Qatar disgrace

[Troo believer]

You won’t believe this. Made feel sick.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-25/passengers-invasively-searched-qatar-after-report-foetus-found/12811716

[PoppaJo]

Fairly disturbing, Qatari authorities or Qatar Airways payroll staff?

[Come in spinner]

I agree
a disgrace if true.
but do will still believe the media?

[hoss]

Another reason to avoid the Sh1+hole region of the world.

[Troo believer]

Another reason to avoid the Sh1+hole region of the world.

https://youtu.be/3nI-922X1Ek

[WAGM]

The Australian Government should simply ban the airline, and any other government alined airline with similar human right abuses, from our country.
This would probably also involve all Middle Eastern and Chinese airlines and that's not going to happen, so we will continue to turn a blind eye.

[On eyre]

Well it was the ABC after all - let’s get the facts first please.

[kghjfg]

If you go to these places, you have to accept their culture and how they act.

[Wunwing]

The facts appear to be correct. Qatar has every right to correct the story but so far don't appear to have even commented. Since the Qatar. Govt own both the airline and the airport then it is the Qatar Govts problem.

To a degree its also the Australian Govts problem. They have allowed Qantas who holds an RPT authority, to suspend international services, forcing desperate Australians to use any airline available.

The Australian Govt can respond by informing Qatar that they will not be renewing any bilateral aviation rights with Qatar.

Wunwing.

[wheels_down]

Akbar has been chasing extra rights here for a while now, and has been pushing more recently with some permanent withdrawals from Etihad and Emirates this year.

Give him nothing. If even go as far as cutting back what he has or even suspending his rights completely.

I don’t think it would be any great loss cutting ties with the state. Do we even conduct any meaningful trade with them?

[Wizofoz]

Well it was the ABC after all - let’s get the facts first please.

As opposed to what, Sky?

[dr dre]

To a degree its also the Australian Govts problem. They have allowed Qantas who holds an RPT authority, to suspend international services, forcing desperate Australians to use any airline available.

The Australian Govt can respond by informing Qatar that they will not be renewing any bilateral aviation rights with Qatar.

There’s no such thing as “RPT Authority”, not sure what you mean there, but Qatar is state backed, they can operate at a loss as long as the state props them up, other carriers don’t have that luxury.

Now will the government suspend Qatar Air from flying to Australia? Of course not, they have flooded the Australian market with seats and freight space so the Australian government doesn’t have to spend too much. At most they may issued a strongly worded condemnation letter, behind the scenes it’ll be “thanks guys for taking care of our international air travel problem for us”.

A substantial proportion of the federal government wants to end cabotage and allow foreign carriers to fly domestically in Oz so the health of our airline sector is far from their minds.

[Chronic Snoozer]

If you go to these places, you have to accept their culture and how they act.

No you don't. I think the word you are looking for is 'tolerate'.

[Chronic Snoozer]

The Australian Government should simply ban the airline, and any other government alined airline with similar human right abuses, from our country.
This would probably also involve all Middle Eastern and Chinese airlines and that's not going to happen, so we will continue to turn a blind eye.

Hang on a second, was it Qatari police or airport security staff that ordered this or the airline officials?

[Wizofoz]

If you go to these places, you have to accept their culture and how they act.

But they weren't. They were traveling on an airline that heavily markets itself in the west, flying between two western countries using that airlines base as a hub.

They certainly didn't sign up for what amounts to rape.

[Wizofoz]

Hang on a second, was it Qatari police or airport security staff that ordered this or the airline officials?

They are functionally the same- It's a government owned airline. It's not going to offer services that DON'T hub through Doha, so accepting the airline is accepting this kind of treatment.

[Paragraph377]

Middle East nations do as they please. No smacking on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf from the Australian Government will make one iota of difference. Kashoggi was bumped off in the Saudi consulate and all Australia did was issue ‘stern words’. Too scared to say anything. Worse, Aussies were killed in aircraft that were shot down in Iran and in the Ukraine and again some ‘big words’ were spoken by our Government which amounted to nothing more than a wrist slapping with a piece wet cotton wool. And who could forget our Governments pathetic obsfucation and protection of the Malaysian Government over the MH370 dissapearance which ironically also had Aussies onboard! Sorry, nothing will come of the Qatar incidents and our female citizens having their civil rights and their front-pieces violated on the tarmac. Should we be outraged? Hell yes. Will our Guv’mint take decisive, effective strong action against Qatar? Yeah right, don’t hold your breath waiting.....

[Wunwing]

DD.
I was trying to keep it simple but since you dispute me I'll go into the whole process.
Qantas does not own its International rights, The Australian people do.. Rights are allocated over a set time, typically 5 years by the the International Air Service Commission (IASC) via an open hearing process. They are issued on a use it or lose it basis which is why some may be less than 5 years if they have been not used and been handed back in.

Similarly slots are similarly allocated by a not so transparent system. This is why I cant se how Qantas can start back in International flying without reapplying for each IASC allocation. They should have lost all that they haven't used.

Similarly all international Airlines go through the same process and have to hold an Australian Foreign Air Operators certificate and hold traffic rights allocated by the IASC.

Its my premise then that the Australian Government has not forced Qantas to operate when they could have and that they have left returning citizens to use carriers that they may not have normally used. Therefore the Australian Government has directly contributed to this event.

We can influence foreign Governments by informing them that their bilateral allocations will not be renewed nor will their Foreign AOC. I'm sure that other airlines will more than compensate with extra services

Wunwing

[Square Bear]

Wunwing

How does the Federal Government force a private airline to operate an air route when it can’t even get the States that are members of the Federation to relax the restrictions of the Borders? Suggesting using the IASC to suspend air rights would only further hurt airlines who have already been beaten up badly to the other effects of COvid 19.

And to hold the Australia Government partly responsible for this depravity is drawing a very long bow. Why not draw it further and blame the Chinese Government for being the original exporter of Covid 19?

Now here is something radical....why not rest ALL the blame on Qatar whose Authorities were the ones to overstep common decency with the search rather than trying to implicate the Australian Government.

[cLeArIcE]

Although I acknowledge that in present times it is very difficult to avoid, hopefully this reminds people that when you fly on airlines from these backwards sewer rat countries you may have to accept things like this. They might market themselves to westerners as a western airline but such things they are definitely not.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I have a question. Why has it taken so long for Australians to be repatriated on an Australian flagged carrier?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-23/nt-arrivals-touchdown-on-australian-soil/12805876

All of this unpleasantness (I'm not trying to gloss over what happened in Qatar which is plainly assault) could have been avoided.

Given what was known at the beginning of the year about when air travel would resume normal operations, someone could have had a plan for immediately beginning the repatriation of 30,000 people back in May.

[dartman2]

Well... I find it interesting that the media are worked up about the treatment of the pax but not the underlying reason for it. As disgusting as BOTH of the issues are, that is how things go in that part of the world. We should all do our bit to have nothing to do with them.

[Wunwing]

Square Bear.
Very easily. If you don't use it you lose it.
Keeping Qantas operating with limited International should have been part of our repatriation plan. If Qantas didn't want to do that then the Govt could have given those rights to someone else.

Without a repatriation plan our Government is ultimately complicit when things go wrong. Any responsible Govt would have known that you cant strand 30,000 Australians overseas and not expect some repercussions.

As far as the Commonwealth lack of State control, that is obviously a Constitutional matter. Immigration and Aviation is definitely a Federal matter and Qantas can and should lose all unused rights under the IASC rules. If they want them back they can reapply when they think that they can use them.

Qantas likes to claim that they are the National Carrier but when we need a National Carrier they seem have taken their bat and ball and gone home.

Wunwing

[unobtanium]

Why is anyone surprised? The whole region is well known for their poor treatment of women. You hear stories all the time, expat's wives slapped for daring to drive alone.... by a policeman, after being in an accident where they were not at fault.

They'll close two eyes as long as the money is rolling in. But their Islamic laws still apply, and they will enforce it whenever. I'm surprised gay businessmen are even visiting the region let alone working closely with their top airline.

[currawong]

Why wasn't this newsworthy when it happened, on Oct 2?

Did they ever locate the parent?

Had over 3 weeks to investigate by now.

So many questions...

[Emma Royds]

Spare a thought that the likely intent of the Qataris was to arrest who ever they had thought had given birth, especially if the mother was not married.

[dr dre]

Qantas likes to claim that they are the National Carrier but when we need a National Carrier they seem have taken their bat and ball and gone home.


What this whole saga has shown is that if Australia wants a national carrier, then it should be nationalised (or at least receive significant government support for times like this).

Why do you think Qatar is flying everywhere at the moment? They don’t have to be profitable to go flying.

[Wunwing]

I agree we should look at an official National carrier.

. The USA handles this by enrolling airlines that suit Govt possible needs in the CRAF scheme. They get 1st bite at Govt charters and some funding on the condition that if the Govt needs them they have to serve the Govt first.

Currawong.
Perhaps the reason that this has only come out now is that the women involved have been in quarantine?? If this had been an event in Australia it would be defined as either rape or sexual assault. Possibly it wasn't until they could speak to family and friends that they decided to mention it publically or even if was those families and friends who spoke publically

Wunwing

[C441]

Spare a thought that the likely intent of the Qataris was to arrest who ever they had thought had given birth, especially if the mother was not married.
True,
And many are assuming the very unfortunate victims were all white anglo-saxon protestants who would all feel comfortable raising in (their cultural) public the fact they'd received this disgraceful treatment to say nothing of the trauma and stigma often sadly associated with such an assault.

[kghjfg]

But they weren't. They were traveling on an airline that heavily markets itself in the west, flying between two western countries using that airlines base as a hub.

They certainly didn't sign up for what amounts to rape.

It’s a government owned airline from a backward country where this is totally acceptable.

If you go to these parts of the world or fly on airlines that consider this acceptable then you have to accept this.

The real odd thing is that the country and airline have basically said “yes, this is acceptable, we would do it again”

and their aircraft are still full of passengers, though now maybe crossing their fingers it doesn’t happen to them.

But, those, passengers do accept it might happen to them, it’s been proved it could.

[kghjfg]

No you don't. I think the word you are looking for is 'tolerate'.

No, the word I was using was accept.

You do have to accept it might happen to you, as that is their culture and what they consider normal.

If you jump into a cesspit you have to first accept that you might come out with stuff up your nose.

You might not, it might not go up your nose, but if it does. You cannot complain.

The weird thing is, that there are people queuing to jump into the cesspit, with their fingers crossed it won’t be them.

[kghjfg]

Why wasn't this newsworthy when it happened, on Oct 2?

Did they ever locate the parent?

Had over 3 weeks to investigate by now.

So many questions...

You think that what happened to the parent could make the news?!

If reading about the invasive but non harmful assaults offends you, you won’t want to read about what happened to the mother.

Imagine being so scared of what would happen to you that you’d leave your newly born child in a sink.

Can you imagine that level of fear.

[Busbitch]

Ban this airline from coming to australia. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of thing & absolutely no second chances, ever. C'mon australia grow some balls.

[KRviator]

Ban this airline from coming to australia. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of thing & absolutely no second chances, ever. C'mon australia grow some balls.You would like to think so, but ScoMo can't even get our premier's to open their state borders, what are the chances he'll have the balls, yet alone the integrity to do something like that? You've got a better chance of winning lotto...

[KeyPilot]

Lots of Qatari- (and indirectly Arab-)bashing here but (as a few others have hinted) there is an alternative view.

Abandoning a child is a criminal offence in most (if not all) Western countries as well as (I presume) Qatar. Doing so in circumstances where the child was left unsafe - as seems to be the case here - or might not have been found for some time (as could easily happen if the toilets were in a gate area, and the next flight wasn't for quite some hours) could easily have led to the child's death and hence the potential crime of manslaughter (or local equivalent).

Given that the local authorities were investigating a potentially serious offence, do we believe that their means of doing so were disproportionate? Australia appears to be making this claim although not in a very structured or logically reasoned way - just making bold statements of outrage, filled with hyperbole but little objectivity. I wonder what Qatar makes of the Australian travel restrictions, keeping families (some of which will be Qatari) apart for months on end? I wonder if they find that to be proportionate?

I agree that we are missing some key facts here, in my mind the key ones being:
- was the child found alive or deceased?
- if alive, was it found (i) safe and (ii) such that it was likely to be found quickly, or could it have gone unnoticed for a prolonged period?
- to what form of examination were the passengers subjected? Was it carried out by a clinician? How were the relevant passengers selected? Were they invited to consent (and if so, under any form of duress e.g. lest they miss the flight?).

If anyone comes across more facts then please share! Also, the time lag between the event and its reporting it is indeed strange, does anyone know of the reasons?

In general, I would say let's get the evidence first, then form conclusions second. After all, as professional aviators isn't that what we are trained to do?

KP

[Pinky the pilot]

Ban this airline from coming to australia.

Will not happen!

There should be zero tolerance for this kind of thing & absolutely no second chances, ever.

No argument but remember you are dealing with a Country that behaves as if it were Mediaeval times. They do not and will not accept Western (Infidel) values.

C'mon australia grow some balls.

Asking the impossible there!

ScoMo can't even get our premier's to open their state borders, what are the chances he'll have the balls, yet alone the integrity to do something like that?

A bit unfair on Scomo there IMHO. I suspect that if he knew that he could do something concrete about it he would, However, the realities of 'International Politics', which can cover a very wide scope, would render futile anything he tried to do. As for getting the Premiers to open their borders; What powers does the PM/Federal Govt actually possess which he could use to force them to do so?:confused:

Key pilot; Some very pertinent points.:ok:

[Fonsini]

The airline should be banned from Australian airspace with immediate effect. Stand up for your people.

[Maggie Island]

- was the child found alive or deceased?


While initially reported as a foetus, it has since been confirmed that the infant was (and hopefully still is) alive and in a reasonable condition (aside from being abandoned in an airport bathroom).

Theres only so many places you could leave a baby in a bathroom so one would think it was found fairly quickly.

[neville_nobody]

You would like to think so, but ScoMo can't even get our premier's to open their state borders, what are the chances he'll have the balls, yet alone the integrity to do something like that? You've got a better chance of winning lotto

You can't ban an airline for following the law in their own country. ScoMo has zero ability to do anything even if he wanted to. Once you play at a Sovereign State level there are no real rules to speak of.
Look at the Uyghur situation or the recognition of Taiwan. I'm sure the Australian government doesn't agree with any of it but what can they do about it? Ban China Southern?

The only option is for Australian citizens to never fly with an airline if they don't agree.

[Superman1]

KeyPilot Given that the local authorities were investigating a potentially serious offence, do we believe that their means of doing so were disproportionate?

Are you joking? Yes it was, it was disgraceful behaviour and disgusting response unfortunately not unexpected in that part of the world.

[Kent Based]

KeyPilot, following the witness in the article below, the searches were made in ambulances staffed by operatives wearing "surgical clothes, surgical gear".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/26/i-was-absolutely-terrified-australian-witness-recounts-qatar-strip-search-ordeal

By comparison, are strip searches at airports normally conducted by medical staff or regular immigration/customs guys?

[SaulGoodman]

Anyone who has been working in this area can’t be surprised. It’s a dictatorship where human rights mean nothing.

the first question to ask is why the baby was left in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the mother was fleeing Qatar as she was “illegally” being pregnant. Maybe she wasn’t married, maybe she had a one night stand, maybe she was being raped. No matter what happened she is still committing a crime if she is pregnant but not married. We should have banned the ME3 many years ago.

[KeyPilot]

KeyPilot

Are you joking? Yes it was, it was disgraceful behaviour and disgusting response unfortunately not unexpected in that part of the world.

By which reasons do you come to this conclusion?

In an investigation of a serious offence in "Western" countries (of which, one supposes, most of us here are citizens), it is common for people to be arrested, detained for several days, repeatedly questioned, released on bail (with significant restrictions on their liberty), even if they are ultimately not charged with any crime. Do we think the treatment of some passengers on this flight was significantly worse than this?

Again, I believe we are missing some key facts, and until they are out in the open then we should resist the urge to rush to judgement. Of course, if the Qataris withhold or obfuscate key facts, then that is another matter and we may rightly draw inferences from this.

Ultimately, whether one judges this to be "right" or "wrong" by Western standards is anyway not the point - this was carried out on Qatari soil. The "right question" is whether it was right by Qatari standards, which one has to suppose it was. Then, if ones doesn't like Qatari standards, one can choose never to go there nor fly on their airline!

[currawong]

We go to similar lengths to expose those suspected of drug smuggling on a daily basis.

Searches of an intimate nature, that is.

Could have just as easily gone this way -

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/regional/2020/02/05/thai-woman-gives-birth-on-qatar-flight-with-help-of-crew

[galdian]

You want to be part of the "global world" you have to understand most things will be in shades of grey - accept it or move on.

Stupid thing is if there was any one country/continent in the world who could "secede" and have the resources to live a bloody good life without being involved in the crap of the rest of the world it's Australia. Opportunity lost apparently.

Read something in the paper regards Israel Falou (?) where he stated his priroities were faith, then family, then (in think) country.
IMHO Australia was built on self improvement, family advancement then faith to support those improvement for those inclined towards faith.

Australia moved away from ethnic based immigration and has allowed a faith that has trouble understanding or, more importantly, agreeing with Australian laws and ethos to come in the mistaken belief they want a "better life".
Maybe in concept - but their faith won't generally allow it.

Anyhow Australia will protest - rightly, Qatar will argue - rightly for their mentality....and a similar thing may well happen yet again.
Such are the benefits of the global world. Aren't we lucky! :ok:

Cheers

[currawong]

Actually a challenging exercise to come up with how to deal with that whole unfortunate situation, the time constraints, nationalities, somewhat urgent needs of the child and so on.

It would be nice to see the matter resolved; not sure what a Qatari orphanage would be like.

[On eyre]

Lots of Qatari- (and indirectly Arab-)bashing here but (as a few others have hinted) there is an alternative view.

Abandoning a child is a criminal offence in most (if not all) Western countries as well as (I presume) Qatar. Doing so in circumstances where the child was left unsafe - as seems to be the case here - or might not have been found for some time (as could easily happen if the toilets were in a gate area, and the next flight wasn't for quite some hours) could easily have led to the child's death and hence the potential crime of manslaughter (or local equivalent).

Given that the local authorities were investigating a potentially serious offence, do we believe that their means of doing so were disproportionate? Australia appears to be making this claim although not in a very structured or logically reasoned way - just making bold statements of outrage, filled with hyperbole but little objectivity. I wonder what Qatar makes of the Australian travel restrictions, keeping families (some of which will be Qatari) apart for months on end? I wonder if they find that to be proportionate?

I agree that we are missing some key facts here, in my mind the key ones being:
- was the child found alive or deceased?
- if alive, was it found (i) safe and (ii) such that it was likely to be found quickly, or could it have gone unnoticed for a prolonged period?
- to what form of examination were the passengers subjected? Was it carried out by a clinician? How were the relevant passengers selected? Were they invited to consent (and if so, under any form of duress e.g. lest they miss the flight?).

If anyone comes across more facts then please share! Also, the time lag between the event and its reporting it is indeed strange, does anyone know of the reasons?

In general, I would say let's get the evidence first, then form conclusions second. After all, as professional aviators isn't that what we are trained to do?

KP

What he said precisely.

[dr dre]

o. As for getting the Premiers to open their borders; What powers does the PM/Federal Govt actually possess which he could use to force them to do so?:confused:


Firearm laws are a state responsibility, however after Port Arthur the PM at the time managed to quickly get all states and territories onboard for a national firearms consensus (which was so strongly opposed in some quarters he was wearing a bullet proof vest at speeches for a while) by showing strong leadership. Our current PM? There's a reason he's nicknamed Scotty from marketing. No leadership skills, just a spin doctor. A real leader would've led the nation and not allowed 6 states to act in their own ways throughout this crisis, and just sit back and fiddle with the bank accounts. Apart from a few lukewarm requests, our current PM isn't really doing much bring the states together for a national Covid consensus. Or a national plan for international air travel, like how our airlines will be able to compete internationally once the international borders re-open.

[KeyPilot]

You can't ban an airline for following the law in their own country. ScoMo has zero ability to do anything even if he wanted to. Once you play at a Sovereign State level there are no real rules to speak of.
Look at the Uyghur situation or the recognition of Taiwan. I'm sure the Australian government doesn't not agree with any of it but what can they do about it? Ban China Southern?

The only option is for Australian citizens to never fly with an airline if they don't agree.

This is one of my top 10 all time favourite PPRuNe posts - each point is 100% correct

Many people are glibly suggesting banning Qatar Airways on human rights grounds. Qatar is ranked #127 in world by Cato Institute for human freedom. Ban them, and you will obviously direct traffic to Etihad, Emirates, China Southern, Air China et al. And the rankings of the UAE and China? #128 and #126 respectively....

[KeyPilot]

What he said precisely.

Thank you for the kind comment On Eyre, however I direct you to neville_nobody's post above which is a rare (for here!) piece of well reasoned commentary, and which has the added advantage of being considerably more succinct than mine!

[KeyPilot]

Actually a challenging exercise to come up with how to deal with that whole unfortunate situation, the time constraints, nationalities, somewhat urgent needs of the child and so on.

It would be nice to see the matter resolved; not sure what a Qatari orphanage would be like.

Agree with this as well

Although, as the richest country in the world, one supposes that Qatari orphanages aren't that bad (cf Romanian orphanages, 1980s/early 1990s....)

[KeyPilot]

KeyPilot, following the witness in the article below, the searches were made in ambulances staffed by operatives wearing "surgical clothes, surgical gear".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/26/i-was-absolutely-terrified-australian-witness-recounts-qatar-strip-search-ordeal

By comparison, are strip searches at airports normally conducted by medical staff or regular immigration/customs guys?

I have read this article, and I don't find anything therein to be particularly shocking.

If there were only 9 female pax on the flight (out of a total of 34 - wow that's a low load factor) and the location of the toilet was such that the person who committed the offence of abandoning the baby almost certainly had to be one of them, then examining them to determine which it was seems reasonable to me. Especially when one considers that, to diagnose recent childbirth, a visual examination of the external genitalia by a physician should almost certainly be sufficient.

It's a good point to compare immigration/customs strip searches, which are routinely carried out in Western countries and without any requirement for a court order (or similar) - it is (in my country) purely at the discretion of a senior customs officer.

Admittedly I am a man so it's hard to construct an analogous situation, however if for example I was one of 9 men on a flight, and there was a suspected serious offence (rape? drug smuggling?) and I was required to have my genitalia simply looked at by a doctor in an ambulance, sure I would not like it very much, but it would be hard to argue that something "disgusting", "shocking" or "disgraceful" had taken place...

[The96er]

Admittedly I am a man so it's hard to construct an analogous situation, however if for example I was one of 9 men on a flight, and there was a suspected serious offence (rape? drug smuggling?) and I was required to have my genitalia simply looked at by a doctor in an ambulance, sure I would not like it very much, but it would be hard to argue that something "disgusting", "shocking" or "disgraceful" had taken place...

I think most men - certainly those in the civilised world would fundamentally disagree with you. I for one would find it utterly repugnant at being forced into such a situation. The fact that you seem to dismiss the whole incident as a trival matter is somewhat concerning.

[KeyPilot]

I think most men - certainly those in the civilised world would fundamentally disagree with you. I for one would find it utterly repugnant at being forced into such a situation. The fact that you seem to dismiss the whole incident as a trival matter is somewhat concerning.

Sure, you (and anyone else) are free to agree or disagree, that is the nature of debate. However I would take issue with the claim that I "dismiss the whole incident as a trivial matter". I most certainly do not. You will see that primarily I have called for more evidence before reaching a conclusion; but also have sought to consider a balance between the rights of the women in question, versus the rights of the local authorities to investigate a potentially serious crime, which has as its victim one of the most vulnerable people one could care to imagine. Most previous posters seemed to dismiss the latter - I don't.

KP

[ChrisVJ]

I don't have a dog in the race but:
What were the alternatives?
1. Detain all female passengers while an investigation was carried out, maybe days.
2. Detain while blood tests/DNA tests were taken and processed, maybe days.
3. Offer voluntary examination for release while rest detained for investigation.

Question no one has offered an answer to here. What would have happened if a baby had been discovered in a bathroom at Sydney Airport next to aircraft departing for Doha with mainly Arab passengers? (Or given the world's taboos about offending Muslims, Australian passengers.)

[machtuk]

Whilst disturbing to our nation/laws it's their country/state and their laws!

[The96er]

Question no one has offered an answer to here. What would have happened if a baby had been discovered in a bathroom at Sydney Airport next to aircraft departing for Doha with mainly Arab passengers? (Or given the world's taboos about offending Muslims, Australian passengers.)

I'm not sure what course of action would have been taken if the situation was reversed in SYD, however, I'm absolutley 100% certain that NO female passengers would be subjected to the treatment that the SYD bound passengers and possibly others were subjected to in DOH.

[Sunfish]

”Keypilot”, you are a $5#4ing ignorant disgrace or perhaps a very clever troll. Go live in Qatar.

However I will bite. Yes, countries can and do classify what are misdemeanours in another country as serious crimes in theirs.

However, Qatari treatment contravenes articles 5, 9 ,11 and 12 of the international declaration of human rights, let alone western standards of justice including the presumption of innocence, due process, natural justice and the arrest criteria including probable cause.

Yes, “if you don’t like it, don’t go there”. Agreed and as a bare minimum I call for all Qatari trade to be terminated, including airline flights and the country to be sanctioned as the equivalent of north korea. And that goes double for the whole arabian peninsula. The only reason anyone tolerates these medieval scumbags is their oil.

[Oriana]

Sure, you (and anyone else) are free to agree or disagree, that is the nature of debate. However I would take issue with the claim that I "dismiss the whole incident as a trivial matter". I most certainly do not. You will see that primarily I have called for more evidence before reaching a conclusion; but also have sought to consider a balance between the rights of the women in question, versus the rights of the local authorities to investigate a potentially serious crime, which has as its victim one of the most vulnerable people one could care to imagine. Most previous posters seemed to dismiss the latter - I don't.

KP
So, here is a question:

If it was YOUR WIFE, or YOUR DAUGHTER - OR BOTH - you would be comfortable and compliant with the whole scenario?

[Wizofoz]

Whilst disturbing to our nation/laws it's their country/state and their laws!

But as I mentioned before, these passengers were not travelling to/from Qatar. They flew on an airline that heavily markets itself in the west, that simply hubs through Qatar.

To suggest people should do so understanding they will be subject to the draconian laws of Qatar is unreasonable.

[Wizofoz]

I don't have a dog in the race but:
What were the alternatives?

Question no one has offered an answer to here. What would have happened if a baby had been discovered in a bathroom at Sydney Airport next to aircraft departing for Doha with mainly Arab passengers? (Or given the world's taboos about offending Muslims, Australian passengers.)

It would NOT involve doing an intrusive exam of EVERY WOMAN. Western justice has the notion of reasonable suspicion before detaining someone, let alone doing this- simply being female is not reasonable grounds.

[Wizofoz]

Sure, you (and anyone else) are free to agree or disagree, that is the nature of debate. However I would take issue with the claim that I "dismiss the whole incident as a trivial matter". I most certainly do not. You will see that primarily I have called for more evidence before reaching a conclusion; but also have sought to consider a balance between the rights of the women in question, versus the rights of the local authorities to investigate a potentially serious crime, which has as its victim one of the most vulnerable people one could care to imagine. Most previous posters seemed to dismiss the latter - I don't.

KP
But their only criteria for suspecting someone, and subjecting then to a hugely intrusive search, is that they were female.

[fly1981]

I think most men - certainly those in the civilised world would fundamentally disagree with you. I for one would find it utterly repugnant at being forced into such a situation. The fact that you seem to dismiss the whole incident as a trival matter is somewhat concerning.

what he said. This is a gross violation of human rights, absolutely disgusting, the fact that some think it is acceptable is mind boggling. I feel desperately sorry for the woman involved.

[Yaw String]

Definitely worthy of cross post to Rumours and News,if verified correct..

[Superman1]

In an investigation of a serious offence in "Western" countries (of which, one supposes, most of us here are citizens), it is common for people to be arrested, detained for several days, repeatedly questioned, released on bail (with significant restrictions on their liberty), even if they are ultimately not charged with any crime. Do we think the treatment of some passengers on this flight was significantly worse than this?

They rounded up females and subjected them to invasive searches reportedly without explanation.. like another poster said not sure you would have the same carefree attitude if it was your wife or daughter and a crime just happen to have occurred in their vicinity....Yes I do think that is significantly worse... this was not a pat down for weapons.

Common for people to be arrested, detained and questioned for days because a crime happened in their vicinity? Not sure where you live but people being arrested and detained for days on mass in Australia because they were in the vicinity of a crime is not something I’ve seen.

100% agree it’s their country and therefore their laws and customs apply, doesn’t mean we need to accept it.

[Chronic Snoozer]

You will see that primarily I have called for more evidence before reaching a conclusion; but also have sought to consider a balance between the rights of the women in question, versus the rights of the local authorities to investigate a potentially serious crime, which has as its victim one of the most vulnerable people one could care to imagine.
"Balance" in a country that sees Sharia law as the underpinning legal mandate? You need to read the audience mate. You are having a laugh.

I have read this article, and I don't find anything therein to be particularly shocking. Spoken like a bloke.

If there were only 9 female pax on the flight (out of a total of 34 - wow that's a low load factor) and the location of the toilet was such that the person who committed the offence of abandoning the baby almost certainly had to be one of them, then examining them to determine which it was seems reasonable to me.

Or they could just ask "did you just give birth to a child in the toilets". I imagine that is something virtually impossible to hide in an interview.

The fact they did not even tell the women why they were being examined says it all. I guess they considered the 'balance...(of) the rights of the women in question" and decided they had none so it wasn't a consideration.

to diagnose recent childbirth, a visual examination of the external genitalia by a physician should almost certainly be sufficient.

Is that your professional opinion?

[Clare Prop]

I am genuinely shocked at the amount of people who seem to think that being bundled into a locked ambulance and digitally raped is trivial. One woman it happened to said they had their cervixes examined. A pap smear is a painful enough procedure even when you have given your doctor consent, so they would very likely have been restrained with some force..

Personally I never flew Emirates again after my metal implant beeped going into Dubai (having gone through a body scanner prior to the flight I'd just disembarked) and I was taken into a room and strip searched by someone silent covered from head to toe in black while a man with a gun looked on. All they needed to do was a wand and a pat down but they chose to frighten and humiliate me instead.

Presumably due to the current travel restrictions, all the women on the flight would have been Australian?

[Chronic Snoozer]

No, the word I was using was accept.

And I said no, you don't have to accept it. Just don't travel there or with their airline. That was what I was alluding to.

[Clare Prop]

If you've been waiting months to get back to Australia and finally get on a flight, how much choice do you really have?

[Clare Prop]

Oh if course, silly me, by getting on that flight they were obviously asking for it, it’s their fault.

It's their fault for going on a jolly jaunt around the middle east during a pandemic.

Anything else the victims should be blamed for?

[CharlotteAnderson]

Last time I booked a flight overseas, I never planned to get digitally raped in a locked ambulance on a stopover in a middle eastern country, I planned an few boring hours in an airport terminal, then to board a flight without having my lady bits messed with.

May I ask, how many of you have daughters and wives? Would you be happy for this treatment to them if they had no other choice to get home in the middle of a pandemic?

How dare you victim blame when these women were quite simply trying to get home. You should be ashamed! :mad:

[fly1981]

Last time I booked a flight overseas, I never planned to get digitally raped in a locked ambulance on a stopover in a middle eastern country, I planned an few boring hours in an airport terminal, then to board a flight without having my lady bits messed with.

May I ask, how many of you have daughters and wives? Would you be happy for this treatment to them if they made they had no other choice to get home in the middle of a pandemic?

How dare you victim blame when these women were quite simply trying to get home. You should be ashamed! :mad:

well said...

[Clare Prop]

Yes indeed, well said.

How many of you guys would happliy bend over to be digitally raped with no explanation because of the actions of some complete stranger in an airport toilet?

[CharlotteAnderson]

How many of you guys would happliy bend over to be digitally raped with no explanation because of the actions of some complete stranger in an airport toilet?

But you forgot, they decided to fly through there so they were completely asking for it! :ugh:

[SOPS]

Last time I booked a flight overseas, I never planned to get digitally raped in a locked ambulance on a stopover in a middle eastern country, I planned an few boring hours in an airport terminal, then to board a flight without having my lady bits messed with.

May I ask, how many of you have daughters and wives? Would you be happy for this treatment to them if they made they had no other choice to get home in the middle of a pandemic?

How dare you victim blame when these women were quite simply trying to get home. You should be ashamed! :mad:


Very well said.

[Clare Prop]

Also, if these women are passing through a hub and not entering the country, are they still subject to whatever stone age local law says that it is OK to sexually assault women?

[unobtanium]

It would NOT involve doing an intrusive exam of EVERY WOMAN. Western justice has the notion of reasonable suspicion before detaining someone, let alone doing this- simply being female is not reasonable grounds.

Like doing similar searches on young girls at music festivals? No uproar there.

[KeyPilot]

Well, on PPRuNe as in the world, it seems we have lost the ability to have reasoned debate, and to disagree with others politely...

[Clare Prop]

A debate about whether or not it is OK to sexually assault women is pretty unlikely to be polite.

[KeyPilot]

This is comment is plainly factually incorrect. A sexual assault is a crime, an intimate examination carried out (presumably) lawfully for law enforcement reasons, is not.

Sadly, your comment rather proves mine!

[Anti Skid On]

"Balance" in a country that sees Sharia law as the underpinning legal mandate? You need to read the audience mate. You are having a laugh.

Spoken like a bloke.



Or they could just ask "did you just give birth to a child in the toilets". I imagine that is something virtually impossible to hide in an interview.

The fact they did not even tell the women why they were being examined says it all. I guess they considered the 'balance...(of) the rights of the women in question" and decided they had none so it wasn't a consideration.



Is that your professional opinion?

Exactly; the behaviour would be a give away. Also, without wishing to sound crass, underwear - from my experience there tends to be some post partum bleeding that would be pretty obvious without the need for a clinical examination/

[Anti Skid On]

An unjustified examination in the absence of reasonable evidence without informed consent is an assault.

[Anti Skid On]

A debate about whether or not it is OK to sexually assault women is pretty unlikely to be polite.



.
An unjustified examination in the absence of reasonable evidence without informed consent is an assault.

[Clare Prop]

So you are perfectly OK with this, keypilot?
Really?
https://people.com/human-interest/women-on-qatar-airways-flight-strip-searched-to-see-if-they-had-given-birth-to-abandoned-baby/

[Anti Skid On]

This is comment is plainly factually incorrect. A sexual assault is a crime, an intimate examination carried out (presumably) lawfully for law enforcement reasons, is not.

Sadly, your comment rather proves mine!
An unjustified examination in the absence of reasonable evidence without informed consent is an assault.

[ruprecht]

This is comment is plainly factually incorrect. A sexual assault is a crime, an intimate examination carried out (presumably) lawfully for law enforcement reasons, is not.

Sadly, your comment rather proves mine!

Oh I can just imagine if drugs were found in a male toilet in Qatar airport, you’d quite happily line up to be rectally examined.

”It’s the law, don’t you know” you’d exclaim as you bent over... :rolleyes:

[KeyPilot]

I have not said whether or not I approve of what happened; I have called for more facts before forming a conclusion.

But it is simply incorrect to describe as an "assault", an action carried out lawfully (if it was) for the purposes of law enforcement.

One can debate whether the actions of law enforcement in this case were "reasonable", "proportionate", etc, and clearly there are valid arguments on both sides. But it seems to be that the majority of posters have only considered the impact on the (innocent) women involved, ignoring that a serious crime potentially had been committed, with a very vulnerable victim, and that law enforcement have a duty to investigate this.

I wonder whether those crying "assault", "disgrace", etc. accept that there exist circumstances in which law enforcement may carry out intimate examinations for the purposes of detecting and investigating crime, for example uncovering hidden drugs? Or do you believe that any intimate examination carried out against the informed and free consent of the subject, is automatically an "assault", or just "wrong"?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Well, on PPRuNe as in the world, it seems we have lost the ability to have reasoned debate, and to disagree with others politely...

others are merely tone deaf.

[wheels_down]

Ten News claimed one Union is holding a vote on Thursday to prevent works conducted around QR Aircraft in Sydney including refuel.

I can’t see why such a movement would not be agreed to by the members, but considering the small volumes they carry at the moment, if they even care about any short term Sydney ban.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Given that the local authorities were investigating a potentially serious offence, do we believe that their means of doing so were disproportionate? Australia appears to be making this claim although not in a very structured or logically reasoned way - just making bold statements of outrage, filled with hyperbole but little objectivity. I wonder what Qatar makes of the Australian travel restrictions, keeping families (some of which will be Qatari) apart for months on end? I wonder if they find that to be proportionate?

Do you have evidence that Qatari families are being kept apart by Australian travel restrictions? How do you conflate that with invasive examinations conducted without informed consent during an unannounced criminal investigation into a child birth whilst on a stopover in Doha?

What was that you were saying about reasoned debate on PPRuNe again?

[Anti Skid On]

I wonder whether those crying "assault", "disgrace", etc. accept that there exist circumstances in which law enforcement may carry out intimate examinations for the purposes of detecting and investigating crime, for example uncovering hidden drugs? Or do you believe that any intimate examination carried out against the informed and free consent of the subject, is automatically an "assault", or just "wrong"?

An investigation carried out without consent is assault, as is any treatment delivered without consent.

As for 'investigating a crime' - big, big difference. If someone is investigating, for example, a rape, the examination will only ever happen with informed consent and for the sole purpose of obtaining evidential information, such as DNA to convict the culprit. Giving birth is not a crime, unless it occurs in a state that views it inappropriate outside marriage. Little can be done to change those laws, but please don't condone the actions of those as legitimate, because in civil societies it isn't.

[KeyPilot]

Do you have evidence that Qatari families are being kept apart by Australian travel restrictions? How do you conflate that with invasive examinations conducted without informed consent during an unannounced criminal investigation into a child birth whilst on a stopover in Doha?

What was that you were saying about reasoned debate on PPRuNe again?

Re evidence, yes I do. The ban on most inter-state travel in Australia is such that most families with members in multiple states, are being kept apart. It would only require a small number of Qataris living in Australia, for at least one to be spread across states, and hence be kept apart. And there are clearly more than a small number of Qataris living in Australia. Do you have the contrary view?

Also, I am not conflating Australian border closures with the Doha airport incident in their generality; I am considering only the rather narrow question of the proportionality of each, and indeed have invoked the question of the likely Qatari stance towards the proportionality of Australian border closures. It is quite proper and common to consider what B thinks of A, when discussing what A thinks of B. The Qataris may well - and with some reason - find the Australian stance on this to be hypocritical.

[KeyPilot]

An investigation carried out without consent is assault, as is any treatment delivered without consent.

As for 'investigating a crime' - big, big difference. If someone is investigating, for example, a rape, the examination will only ever happen with informed consent and for the sole purpose of obtaining evidential information, such as DNA to convict the culprit. Giving birth is not a crime, unless it occurs in a state that views it inappropriate outside marriage. Little can be done to change those laws, but please don't condone the actions of those as legitimate, because in civil societies it isn't.

Again, your assertion does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny. "An investigation carried out without consent is assault" - by this reasoning, a murderer may not properly be investigated without his consent; a suspected drug smuggler may never lawfully be examined if they don't agree; etc. etc. Is that really your position?

And your second point is equally wide of the mark - no-one is suggesting that giving birth is a crime, however abandoning a child most certainly is.

Lastly, I am not condoning the actions of the Qataris, nor I am criticising them. I am consistently calling for more evidence - and (unlike you and most other posters) trying to analyse the situation objectively, and not engage in unseemly Arab-bashing.

[KeyPilot]

T... but considering the small volumes they carry at the moment, if they even care about any short term Sydney ban.

Spot on, Qatar Airways will be gutted at losing the possibility to lose lots of money on their ultra-low load factor Aussie flights at the moment!

[Chronic Snoozer]

Re evidence, yes I do. The ban on most inter-state travel in Australia is such that most families with members in multiple states, are being kept apart. It would only require a small number of Qataris living in Australia, for at least one to be spread across states, and hence be kept apart. And there are clearly more than a small number of Qataris living in Australia. Do you have the contrary view?

So no evidence at all, just a hunch. Roger.

Also, I am not conflating Australian border closures with the Doha airport incident in their generality; I am considering only the rather narrow question of the proportionality of each, and indeed have invoked the question of the likely Qatari stance towards the proportionality of Australian border closures. It is quite proper and common to consider what B thinks of A, when discussing what A thinks of B. The Qataris may well - and with some reason - find the Australian stance on this to be hypocritical.

Let me get this straight - you're positing that Qataris might think (with some reason) Australians to be hypocritical in expressing outrage at the Doha incident because Australia is enforcing travel restrictions. From a country that flipped it's lid because of some cartoons.

You sir, are a magnificent troll.

[KeyPilot]

So no evidence at all, just a hunch. Roger.



Let me get this straight - you're positing that Qataris might think (with some reason) Australians to be hypocritical in expressing outrage at the Doha incident because Australia is enforcing travel restrictions. From a country that flipped it's lid because of some cartoons.

You sir, are a magnificent troll.

Well Chronic Snoozer, insulting your opponent (even if adding "Sir" before the insult!) is rarely a way to advance your position.

I did not express a hunch, I submitted (admittedly indirect) evidence, with reasoned argument - unlike you!

The reaction of Qatar to cartoons (whatever you may mean - I am not quite sure what it means for a country to "flip its lid"), has no relevance to the case at hand.

[KeyPilot]

So no evidence at all, just a hunch. Roger.



Let me get this straight - you're positing that Qataris might think (with some reason) Australians to be hypocritical in expressing outrage at the Doha incident because Australia is enforcing travel restrictions. From a country that flipped it's lid because of some cartoons.

You sir, are a magnificent troll.

Also you should have written "flipped its lid" not "flipped it's lid".

I might be a "magnificent troll" :), but unlike you at least I can write correct English!

[Chronic Snoozer]

Also you should have written "flipped its lid" not "flipped it's lid".

I might be a "magnificent troll" :), but unlike you at least I can write correct English!

I might be a "magnificent troll" :) but unlike you, at least I can write English correctly!

Tell yourself whatever you want.

[KeyPilot]

Tell yourself whatever you want.

May I suggest that, if you have nothing to contribute to the debate at hand, then you refrain from posting?

[HomeJames]

This is not a debate, this is now trolling.

[KeyPilot]

This is not a debate, this is now trolling.

I have certainly not engaged in trolling - I have called for restraint in comments prejudicial to Arabs (and which border on racism), the establishing of key facts prior to forming conclusions, and the balance between the rights of suspects and law enforcement in the investigation of a potentially serious offence. This is not the behaviour of a troll.

Of course, this nuanced stance has not been welcomed by those who prefer a more black-and-white world view in which Australia (or, presumably, other "Western" countries) is always right, and Arabs are sexist, Middle Ages barbarians.

The standard herein of debate, and indeed ability to synthesise facts and arguments into conclusions, is lamentable.

[kghjfg]

To be honest, I’m quite shocked that some pilots would defend this behaviour.

(Maybe it’s true, and they are now the same as bus drivers)

The oddest bit of the thread is the bit where a pilot says he wouldn’t mind if it was his wife or daughter.

I genuinely can’t understand that.

[Oriana]

To be honest, I’m quite shocked that some pilots would defend this behaviour.

(Maybe it’s true, and they are now the same as bus drivers)

The oddest bit of the thread is the bit where a pilot says he wouldn’t mind if it was his wife or daughter.

I genuinely can’t understand that.
If you're referring to my earlier post, you misinterpreted it.

[KeyPilot]

To be honest, I’m quite shocked that some pilots would defend this behaviour.

(Maybe it’s true, and they are now the same as bus drivers)

The oddest bit of the thread is the bit where a pilot says he wouldn’t mind if it was his wife or daughter.

I genuinely can’t understand that.

I don't think anyone has defended what happened - I certainly haven't. I have called for more information and a judicious consideration of the matter.

On the other hand, plenty have rushed to critical judgement despite the lack of available facts.

Also I don't think anyone has said he wouldn't mind if it was his wife or daughter?

[Clare Prop]

Some people can justify anything.

From Human Rights Watch: Qatar’s personal status law discriminates against women in marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance. The law provides that women can only marry if a male guardian approves of the marriage; men have a unilateral right to divorce while requiring women to apply to the courts for divorce on limited grounds; and a wife is responsible for looking after the household and obeying her husband. Under inheritance provisions, female siblings receive half the amount their brothers get.

The penal code does not criminalize domestic violence or marital rape

Sounds pretty sexist and barbaric to me.

[KeyPilot]

Some people can justify anything.

From Human Rights Watch: Qatar’s personal status law discriminates against women in marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance. The law provides that women can only marry if a male guardian approves of the marriage; men have a unilateral right to divorce while requiring women to apply to the courts for divorce on limited grounds; and a wife is responsible for looking after the household and obeying her husband. Under inheritance provisions, female siblings receive half the amount their brothers get.

The penal code does not criminalize domestic violence or marital rape

Sounds pretty sexist and barbaric to me.

I am not sure anyone has justified anything on this thread?

That which you quote above is a function of Qatar law being based on Sharia law, the same is true of a few tens of countries around the world (UAE & Pakistan being two notable others). Undoubtedly Sharia law is sexist - there is no doubt about that. But it does not follow that Arabs are sexist, indeed I would argue society in many Arab countries is far ahead of the rather traditionalist stance of the law. This is usually the case - law lags society by decades or even centuries - the Australia Act being passed as recently as 1985, is a good example of this. Also, it was only relatively recently that martial rape became considered a crime in the UK, and most US States, so it is unfair to consider Qatar to be an outlier in this regard.

I expect that, over time, Arab countries will gradually liberalise their laws and societies and that women will achieve parity with men. We should not forget how relatively recently (and, indeed, incompletely) this is the case in the "West". But regarding the case at hand, I continue to advocate that we consider the facts, and leave aside any prejudices towards Arabs, which can only lead us to invalid conclusions.

[MissChief]

Sharia Law and Qatar Law are primitive and sometimes barbaric.

They are indefensible.

And as for Qatar Airways.......morally repugnant

[KeyPilot]

Sharia Law and Qatar Law are primitive and sometimes barbaric.

They are indefensible.

And as for Qatar Airways.......morally repugnant

Well, again, people who have that view are free to avoid becoming subject to Qatari Law by avoiding visiting Qatar or flying on Qatari-registered aircraft...

[Skyfl410]

I am not sure anyone has justified anything on this thread?

That which you quote above is a function of Qatar law being based on Sharia law, the same is true of a few tens of countries around the world (UAE & Pakistan being two notable others). Undoubtedly Sharia law is sexist - there is no doubt about that. But it does not follow that Arabs are sexist, indeed I would argue society in many Arab countries is far ahead of the rather traditionalist stance of the law. This is usually the case - law lags society by decades or even centuries - the Australia Act being passed as recently as 1985, is a good example of this. Also, it was only relatively recently that martial rape became considered a crime in the UK, and most US States, so it is unfair to consider Qatar to be an outlier in this regard.

I expect that, over time, Arab countries will gradually liberalise their laws and societies and that women will achieve parity with men. We should not forget how relatively recently (and, indeed, incompletely) this is the case in the "West". But regarding the case at hand, I continue to advocate that we consider the facts, and leave aside any prejudices towards Arabs, which can only lead us to invalid conclusions.

Have you ever lived in an Arab country? Are you a female working in an Arab country? Do you really know what goes on in these countries? Do you know that if a woman gets raped the first one to blame is Herself... she has a high chance of getting arrested especially if she's not married. These countries have no intention to liberalise women's rights. What has happened in Doha is just a small part of how women are treated down there.

[Sunfish]

Keypilot, you are either a troll or a psychopath. Firstly Qatar is in breach of human rights on the women concerned. You don’t see the problem with that which is bizarre.

You also argue that we must tolerate barbaric behaviour. I think not.

The one thing I agree is that people should be free to not use Qatar airlines. I will go further than that. Remove qatar airlines from Australia permanently. Warn Australians not to travel to qatar. Prevent Qataris from entering Australia. Prohibit all trade with Qatar and encourage others to do likewise.

Barbarism is barbarism. Doha is a ****hole and no loss to anyone.

[KeyPilot]

Have you ever lived in an Arab country? Are you a female working in an Arab country? Do you really know what goes on in these countries? Do you know that if a woman gets raped the first one to blame is Herself... she has a high chance of getting arrested especially if she's not married. These countries have no intention to liberalise women's rights. What has happened in Doha is just a small part of how women are treated down there.

Yes I have, and no I am not... Yes I have heard of some of these very disturbing cases, however I can see things improving.

Let me ask you a question, if I may: how do you account for the fact that very many "Western" women from liberal democracies (Aus/NZ, UK, Germany, USA, Canada, ...) have chosen of their own free will to move to Qatar and other similar countries, and then settle there for many years?

[Clare Prop]

So, because other countries' laws until relatively recently were similarly sexist and barbaric, that makes it OK?

Victim blaming used to be OK as well.

As has been said, those women were hardly there for a holiday, but were Australians who have been trying to come home for who knows how long. Maybe they had lost everything overseas, maybe they were coming back after dealing with family tragedies. Perhaps they had been living and working there or were passing through an international hub from other countries. If this airline was the only option to be able to come home after being bumped countless times at the cost of thousands of dollars then that doesn't justify what happened to them.

It wouldn't justify the same thing happening to men, either.

I can understand you want to get to the facts, I have posted a link where the victims have said what happened. One fact for sure, Australian women aren't going on frivolous holidays to Qatar

[KeyPilot]

Keypilot, you are either a troll or a psychopath. Firstly Qatar is in breach of human rights on the women concerned. You don’t see the problem with that which is bizarre.

You also argue that we must tolerate barbaric behaviour. I think not.

The one thing I agree is that people should be free to not use Qatar airlines. I will go further than that. Remove qatar airlines from Australia permanently. Warn Australians not to travel to qatar. Prevent Qataris from entering Australia. Prohibit all trade with Qatar and encourage others to do likewise.

Barbarism is barbarism. Doha is a ****hole and no loss to anyone.

I am neither a troll nor a pyschopath, nor have I argued that we must tolerate barbaric behaviour, nor indeed any particular behaviour. If you have the contrary view, please can you point me to the relevant post?

I have advocated a position based upon judicious consideration of the facts, and (almost uniquely amongst posters here) have considered that, it seems, a crime has been committed (with a very vulnerable victim), and have sought to consider the rights of law enforcement to investigate that crime. In the UK, by way of reference, abandoning a baby under the age of two is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years' imprisonment, which can be greater if aggravating factors are present (e.g. injury or neglect).

On the other hand, you have simply issued a tirade of ill-judged proposed "solutions" which will never come to pass, and even if they did would (amongst other things) serve only to direct passenger traffic to airlines of the UAE and China, which (per one of my earlier posts) have comparable human rights records to Qatar!

[KeyPilot]

So, because other countries' laws until relatively recently were similarly sexist and barbaric, that makes it OK?

Victim blaming used to be OK as well.

As has been said, those women were hardly there for a holiday, but were Australians who have been trying to come home for who knows how long. Maybe they had lost everything overseas, maybe they were coming back after dealing with family tragedies. Perhaps they had been living and working there or were passing through an international hub from other countries. If this airline was the only option to be able to come home after being bumped countless times at the cost of thousands of dollars then that doesn't justify what happened to them.

It wouldn't justify the same thing happening to men, either.

I can understand you want to get to the facts, I have posted a link where the victims have said what happened. One fact for sure, Australian women aren't going on frivolous holidays to Qatar

Hi Clare, thanks for your rather more considered message than most on this thread recently!

To answer your question, no, something which is wrong is always wrong no matter how, or what else is or was wrong. But at the same time, taking a "holier than thou" stance on other countries' laws and cultures is rarely fully justified, and I advocate a more balanced view where one considers the historical positions of both the countries in question, and our own.

One thing I think most of us here would agree on, is that there is clearly some failing of Australian public policy, in that citizens have to rely on other countries' airlines to return home at the moment.

[Sunfish]

Keypilot, you are a psychopath. Go away. There is nothing “judicious” about anything Qatar has done and only an idiot, psychopath or troll would suggest otherwise.

I look forward to your justification for female genital mutilation, torture, beheading and medieval justice, all things you appear to apologise for.

[SOPS]

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/transport-workers-union-considers-a-boycott-on-working-on-qatar-airways-after-strip-search-bombshell/news-story/23ddb7d819ccf574bef63c179c19b702


Things are heating up... thank goodness

[KeyPilot]

Keypilot, you are a psychopath. Go away. There is nothing “judicious” about anything Qatar has done and only an idiot, psychopath or troll would suggest otherwise.

I look forward to your justification for female genital mutilation, torture, beheading and medieval justice, all things you appear to apologise for.

Sunfish I hope you are not a professional pilot because if you are, you are a disgrace to our profession.

I most certainly will not go away as I have the same right to be here as you, more in fact as (unlike you) I have been courteous and polite to others even when I disagree with them.

Also I have taken the trouble to read and understand that which others have written, you clearly have not in that you appear to imply that I have suggested that Qatar have behaved judiciously (I have not), or that I have been an apologist for clearly abhorrent practices (I have been very careful throughout to say that I neither condone - not criticise - any actions which it is suggested have taken place).

For these reasons, I shall not be responding to any of your further posts in this thread.

KP

[KeyPilot]

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/transport-workers-union-considers-a-boycott-on-working-on-qatar-airways-after-strip-search-bombshell/news-story/23ddb7d819ccf574bef63c179c19b702


Things are heating up... thank goodness

So if the union refuses to refuel Qatar aircraft and in turn Qatar stop flying to Australia then the following will be the consequences:
1. Qatar Airways' losses will reduce
2. Australians seeking to return home to Australia will have fewer options
3. Airlines of the UAE (Emirates and Etihad) and China (Chine Southern, Air China, ...) will have more traffic - these countries have a very similar human rights record to Qatar

Great move!

[Always Moving]

The facts appear to be correct. Qatar has every right to correct the story but so far don't appear to have even commented. Since the Qatar. Govt own both the airline and the airport then it is the Qatar Govts problem.

To a degree its also the Australian Govts problem. They have allowed Qantas who holds an RPT authority, to suspend international services, forcing desperate Australians to use any airline available.

The Australian Govt can respond by informing Qatar that they will not be renewing any bilateral aviation rights with Qatar.

Wunwing.


I agree It is the Qatari Gov PROBLEM and the Australian should request a full apology (When I said apology I mean MONEY) and a good start is Ban them from operating in Australia.
Could they not made a DNA test? less intrusive (physically) more intrusive because they have your DNA!

[krismiler]

An official apology followed by substantial compensation to those affected, or lose the flights to Australia and the freedom to operate through Australian airspace.

They need us more than we need them.

[Always Moving]

May be next time they stop ALL never married women (non muslim of course) and take them to do a test to see if they had sex before. The hunch is that most western women had sex before marriage (Or at least I hope we do) and then stone them.
I am sure most people here will agree it will be OK.

BTW I always thought that when you are on the International part of the Airport International law apply, but something new I learned today.
And as far as I know you can say no to a X-ray on most civilized countries or any intrusive procedure (they will just hold you till you ****, with a judge order if it is more than (normally 48h)

The problem is that we have a XXI century law and customs rubbing with VI-VII century customs and a totalitarian system/law (One of the reason for me not to travel to the DPRK) The thing is that in this VI century countries NORMALLY nothing happens and people think is OK (Like going on a vacation to DUBAI, WTF!) and usually is but when things go wrong (have an accident with the wrong person, cut another driver on the road, given the finger, TOUCH, etc) they go VERY WRONG under their law and you are in their country!
Before the extremist Muslim try to beheaded me, It can happened in other countries, for example 2 gay married persons entering Nigeria or Turkey (it is a secular country also)

[Skyfl410]

Yes I have, and no I am not... Yes I have heard of some of these very disturbing cases, however I can see things improving.

Let me ask you a question, if I may: how do you account for the fact that very many "Western" women from liberal democracies (Aus/NZ, UK, Germany, USA, Canada, ...) have chosen of their own free will to move to Qatar and other similar countries, and then settle there for many years?

Many women don't choose to go and work in Arab countries. They are asked by there employer to move down there for projects and investments. Most of them are also there on a short term contract. The Employer knows well that a female won't resist on a long term basis. Especially if shes single.

In Arab countries, the rule is '' My country my rules like it or leave''. so I really don't see them changing there mentality in the near future.

I still don't understand one thing about this story. Why did the Australian women accept to get inspected? why didn't they call the embassy?
would you pull down your pants only because they asked you?

[Always Moving]

1 Do not EVER blame the victim in any situation.
2 I guess you never see the experiment where people shock other people when a figure of authority says so

If I would have to guess they were in shock of what is going on and they went along because the police said so and in most places have GUNS. I never mess with the police when abroad, at home.... may be a bit more (given the state of criminalization of the population and broader powers to police not even at home anymore, best avoid and no comment, lawyer)

[Skyfl410]

1 Do not EVER blame the victim in any situation.
2 I guess you never see the experiment where people shock other people when a figure of authority says so

If I would have to guess they were in shock of what is going on and they went along because the police said so and in most places have GUNS. I never mess with the police when abroad, at home.... may be a bit more (given the state of criminalization of the population and broader powers to police not even at home anymore, best avoid and no comment, lawyer)
Don't get me wrong! I just want to understand the other side of the story. didn't intend to blame anyone. Just need to wait for and see if any of these poor women tells media how things went.

[ALLICEDUP]

KeyPilot,

You are out of control! In some ways I get what you are trying to drive at, but in our society it is not acceptable. They shouldn’t carry Westerners if they don’t agree. Imagine if we forced an Arab to do something in OUR country, outrage!!

[Always Moving]

KeyPilot,

You are out of control! In some ways I get what you are trying to drive at, but in our society it is not acceptable. They shouldn’t carry Westerners if they don’t agree. Imagine if we forced an Arab to do something in OUR country, outrage!!


This is turning into a western values against Extremist Muslim values.
The TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY (jews,blacks,muslim,LGBTXYZ...) is a different story and it came with the politically correctness that I can give 2 hoots about. I try to call things what they are and if you do not like it, YOU have a problem not me.
And I also get KeyPilot, in fact playing the devil;s advocate is a good way to get to the bottom of things.

You can not force a sobering country to do what you want, but you could force it on the reciprocal agreement (specially because they are on the international side!) Example: In case of problem we go with the law of the country you are from or coming from.
I do not think most people know how far things can go wrong in some countries if things go the wrong way. (Gee everyone loves to fly emirates right.....)

And I had said what i had to say..... Sad very sad....

[kghjfg]

@key pilot

so you are saying that if it did happen as the victims said it happened, then that’s ok and fine with you?


It’s odd.

“is it ok this person was raped”.
“I need the facts”
”but if they were raped is that ok?”
”I need the facts”
”is it ok for anyone to be raped?”
”I need the facts”

Can you not see how your posts and unwillingness to condemn it if it did happen as the victims said is a problem ?

Most right minded people would condemn rape, saying “I won’t condemn rape” is a little bit of an issue for some here even if it’s normal behaviour to you.

[Clare Prop]

Here is their side of the story, it's been in the media for a while now.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-26/qatar-airport-baby-women-invasive-search/12812364

[Sunfish]

Keypilot;
Sunfish I hope you are not a professional pilot because if you are, you are a disgrace to our profession.

I most certainly will not go away as I have the same right to be here as you, more in fact as (unlike you) I have been courteous and polite to others even when I disagree with them.

Also I have taken the trouble to read and understand that which others have written, you clearly have not in that you appear to imply that I have suggested that Qatar have behaved judiciously (I have not), or that I have been an apologist for clearly abhorrent practices (I have been very careful throughout to say that I neither condone - not criticise - any actions which it is suggested have taken place).

For these reasons, I shall not be responding to any of your further posts in this thread.


If Keypilot is a professional of anything, which I doubt, then he is the disgrace.

‘Keypilot purports to ask for “reasoned debate” and “judicious consideration” of an action that is beyond outrageous in terms of the universal declaration of human rights.

However he refuses to debate the matters raised, he just feeds off the natural outrage to his untenable position. That is the definition of trolling.

Does anyone know if this creature works in the industry? if so which company?


The most important of them is the golden rule, which is violated in

[kkbuk]

Keypilot, you appear to consider yourself to be a superior being whose opinion is the only one worth considering. I detect a raging case of the "Donald Trumps", are you ever wrong about any subject? In your head, probably not. To the rest of us you are an annoying twit.

[MissChief]

This is turning into a western values against Extremist Muslim values.
The TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY (jews,blacks,muslim,LGBTXYZ...) is a different story and it came with the politically correctness that I can give 2 hoots about. I try to call things what they are and if you do not like it, YOU have a problem not me.
And I also get KeyPilot, in fact playing the devil;s advocate is a good way to get to the bottom of things.

You can not force a sobering country to do what you want, but you could force it on the reciprocal agreement (specially because they are on the international side!) Example: In case of problem we go with the law of the country you are from or coming from.
I do not think most people know how far things can go wrong in some countries if things go the wrong way. (Gee everyone loves to fly emirates right.....)

And I had said what i had to say..... Sad very sad....

Moderators, please read the above reference to jews, muslims, blacks, etc. And remove this person's threads.

[Always Moving]

EXCUSE ME!
I was just reading an article about CENSORSHIP.
Could you please explain in a organize way why it needs to be CENSOR?
Moderator please remove the wanna be CENSOR, we do not need more people trying to shut other people's thoughts. He is probably one of the ones being OK with burning books, destroying statues, banning books from libraries etc.

Sorry I said I will not get drag into this anymore, but the Freedom of expression it has been ACTIVELY trample upon for too long and that is something I do not stand for. I might disagree with somebody but I will not tell him to shut up, specially if he is speaking the truth.
I guess MissChief is ok with professors getting fired because someone feel bad about something or censoring Speakers because "may be" in the speech somebody did not like it. OH MICRO AGGRESSIONS!

NO more post

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

This thread is being closed because it has turned into a slanging match.