Uniting the political spectrum
November 30th, 2005 at 6:32 am by David FarrarAir NZ and Qantas have managed the near impossible – uniting the politicial spectrum to declare they are a bunch of idiots.
Not only do you have the Greens and National both declaring how stupid it is to ban men being seated next to children on flights, one has offended men and women almost equally. The number of women who have declared that just because they have ovaries doesn’t mean they should have to be landed with kids next to them is matched by the men who really are rather offended at the suggestion they are unsafe.
Keith Locke hs referred the issue to the Human Rights Commission, and it wil be interesting to hear their response. Hopefully more sensible than the Children’s Commissioner.
The NZ Herald has a round-up of reader reaction and it is 90% negative. NZPA also has reaction from others.
Related posts:
- Across the political spectrum
- A good Green bill
- Political Spectrum Quiz
- Times Political Spectrum Test
November 30th, 2005 at 8:08 am
I can’t believe I’m typing this but Keith Locke has done a great thing.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:09 am
I think it’s been asked, but I’d actually like it answered:
If the airlines had a policy of not seating unaccompanied minors next to homosexuals or Maori, would anyone be publically defending them?
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Graeme, how do you know someone is a homosexual? And what does it matter? If Tony Brown (the ex Otago Rugby player and Maori All Black) sat next to a child you wouldn’t know he was Maori.
I don’t get your point.
And, only 90% of Herald respondents were negative. Shows 10% of the population is nuts.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:32 am
Is Mark Worsley the new Rosa Parkes?
Let the revolution start now!
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:45 am
It would have been interesting to see the Herald readers responses if the poor kid had been allocated a seat next to David Benson-Pope…
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Shiloh – LOL, very good.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 9:01 am
How unlike the Herald to sensationalize the unsensational, and how unlike NZ to have a fact free discussion about the ravings of one angry man. I wouldn’t want to sit next to him either, sounds like a right whining fuckwit, and he probably shat the air hostess off enough to have made this hardly shocking revelation that airlines have policy about where they seat people that isn’t dictated by anyone but themselves.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 9:07 am
Whilst I agree with the opposition to this policy in principle I would suggest that for pragmatic reasons opposition should be muted:
Vote:1. No-one wants screaming snotties beside you anyway
2. No snot can accuse innocent blokes of being kiddie fiddlers – an accusation that is akin to being accused of witchcraft in the middle ages.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:32 am
Sounds fair and reasonable to me…in the same vein Qantas won’t mind if I make an informed decision to use Singair from now on due to the small but existing risk from Qantas’s large number of male hosties some of whom are presumably HIV positive.
Vote:The virus has occasionally been detected in saliva and while the risk is small I choose not to take it any longer.
Scaremongering? Nah. About the same risk as all males being potential paedophiles intent on molesting the kid in the next seat and just as insulting
November 30th, 2005 at 10:52 am
I personally support the policy because I don’t want to sit next to a snotty nosed child.
Besides which, I think its a disgrace that children are allowed to fly unaccompanied on flights. Where are their parents? And why are they neglecting their duties in looking after their children?
If a child gets molested on a plane, then the parents are to blame for letting their child fly alone.
Airlines have always been weird, and love to get all moral about things – like arresting people for saying the word ‘bomb’, tellng people to turn off their phones cause it interferes with the navigational equipment (what garbage that is), confiscating peoples nail clippers, regulating what shoes you can wear, telling you put your tray table up for no apparent reason, delaying flights for ‘technical’ reasons when the reality is they just don’t have enough passengers to justify flying..)
I could go on.
Scott.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:05 am
“Besides which, I think its a disgrace that children are allowed to fly unaccompanied on flights. Where are their parents? And why are they neglecting their duties in looking after their children?”
Lordie, what an ignorant statement that one is. Hey Scott, ever heard of divorce? Ever heard of divorced parents living in different countries? Ever heard of children travelling to stay with another parent? Or do you live in a world where only those rich enough to afford to fly around the world at a whim are allowed children?
What an arsehole…
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:15 am
Carudo, how sure are you that Singair doesn’t have exactly the same policy, but more discreet staff?
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:21 am
According to the airlines’ logic, if the All Blacks occupy all but one seat of first class and an unaccompanied child occupies the last seat, then the All Blacks will be moved to business class. Hmmmm.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:27 am
No certainties in life Ben, I’d be playing the odds as usual.
Vote:Much cultural correctness in Asia but bugger all political correctness, I find.
November 30th, 2005 at 11:28 am
New word time: Worsley – self important complainer.
Isn’t it a bit PC to be defending this guy’s dignity?
And Rosa Parks… gimme a break. She was rebelling against generations of racial discrimination.
This guy gets peeved he’s asked to give up his window seat. A year ago. If he’s our time’s Rosa Parkes, that doesn’t say much for us.
And 90%? Sounds like Sturgeon’s Law.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Ilew said: “If he’s our time’s Rosa Parkes, that doesn’t say much for us.”
On the contrary, if he’s our Rosa Parks it would show how incredibly far our society has advanced in terms of inclusiveness and freedom – if this is the biggest fight left we’ve come a very long way.
Not that I think he is or anything (and I thought the anti-PC brigade were trumpetting Josie Bullock as the new Rosa Parks), but if she were it would say great things about NZ.
It’d be nice if people would lay of this guy though – he’s just a guy who was asked to move, was a little miffed about it at the time, and a year later when he heard there was someone important trying to eradicate political correctness he flicked him an e-mail with his story. When called up by the media he said he’d be happy to talk, but this guy isn’t a self-important complainer, just someone who thought “well if you’re getting rid of political correctness, Wayne Mapp, here’s something to add to the list”.
He didn’t take it to the media – Wayne Mapp did; he didn’t take it to the Human Rights Commission – Keith Locke did.
And if the post-script to Wayne Mapp’s weekly e-mail newsletter is going to get this much coverage each week then the positioning of him as PC eradicator is definitely going to have been worth it.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:51 am
“if this is the biggest fight left we’ve come a very long way”
Hah yes, that’s true. But I think it is far more PC to be putting this guy’s bruised dignity ahead any risk, however tiny, to a minor. Do we have to pussy foot around men now as well?
It’s the snake eating itself.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Err –
Yeah, not really very nice when the assumptions get too close to home is it?
Ilew –
Perhaps you need to read some history, Back in the day Rosa Parks was just another uppity nigger who needed to shut up and remember her place, because segragation was the Southern way of doing things and they didn’t need any damn Northern Jew-Commies criticising.
GPT -
Interesting argument. Perhaps the best way to avoid any possibility of a false allegation of sexual abuse – or having to deal with homophobic parents – is to just throw my application to retrain as a teacher in the bin. Now, why should I do that again?
Ben -
If you want to go on about “fact-free discussion”, could you remind me if Qantas has offered any substantial justification for this policy beyond “we believe that’s what customers want”. That’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Want to produce some logical argument supported by evidence – any
Vote:evidence – that there’s any rational grounds for presuming men are an intrinsic and unacceptable risk to unaccompanied minors on an airplane? I’ve been hearing a lot of emotive blather from supporters, but not a lot of rational justification. Helen Lovejoy – with her cries of “think about the children” inevitably leading to disaster – is hilarious on the Simpsons. Her real-world counterparts aren’t funny at all.
November 30th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Err –
Yeah, not really very nice when the assumptions get too close to home is it?
Ilew –
Perhaps you need to read some history, Back in the day Rosa Parks was just another uppity nigger who needed to shut up and remember her place, because segragation was the Southern way of doing things and they didn’t need any damn Northern Jew-Commies criticising.
GPT -
Interesting argument. Perhaps the best way to avoid any possibility of a false allegation of sexual abuse – or having to deal with homophobic parents – is to just throw my application to retrain as a teacher in the bin. Now, why should I do that again?
Ben -
If you want to go on about “fact-free discussion”, could you remind me if Qantas has offered any substantial justification for this policy beyond “we believe that’s what customers want”. That’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Want to produce some logical argument supported by evidence – any
Vote:evidence – that there’s any rational grounds for presuming men are an intrinsic and unacceptable risk to unaccompanied minors on an airplane? I’ve been hearing a lot of emotive blather from supporters, but not a lot of rational justification. Helen Lovejoy – with her cries of “think about the children” inevitably leading to disaster – is hilarious on the Simpsons. Her real-world counterparts aren’t funny at all.
November 30th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Maybe Air NZ has been in contact with the Pope as regards ways of determinng peoples’ hidden tendancies and therefore risk.
The Independent reports – “The Vatican published its long-awaited document on gays in the priesthood today, affirming that men with “deep-seated” gay tendencies should not be ordained, but that those with “transitory” tendencies could be if they had overcome them for three years.”
Maybe if one is judgeed to be “deap seated” then that could translate to a minimum of 10 seat spaces, whereas “tranistory” is of concern only in the transit lounges.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Craig – fascinating, you seem to be attempting to make a point about making assumptions by… making an assumption? Nice!
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Craig, I think the answer to your question is that Qantas are demonstrating the admirable quality of ‘knowing when to shut up’. This storm in a teacup will probably simmer down all the sooner if they don’t respond to anything and it just continues to waffle around in fact free land, letting everyone get their pet peeves off their chests.
Yours is getting bitter on people getting bitter on gays, and you’re pumping that one into this debate where it wasn’t wanted or needed. Mine is sitting next to fat people, which is equally not wanted or needed. I actually wish it was airline policy to have seats allocated by size, since I get sore knees every flight longer than 2 hours from them being pressed hard against the seat in front. But that would be ‘offensive to skinny short people’.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
It’s odd that not one of the posts on this issue come from the perspective of an abused person. Perhaps no-one wants to own up. I don’t either – the abuse I suffered as a child was done by a close family member, and none of my family know about it. It would cause too much grief to expose it now. I have one sister, she was also abused, but by a totally different person who never met my abuser, who was also related and well-known. So when people quote “1 in 4 girls” being abused, well it’s 100% in my family.
Now I have my own daughters, and I know for a fact that there is nothing I can do to keep them completely safe. But I would definitely do whatever I could. And if that means trampling on a few male sensibilities, well too bad. My daughters’ health, well-being and futures are more important than a trampled ego.
Another experience: many years ago now, I was on the all-night train from Wellington to Auckland. I had a sleeping bag, which I put over me, and went to sleep. I woke up in the middle of the night to find that the male passenger next to me had slipped his hand under my sleeping bag, under my clothes, and didn’t end up going much further cos he figured out that I had woken up & withdrew it. I’ve never reported it, was too embarassed. Children are so much more vulnerable, especially when the molester threatens them or convinces them that it’s the child’s own fault.
Don’t tell me this kind of thing has never or could never happen on a plane. You can talk all you like about changing the word “men” for “Maori”, or talk about “Muslim terrorists”, but as a mother and an abused person, it doesn’t matter. Call me hysterical or paranoid or whatever. But I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end, and I totally support the airline’s policy.
Incidentally, my kids walk home from school, though I usually drop them in the morning (less people around at that time).
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Interesting perspective. I agree what is lacking here is the perspective of the child. Who would they rather be sitting next to?
I put it to you the airlines policy descends mostly from the answer to that question.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
So to those males who are complaining about this being raised If I accuse you of maybe being a kiddy fiddler then your not going to get upset with me.Because the bottom line is thats what happened.Come on. Tell me.Im waiting.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Incidentally, we’ve had bored housewives/stay-at-home mums, university academics, feminazis, the left, the right, legal departments and PC gone mad being blamed for the airlines’ policy. How come no-one is considering that abused men/women might have advocated for it?
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Abused – so your logic then is that say victims of terrorist attacks should be able to demand that Muslims are not allowed to fly, or if so only in special seats away from other passengers they might stab?
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
abused, that’s a hard post to respond to. Your views are understandable for clear and obvious reasons. But, and this is where I risk treading on toes, I don’t think enforced segregation of children from men as a whole is any kind of answer, in any circumstance. Not for the sake of male sensibilities, but for the good of society as a whole.
I cannot see how it can be healthy for children to grow up seeing adult males as the de facto bad guys, or for adult males to have to be more concerned about their reputation than the wellbeing of a child. Thinking back to my youth, a large number of the people who were extremely influential on my thinking and attitude to the world around me were male, and I am very thankful to those people for the time they gave me and the insight I gained from it. My life would have been a lesser and darker place had they been pushed away by fear of appearing somehow corrupt because they spent time talking to children.
So, a difficult question: Statistically it is fairly clear that having men around your children presents a higher risk of abuse than keeping them entirely at arms length. But is it worth the other, less statistically visible damage that could be done to a life by pushing away all the positive things that could be offered to a child by a full half of the population?
These kind of policies do just that. They send the message to men very clearly that they’re not wanted around children. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I have been a school teacher in the past and there are essentially three reasons why I’m not now. Two of them are about money and working conditions (which are invariably better in the private sector), but the other is this very issue. As a parent you must also value quality teaching, and it’s simple reality in my view that making these kind of assumptions about men really just reduces the inclination for men to teach at anything below tertiary level.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
“Because the bottom line is thats what happened”
gd, that’s stupid. They asked him to move seats, they didn’t accuse him of being a “kiddy fiddler”
They told him their policy & I for one, am happy with that policy.
They found him another seat. I just don’t see his problem.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
“Abused – so your logic then is that say victims of terrorist attacks should be able to demand that Muslims are not allowed to fly, or if so only in special seats away from other passengers they might stab?”
David sweetie, calm down a little and think. Victims of terrorist attacks would include victims of Basque “separatists”, Nepalese Maoist “rebels”, the Tamil Tigers, the Russian army, prisoner in Abu Ghraib/Bagram/Guantanamo Bay, the Canadian fellow who was sent by the CIA to Syria to be tortured (who was not the only one to have this kind of thing happen by a long shot), the victims of white phosphorous attacks & cluster bombs etc etc etc. Is stopping a Muslim getting onto a plane going to lessen the number of these victims? I don’t think so. Do Muslims go about stabbing people on planes? Not so. Are Muslims the only ones to hijack planes? Uh-uh.
But let’s take your premise as true: that all terrorists are Muslims, and every other killing of innocent civilians by any other persons/ groups/armies is just collateral damage, and quite ok. Even then, keeping people safe from Muslim terrorists in planes would be achieved by having effective security before you get on a plane. Which, post 9/11, we have to a much greater extent. Now you can’t even take a nail cutter on to a plane so how exactly can your Muslim terrorist stab anyone? Therefore, once you have gone through a stringent security process before boarding, where you actually sit on the plane is not going to affect anyone’s safety.
Now, will getting males to sit somewhere else lower the risk to children? Yes it will. There is no doubt about that. The questions are: how big is the risk, and as a society is he cost of such a policy worth it? Well, my feeling is that since the potential is definitely there, and the results of abuse are devastating for the victims, that there is enough of a risk factor to justify the policy. You may disagree, fine. But you don’t have to suffer the consequences darling, and if some male/female tries to molest you, I’m sure that you will be well able to deal with the situation.
The next question is whether it’s worth it. Err, I do take your point about the wider societal effects of keeping males away from children. The answer, I believe, is to create a safe space for that interaction to occur. For me, safety comes first. So, for example, schools need to work at providing structures/ processes/policies/whatever for that interaction to be safe, both for the child and for the male teacher (ie so that he is safe from false accusations). The fact that males are leaving the teaching profession means that the schools or we as a society have not been prepared to work hard enough to create that safety in a way that the male teachers and the parents of children feel comfortable with. Which is sad and definitely needs to be addressed.
But when it comes to airlines, well again I would say safety first. Let the kids get their positive interaction with males at some other time in a safer space. Again, I do agree that as a society, we need to make sure that we make the effort to provide that space somewhere else.
And finally, I can’t resist responding to the person on this blog who said that, aside from sportsmen, there are no other positive male role models: WHAT? Are you saying Dr Brash is not a positive role model for you? Shame on you, and on a right-wing blog too! What about Gerry Brownlee? Bill English? Nothing positive there? Well I would agree with that, but didn’t think you wingers would…
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
“So, for example, schools need to work at providing structures/ processes/policies/whatever for that interaction to be safe, both for the child and for the male teacher (ie so that he is safe from false accusations). The fact that males are leaving the teaching profession means that the schools or we as a society have not been prepared to work hard enough to create that safety in a way that the male teachers and the parents of children feel comfortable with. Which is sad and definitely needs to be addressed.”
That’s easy to say, but how do you actually do it?
“Safe” equates to “Trustworthy” – a system you can trust not to fail. If you want to get a handle on just how complex it is to build properly trustworthy systems and structures, I suggest you do some reading on computer security. Quite simply, trust is an either/or concern – something is either entirely trustworthy or it is not entirely trustworthy. Generally speaking, people are not objectively trustworthy. Therefore suggesting that, regardless of how charged the social atmosphere is, male teachers can ever be considered “safe” from false accusations and regardless of how determined an abuser is a child can always be “safe” from abuse… well, that’s one mean system you’d have to build. The only thing I could think that would do that would be constant and complete CCTV coverage, with recordings. That wouldn’t necessarily prevent false accusations or abuse either, it would just assist in verifying after the fact.
And even if you built such a system, what man would ever want to take a job as a teacher with it in place? Teaching is enough of a labour of love that it’s hard to justify doing it for objective reasons. Quite simply, somebody with the skill set to be a great teacher likely also has the skill set to earn considerably more working in the private sector, either in adult training or in a customer facing/sales role. So they take teaching because they want to be doing it. Shove cameras on them every second of the day (or similar systems of constant observation like forced full-time pairing up of teachers, etc) and you add yet another disincentive to a job that already has long hours, hard work and a whole lot of stress combined with fairly lacklustre pay structures. Add to that feeling like you’re being watched more intensively than the average prisoner in a maximum-security jail and I think you’ll find school teachers fleeing to tertiary and private sector positions as fast as their feet will carry them.
There’s really no easy, quick-fix solution to this particular conundrum. But ultimately it’s still the same one everywhere when it comes to actions of individuals vs the groups those individuals belong to – if I see my house getting burgled by Maori and so does my friend, am I justified in automatically treating all Maori as criminals? Real world example, as I have seen my house getting burgled by a man of Maori origin, likewise a friend has. And Maori are clearly heavily represented in crime statistics. So in theory you could reduce crime levels simply by instructing police to spend their days following Black Fellas around waiting for them to commit a crime. But treating Maori in general as criminals is simply discriminatory and wrong, and serves nobody because of the divisive and ugly message it puts out into our community.
I don’t see that extending this kind of treatment to men in general over the paedophilia issue is going to be any better for us all in the long term.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
Abused:
Abuse is abuse and while your story is sad and something I would wish upon nobody I can equally share you my story of being abused by a female teacher.
If the reason the Qantas and Air NZ has formulated this policy to protect children then fine but let makes sure that they are truely safe and simply make sure that the area where children travelling alone sit have no adults except for airline staff sitting there.
Until then this policy is wrong as I can honestly say that from my experience I would rather my children sitting next to a man over a women any day of the week as.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
I now have a clearer appreciation of the reasons for the Gentlemen’s Clubs of earlier times in the UK. Men were able to settle to their leisure in happily compatible surroundings replete with their favourite tipple, snooker and billiards and not a bloody woman or child in sight, and for as long as they wanted. This is the solution – Men Only flights with sports and boxing for entertainment, plenty of booze and nude hostesses.
The world could certainly be a better place.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
> Who would they rather be sitting next to?
Probably someone cool – like an astronaught or maybe a fotball player. I doubt they would be considering the potential for the person to abuse them. Maybe they are the rasonable ones.
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:12 pm
Why does the National Party believe the state should tell privately owned airlines how they should allocate their seats?
Would the National Party support the state banning golf tournaments for married people?
This is a very simple point – I find the airline policy to be offensive, but I don’t want the airline to be threatened by force to change it – because it wont change attitudes. This issue is one for debating in society – people need to discuss why the fear of children sitting beside men exists, how rational it is and why the airlines have done this?
The airlines are not being vengeful – they are reflecting a widespread public opinion.
I expect the Greens to call for the state to ban anything they don’t like, but why does the National Party?
Vote:November 30th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
By the way, Cathay Pacific also has this policy, as do BA and United – this forum has a lengthy discussion about the issue.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2460852/
Vote:December 1st, 2005 at 12:22 am
Libertyscott:
I actually agree with you, on principle, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the New Zealand Government actually happens to be a fairly substantial shareholder in Air NZ and, through Parliamentary Services, puts a lot of public money into it’s bottom line.
Before anyone jumps down my neck, I’m perfectly well aware that it would be grossly improper – in fact, downright unlawful – for the shareholding ministers to direct Air NZ to drop the policy. But I think any shareholder has the right to say, “excuse me, but what the hell are you doing and why?” And Parliamentarians should be able to vote with their wallets like everyone else.
FWIW, my partner and I have a family wedding to attend in Sydney next year and will be going on to England for a few weeks if the budget holds out. If Qantas wants to rationalise this nonsense by saying “it’s what customers want”, then they’re going to learn there are two who want no such thing, and will be placing their business accordingly. (As a sidebar, do you think an airline whose new CEO is hinting at another round of cost-cutting layoffs in the new year might take a look at the PR side of the business?)
Vote:December 1st, 2005 at 1:30 am
Craig I agree – the main shareholder has the right to ask the question.
You and your partner, as consumers, can exercise the right to not fly on airlines that explicitly have this policy – and you are right, Air NZ may think it wise to revise this policy in light of the noise. There have been no press releases on this so far from either airline.
Vote: