|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
Many men are clearly
aggrieved at an airline policy that does not let them sit next to a child
flying alone. What on earth is wrong with them? Why aren't they delighted?
Many a hassled airline passenger chatted up or spewed on by a precocious
ankle biter would be thrilled Not Auckland father
Mark Worsley, the man who sparked the debate. He revealed this week that he
had been offended when asked by an airline steward on a Qantas flight north
from Christchurch to change seats with a woman sitting two rows in front. He
had, it turned out, been erroneously seated next to a young boy flying alone.
He moved, then seethed. The airlines -- now
keeping their heads down given the storm that has broken after publicity
about the policy -- presumably want to remove any risk of abuse to children
temporarily in their care. Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro commends them
for the thought that has gone into the policy. Really? No one -- not Dr Kiro
or anyone else -- has justified it by citing an incidence of child abuse on
airlines involving an adult male and wee Areta or Keanu sitting alongside
him. They ought to. Meantime, the row has
given National's fearless -- and toothless -- political-correctness
eradictor, MP Wayne Mapp, a new bone to worry at. Harrumphing that this is
another example of political correctness gone mad, he asks: "What do
they think men are going to do that women won't? It is the same as saying men
shouldn't sit beside children on a bus." Radio talkback and
newspaper letters to the editor columns have given vent to much male fury
since the policy became public. Anthony Frith wrote to us saying it was no
wonder men felt marginalised. Simon Casey called the thinking behind the
policy "stupid". Jonathon Harper believes it contravenes human rights
law, and might be right -- the Human Rights Commission will investigate. Ian Armstrong, however,
raised a more pertinent point. Because research showed that children are more
at risk of abuse from their parents than strangers, he said, "will Air
New Zealand ban fathers from sitting next to their children on flights?"
Though the policy is
indubitably well meaning, it is likely to have been introduced as a defensive
strategy against any airline being sued by parents for failing to care for
their smallest passengers properly. Whether youngsters should fly alone is
another question entirely. Perhaps dispatching the offspring is a parental
attempt to regain sanity. Rather than ditch the
"avoid men" dictum, Air NZ and Qantas should apply it equally. The
reality is that many women do not wish to sit next to what airlines call
"unaccompanied minors" either, and would be relieved if they did
not have to. And, as Casimira Kerr writes on this page today, women who have
chosen not to have kids want nothing to do with them at all. Few enjoy being
cooped up with a projectile-vomiting pre-teen for hours inside a sardine can.
Anyone who has boarded
a plane at Heathrow, warm at the prospect of returning to Aotearoa, knows
well the dread that descends when, struggling into cattle class, they hear
the nearby piercing wail of a baby or the grizzle of a thwarted toddler. Memo
to the airlines: best to ban kids altogether. |
