Qatar disgrace
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are perfectly OK with this, keypilot?
Really?
https://people.com/human-interest/wo...bandoned-baby/
Really?
https://people.com/human-interest/wo...bandoned-baby/
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
”It’s the law, don’t you know” you’d exclaim as you bent over...
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"?
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"?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
What was that you were saying about reasoned debate on PPRuNe again?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"?
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.
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?
What was that you were saying about reasoned debate on PPRuNe again?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You sir, are a magnificent troll.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
but unlike you, at least I can write English correctly!