raised when a business executive had moved seats to be closer to two of his colleagues. A flight attendant then asked him to move because he was then sitting next to two unaccompanied children which was a breach of BA company policy. The executive, a head hunter, said he felt humiliated as a result, stating "I felt I was being singled out and that I was being accused of something." British Airways admitted that staff were under instructions to keep men away from unaccompanied children whenever possible because of the dangers of male paedophiles.[1]
This issue again came to prominence in 2005 following complaints by Michael Kemp who had been instructed to swap seats with his wife when on a GB Airways flight. The flight attendant informed him that for an adult male stranger to be sitting next to a child was a breach of the airline's child welfare regulations. This case was arguably even more notable than other cases as the girl's parents were in fact on board the flight but such a policy still applied. Michele Elliot, director of the children's charity Kidscape stated that the rule "is utterly absurd. It brands all men as potential sex offenders."[2]
The most high profile victim of the policy was politician (and now London Mayor) Boris Johnson, who criticised the company after they mistakenly attempted to separate him from his own children on a flight. He stated that those who create or defend such policies "fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority," linking such discrimination to the reduced number of male teachers and therefore lower achievement in schools. Like others, Johnson also raised the policy's flaw in ignoring female abusers and branded airlines with such policies as "cowardly" for giving in to "loony hysteria."[3]
British Airways defended the policy, stating it had been implemented as a result of requests from customers. The company claimed that it "was responding to a fear of sexual assaults."[1]
In January 2010 businessman Mirko Fischer from Luxembourg sued the airline for sex discrimination following an incident where he was forced to change seats as a result of the policy, thus separating him from his pregnant wife. Fischer stated "I was made to feel like a criminal in front of other passengers. It was totally humiliating."[4] On 24th June 2010, Mr Fischer was successful in winning compensation from British Airways with the company admitting sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case. BA paid £2,161 in costs and £750 in damages which Fischer donated to child protection charities. BA said that the "policy was now under review". [5]. In August of 2010, British Airways changed its policy and began seating unaccompanied minors in a nondiscrminatory manner near the cabin crew.
[edit] Qantas and Air New Zealand
In November 2005, it was revealed that Qantas and Air New Zealand have seating policies similar to that of British Airways. The policy came to light following an incident in 2004 when Mark Wolsay, who was seated next to a young boy on a Qantas flight in New Zealand, was asked to change seats with a female passenger. A steward informed him that "it was the airline's policy that only women were allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children". [5]
Mr. Wolsay, a shipping manager, stated he felt the policy "totally discriminatory", and the New Zealand Herald suggested to the airline that the implication of the policy was that "it considered male passengers to be dangerous to children". New Zealand's Green Party stated that the policy was discriminatory and reported the matter to the Human Rights Commissioner.[6]
On learning of the policies several protests occurred including a 22 hour tree top protest by double amputee Kevin Gill in Nelson. He stated that the policy could be the thin end of a wedge with men soon banned from sitting next to children at sports events and on other forms of public transport. Gill also raised the issue of what would happen if the policy had been race based and targeted ethnic minorities rather than men.[7]
The publicity given to the issue in 2005 caused other victims of the policy to publicly describe their experiences. For example, Bethlehem fire officer Philip Price revealed he had been forced to switch seats in 2002 on an Air New Zealand flight to Christchurch.[8]
Cameron Murphy, president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, criticised the policy and stated that "there was no basis for the ban". He said it was wrong to assume that all adult males pose a danger to children.[6] The policy has also been criticised for failing to take female abusers into consideration as well as ignoring instances of children who commit sex offences. [9] As with the British Airways case some critics made the link between such policies and wider problems in society such as the shortage of male teachers. [10]
Some have defended the policy however, with NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People Gillian Calvert stating that there were more male sex offenders than female and thus "in the absence of any other test, it's one way in which the airline can reduce the risk of children travelling alone". She believes that the likelihood of an attack was rare but not impossible claiming "it's only a few men who do this sort of stuff, but when they do it they diminish all men". Air New Zealand spokesman David Jamieson said the company had no intention of reviewing the policy and admitted that it had been in place for many years.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_sex_discrimination_policy_controversy