|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
We are going from bad
to worse. Banning men from sitting next to unaccompanied children on planes
is a joke. Incredibly, Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro agrees with the Air
New Zealand and Qantas policies. She doesn't think they are intended to be a
slur against men. Please! Auckland man Mark
Worsley certainly felt belittled when asked to swap seats with a woman on the
flight because a boy was sitting next to him. Seriously, what would Dr Kiro
think if asked to move in the same situation? Of course it is a slur against
men, and it is of deep concern that in her position she harbours such an
attitude. For the airlines, this
surely is a breach of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of gender? If not, what's next? Corner dairy shop owners must all
be women? No male life guards at swimming pools? Men to one side of the
street when out for a stroll, women and children the other? These are no more
ridiculous than the airlines' policy. Did the airlines or Dr
Kiro stop to think how the children in these situations might think? The
first thought would probably be "there must be something wrong with that
man" closely followed by "there might be something wrong with all
men". Depending on age, boys might even graduate to "I'm going to
be a man some day, so what does that mean?" No doubt this policy
has been driven by customer requests, and by that read "paranoid
mothers". Yet if they are prepared to have their offspring seated alone
on a plane, that comes with some real world risks. These include the plane crashing,
the child feeling nervous or sick and the child becoming lost. They do not
include a man sitting beside their child and ... what exactly? Being
friendly? Heaven forbid. For all that, we can
understand that such parents exist. What disappoints is the airlines listened
to them, and most of all, that the Children's Commissioner is also on their
side. Faulty process If Bob Clarkson has
overspent on his bid to become Tauranga's MP, Winston Peters will be proved
right on a matter of principle. Yet rightly or wrongly the public won't thank
him for it. What they'll see is the
cost to themselves as taxpayers for first the High Court trial before three
judges, and then the by-election. Should it happen, it
will be a most interesting by-election indeed, remembering of course Mr
Clarkson won't be allowed to stand. Mr Peters might well have his pride hurt
again. Overriding everything
here though is the process. Isn't there a simpler way to address alleged
wrongs than through the High Court? How about some form of monitoring or
complaints process during the campaign. Anything has to be better than this. |
