|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
What with men being
potentially vile, depraved sexual predators, Air New Zealand and Qantas have
adopted the quiet and shabby policy of not seating men next to unaccompanied
children. Airlines are the
temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors, see, so these innocents are
better kept out of reach of masculine passengers who, regrettably, may be
unable to resist a moment longer falling prey to bestial urges. Should we be surprised
the airlines are still prepared to run the risk of allowing men to remain in
the line of sight of these children, who might still be exposed to the horrid
sights of men behaving badly. For that matter, given
the incidence of incest, the airlines could be said to be running a risk by
allowing fathers to sit next to their own children? Would it not be a more
careful and caring practice to guide the dirty, dirty menfolk to the rear of
the plane, behind a closed curtain, where their salivating and masturbating
won't disturb the others? The policy of separating men from unaccompanied
children has been exposed by Auckland traveller Mark Worsley, who was moved
out of his seat. In the face of the
inevitable, and richly deserved, storm of condemnation, the airlines rather
wanly explain that they want to err on the side of caution. But there's erring,
and there's being barking mad. Playing safe, at least from the mad
perspective the airlines have adopted, assumes it is better to demonise an
entire gender, and feed a climate of hideously damaging fear and mistrust. The incident with Mr
Worsley happened a year ago, so the policy has clearly been in place without
the wider public being any the wiser, until Mr Worsley recently contacted the
National Party's spokesman against political correctness, Wayne Mapp. So, to
an extent, they have been getting away with it without people taking
particular offence. That doesn't make it
right. Alarmingly, Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro has sided with the
airlines, commending them for trying to keep children safe. She did not think
the policy was intended to be a slur against men. But where is the
evidence to justify the airline's presumption of danger? Clinical
psychologist Nigel Latta sees greater damage in sending the awful message
that all men are to be treated as pariahs. Though it is true the great
majority of sexual offenders are male, from the thousands of sexual offenders
he has worked with Mr Latta has never treated or heard of a single case of
abuse on a plane. For his part, Green MP
Keith Locke, whom nobody ever called a bluff old traditionalist, is writing
to the Human Rights Commission alleging the case breaches the Human Rights
Act. Perhaps, but in any
case it does breach any reasonable social tolerances. A Qantas representative
suggests that this policy is what the public wants. No it isn't. And this
is a case where, quite apart from issues of legality, the public should
disabuse the airlines of any suggestion that male passengers should be
regarded with such sour suspicion on the basis of gender alone. |
