Policy Change Debate After Much

Policy Change Debate

After much research I stumbled upon a site where policy change is being commented upon and I found it to be highly interesting and useful. It is a popular website Salon.com and the topic of the forum was a policy change made by some airlines including British and Qantas Airways. Qantas is one of the most important Australian carriers and British Airways is similarly important carrier from Britain and in November 2006, the airlines made a new policy whereby they ban male passengers to sit next to children because of fear of sexual abuse.

The policy is rather unusual and people had obviously commented on this change. The reason it looked better than a person suggesting policy change is because it shows how many people actually support such changes and those who do, what are their arguments and those who don't, why they feel it is not needed.

Many people with children might feel this is a good policy but interestingly most people with or without children found the policy weird. However of course there were some supporters. We need to see how convincing their arguments in favor of or against the policy are.

For example one person thinks that the policy is simply "awful" because it is so very ridiculous. This person maintains that a child molester wouldn't try to fondle a child in public and when everyone could look: "Child molesters don't want to get caught, trying to rape or fondle some kid on a plane, a plane of all places with paranoia against terrorism abounds and people no longer ignore things that seem odd, a pervert is not going to see this as optimum hunting territory."

This is a good argument and makes sense but with children you cannot take chances and hence at least I am not convinced that this argument would force Qantas to change this policy.

A supporter of the policy however feels that this policy should be broadened to include children not be sitting with strangers of either sex. The person feels this policy is sexist but appears to side with it and also stresses broadening of this policy: "I think they should change the policy so that children can never be seated next to strangers of either gender, so long as a parent is on the flight. Non-sexist, and nicer for everyone involved!"

Another supporter suggests that this should be done before boarding so it's known that no male strangers are sitting next to children. The person makes a strong point saying that there is nothing wrong with this policy because many amusements parks have stopped issuing single tickets to men for fear of sexual molestation. "I think there's nothing wrong with the precaution - many amusement parks have refused to sell single season passes to men for years for fear of child molestation. We all know that men are far more likely to molest a strange child. The thing is the airlines should make the seating arrangements before everyone boards. You can't ask an innocent man to move his seat "because of the child molestation policy." He'd have every right to be offended."

This is a very good argument. Policy must be discreetly implemented so the boarding pass issuing staff should now that no male strangers can be seated next to children. This way the crew can avoid embarrassment and the male passengers can be spared humiliation. Any person would get offended if he is asked to move to another place because of some policy that puts him in the same category as a sexual offender. My father is a decent man who has raised us with love and care, it would be completely sad to see him moved to another place for fear of molestation. So I feel that this is a highly relevant point and people should be assigned right seats before they board the plane.

Another good point is made by another supporter who says that this policy makes sense because younger people are generally uncomfortable sitting next to older men. She says it goes not only for children but also for young teenage girls who would often find sitting next to older men rather uncomfortable. The woman has been a victim of bad experience on the plane when a man started touching her when she was sleeping. "This policy should not be billed as having anything to do with the idea that "men sexually assault," but should be associated with the comfort of grown men and young women in terms of the physical proximity that makes everyone comfortable."

Interestingly the policy has attracted lot of comments and attention. People approach the policy from their own experiences and viewpoints and hence what they contribute gives us a deeper insight into the issue. This policy has already been implemented by some other airlines including Air New Zealand. One person comments that it is rather unfair to women to make them sit next to children: "When Air New Zealand started this policy, many locals pointed out that this discriminated against women too. Who wants to sit next to a whiny kid? No man will have to any more, but if you're a woman, tough."

Steve Kelner, a regular commentator, posts some statistics as well to indicate that this policy is completely nonsensical. He makes use of some previous statistics and feels that even if 86% of all molesters are males, we must find out how many of them do such things on a plane. He says he has traveled frequently and has never observed any abnormal behavior: There are millions of people who fly every day, as Patrick Smith notes in his Ask the Pilot column. Personally, I've flown hundreds of thousands of miles and NEVER observed anything like this occurring at all. If it is 86% of.0000000001% of passengers, why are we pursuing this nonsensical policy?"

MWise also speaks against the policy as it is. She is of the view that if people want to protect their children, they should not let them fly alone and must sit next to them. "It is _your_ responsibility to look after _your_ kid. If you want to protect your child, then travel with them and sit in the middle seat with your child next to you either on the aisle or in the window seat. Not all men are child molesters, and not all women are care givers."