Does not matter if Qatar airways was at fault or not. Or if all of the blame sits with Qatari authorities. How can we feel safe flying through that airport every again? We should be clear as to what "internal exams of women" means. It means unwanted and forced handling of genitals. It means sexual assault. Women were taking off airlines and sexually assaulted. How can we fly to an airport where that is a possible outcome? I wont.
I wasn’t doubting the sensitivity of the matter, and it is possible those who were not searched (including all male pax) were not aware that actually happened, and perhaps in the 14 hours flight from Doha to Sydney the crews and pax were asked/told not to reveal an incident had happened via social media and the like, but I am surprised that the multiple jurisdictions involved (including Qataris themselves), that no leak actually occurred for 3 weeks in this day and age, even if people who knew of some aspects of the incident but didn’t know there were women who were examined, and without consent?
CWu as I said a DFAT employee reported it before the plane took off from Doha.
You realised of course that men can also get internal examination as well, so if there is enough suspicion (justifiable or not) to do so....
Hence my previous query about how far the local law can affect you individual right, including on open sea or skies, what flag the ship/airplanes go by.
Interestingly there was a male passenger on one of those planes who provide a commentary of what happened; he was identified as Dr Wolfgang Babeck a Sydney lawyer who has “expertise in international law”, but the various media articles who included his description of the incident didn't feature too much on his professional opinion, only included some obvious takeaway comments.
Another perennial question is that whether the local authorities have any right to detain you when you are in transit in a international airport (ie did not enter the country) if you have outstanding subpnoea or warrant for previous transgressions (criminal or not) in that country, or even another country whereby there are preexisting agreements of corporation including extradition
Particularly relevant if some of us frequent international travellers who share a common name with other criminal or persons of interest
@XWu. The key part of this is "if there is enough suspicion". Whether or not that suspicion is justifiable and sufficient is the crucial question.
We accept in society that there are times where law enforcement can encroach a right when they have a reasonable and justifiable grounds to do so. We have rules around searching peoples homes and their bodies. We have been rightfully angry - for example - when we read about NSW police strip searching teenagers who they suspect carrying drugs with little or no basis for that suspicion.
From what we know, the only criteria here was that they passengers were women. The only thing "suspicious" about them was their gender. I dont want to put words into your mouth or misunderstand you. I will assume you are not arguing that being a woman is sufficient grounds for suspicion and justification for an internal search.
Either way - what Qatar is telling us that they will strip and assault anyone based on any criteria and in the complete absence of a reasonable and justifiable suspicion. Does not matter if local law allows this - it is an outrage, and grounds for never flying through that country.
There is a well known range of situations where men can be under suspicion on the basis of gender, simply because of statistics and stereotypes but I am keen not to deviate from my original intent in my previous post which is simply pointing out men can get internal examination as well when under suspicion, whatever other interpretation or misunderstanding (however tenuous the extrapolation) that can be concluded from reading my post
Does not matter if Qatar airways was at fault or not. Or if all of the blame sits with Qatari authorities. How can we feel safe flying through that airport every again? We should be clear as to what "internal exams of women" means. It means unwanted and forced handling of genitals. It means sexual assault. Women were taking off airlines and sexually assaulted. How can we fly to an airport where that is a possible outcome? I wont.
I totally agree with TimHughes. Regardless of who is at fault, extremely personal invasive measures were taken against these women. I’m not sure how many males realise how truly invasive, often painful and deeply private a examination or medically required Pap-smear with your trusted doctor is. Imagine how it would then make a woman feel to have a similar examination forced upon them by an untrusted foreign power.
Guys, do you remember the old school way of checking out your prostate? Imagine being dragged out and having that forced on you by someone who you neither know nor trust...
I am also extremely worried that there was no social media or other cometary about this incident for three weeks. Had this been done to me; I would have been screaming it from the rooftops to every social media platform and mainstream platform that I had access to. How on earth did they keep this quiet? I cannot imagine a worse violation of privacy!
We are extremely lucky in Australia, UK, Canada, USA, New Zealand and EU. It is unimaginable that any government from the western world would sanction such grotesque behaviour. This should be a reminder that many countries do not share the same value for life and decency. Our company will never send its employees via the ME ever again. (This, of course, is a moot point as we are banned from travelling for the foreseeable future).
Direct flights on our national carrier, Qantas, will be the preferred way of travel. Better safe than sorry. Even if it costs you a few extra dollars. Bring on Project Sunrise.
There is a well known range of situations where men can be under suspicion on the basis of gender, simply because of statistics and stereotypes but I am keen not to deviate from my original intent in my previous post which is simply pointing out men can get internal examination as well when under suspicion, whatever other interpretation or misunderstanding (however tenuous the extrapolation) that can be concluded from reading my post
Last edited by XWu at Nov 03, 03.10 PM.
Last editedby XWu at Nov 03, 2020, 03:11 PM.
Xwu I’m sorry but men don’t get tested for having given birth. That is what is outrageous.
"Given the view that some have raised recently on this site I'm intrigued to know what, if any, coverage will be given to the story that is a lead on the BBC website in the UK of strip searches of female passengers at Doha. It's no less relevant than many other topics that have been worthy of articles recently."
Indeed, the story you mention isn't just a lead on the BBC website, it's also featured on the websites of the ABC, Fairfax/Nine, News, The Guardian and many other mainstream news outlets. And that's mainly why you won't see it being covered on Executive Traveller: because mainstream news sites with far greater resources than ET are already covering this, and to a depth we couldn't replicate.
As such, there's also no value we can add to the story, and any time we would spend on that story detracts from other content which has a greater 'unique' value to Executive Traveller and is more of what readers come here for.
In the past we've applied the same principles to a range of topics such as aircraft crashes, union disputes with airlines and the Boeing 737 MAX: the more a story receives widespread mainstream coverage and from better-resourced sites than ours, the more we'll consider giving it a pass on ET.
There's always room for exceptions to that, of course, but by and large we play to our strengths, to our target audience, and to what differentiates Executive Traveller from other websites.
Last edited by David at Oct 28, 05.55 PM.
Last editedby David at Oct 28, 2020, 05:56 PM.
David. I’m absolutely playing Devils advocate here. But your current lead story is the potential COVID vaccine. Pretty sure that’s being adequately covered elsewhere. And beyond speculation struggling to see what else you could potentially add.
TimHughes
TimHughes
Member since 25 Oct 2010
Total posts 15
Does not matter if Qatar airways was at fault or not. Or if all of the blame sits with Qatari authorities. How can we feel safe flying through that airport every again? We should be clear as to what "internal exams of women" means. It means unwanted and forced handling of genitals. It means sexual assault. Women were taking off airlines and sexually assaulted. How can we fly to an airport where that is a possible outcome? I wont.
tommygun
tommygun
Delta Air Lines - SkyMiles
Member since 16 Oct 2017
Total posts 291
Fully agree with you TimHughes.
patrickk
patrickk
Qantas
Member since 19 Apr 2012
Total posts 737
Originally Posted by XWu
@ patrickk
I wasn’t doubting the sensitivity of the matter, and it is possible those who were not searched (including all male pax) were not aware that actually happened, and perhaps in the 14 hours flight from Doha to Sydney the crews and pax were asked/told not to reveal an incident had happened via social media and the like, but I am surprised that the multiple jurisdictions involved (including Qataris themselves), that no leak actually occurred for 3 weeks in this day and age, even if people who knew of some aspects of the incident but didn’t know there were women who were examined, and without consent?
XWu
XWu
Member since 09 May 2020
Total posts 197
@TimHughes, tommygun
You realised of course that men can also get internal examination as well, so if there is enough suspicion (justifiable or not) to do so....
Hence my previous query about how far the local law can affect you individual right, including on open sea or skies, what flag the ship/airplanes go by.
Interestingly there was a male passenger on one of those planes who provide a commentary of what happened; he was identified as Dr Wolfgang Babeck a Sydney lawyer who has “expertise in international law”, but the various media articles who included his description of the incident didn't feature too much on his professional opinion, only included some obvious takeaway comments.
Another perennial question is that whether the local authorities have any right to detain you when you are in transit in a international airport (ie did not enter the country) if you have outstanding subpnoea or warrant for previous transgressions (criminal or not) in that country, or even another country whereby there are preexisting agreements of corporation including extradition
Particularly relevant if some of us frequent international travellers who share a common name with other criminal or persons of interest
TimHughes
TimHughes
Member since 25 Oct 2010
Total posts 15
XWu
XWu
Member since 09 May 2020
Total posts 197
@TimHughes
There is a well known range of situations where men can be under suspicion on the basis of gender, simply because of statistics and stereotypes but I am keen not to deviate from my original intent in my previous post which is simply pointing out men can get internal examination as well when under suspicion, whatever other interpretation or misunderstanding (however tenuous the extrapolation) that can be concluded from reading my post
Concorde1990
Concorde1990
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 13 Nov 2018
Total posts 24
Originally Posted by TimHughes
Does not matter if Qatar airways was at fault or not. Or if all of the blame sits with Qatari authorities. How can we feel safe flying through that airport every again? We should be clear as to what "internal exams of women" means. It means unwanted and forced handling of genitals. It means sexual assault. Women were taking off airlines and sexually assaulted. How can we fly to an airport where that is a possible outcome? I wont.
Guys, do you remember the old school way of checking out your prostate? Imagine being dragged out and having that forced on you by someone who you neither know nor trust...
I am also extremely worried that there was no social media or other cometary about this incident for three weeks. Had this been done to me; I would have been screaming it from the rooftops to every social media platform and mainstream platform that I had access to. How on earth did they keep this quiet? I cannot imagine a worse violation of privacy!
We are extremely lucky in Australia, UK, Canada, USA, New Zealand and EU. It is unimaginable that any government from the western world would sanction such grotesque behaviour. This should be a reminder that many countries do not share the same value for life and decency. Our company will never send its employees via the ME ever again. (This, of course, is a moot point as we are banned from travelling for the foreseeable future).
Direct flights on our national carrier, Qantas, will be the preferred way of travel. Better safe than sorry. Even if it costs you a few extra dollars. Bring on Project Sunrise.
UK/EU transit options:
HKG - getting risky
SIN - okay... for now
DXB - risky
AUH - risky
DOH - NEVER AGAIN
All China - Never again
patrickk
patrickk
Qantas
Member since 19 Apr 2012
Total posts 737
Originally Posted by XWu
@TimHughes
There is a well known range of situations where men can be under suspicion on the basis of gender, simply because of statistics and stereotypes but I am keen not to deviate from my original intent in my previous post which is simply pointing out men can get internal examination as well when under suspicion, whatever other interpretation or misunderstanding (however tenuous the extrapolation) that can be concluded from reading my post
Ourmanin
Ourmanin
Singapore Airlines - KrisFlyer
Member since 08 Jun 2018
Total posts 144
Originally Posted by David
Hi Ourmanin.
"Given the view that some have raised recently on this site I'm intrigued to know what, if any, coverage will be given to the story that is a lead on the BBC website in the UK of strip searches of female passengers at Doha. It's no less relevant than many other topics that have been worthy of articles recently."
Indeed, the story you mention isn't just a lead on the BBC website, it's also featured on the websites of the ABC, Fairfax/Nine, News, The Guardian and many other mainstream news outlets. And that's mainly why you won't see it being covered on Executive Traveller: because mainstream news sites with far greater resources than ET are already covering this, and to a depth we couldn't replicate.
As such, there's also no value we can add to the story, and any time we would spend on that story detracts from other content which has a greater 'unique' value to Executive Traveller and is more of what readers come here for.
In the past we've applied the same principles to a range of topics such as aircraft crashes, union disputes with airlines and the Boeing 737 MAX: the more a story receives widespread mainstream coverage and from better-resourced sites than ours, the more we'll consider giving it a pass on ET.
There's always room for exceptions to that, of course, but by and large we play to our strengths, to our target audience, and to what differentiates Executive Traveller from other websites.