Every year or so, someone has the balls to publicly take on the anti-male establishment that we all suffer under and Mirko Fischer is one such hero. Down the years we've had people like the late Brian Law and Ertin Pizzey and now we can add Mirko Fischer.
This web-site has covered for some time the sexist and dangerous policies carried out many airlines including British Airways, Qantas, Air New Zealand who designate that men cannot sit next to children if the child is not theirs and is not accompanied by a related adult. Not only is this sexist because it only applies to men but also dangerous and offensive because the airlines tacitly believe that every man is a likely paedophile. Even the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has been a victim of it (link).
When the story first broke in January (attracting 460 comments in a debate in the Daily Mail) you would have thought that British Airways would just put their hands up, pay up and change their policy.
They didn't and even though he has won, you would think they would now change (BBC).
But still no, so infested in society's psyche that men cannot be trusted (it is why there are so few male primary school teachers) British Airways only admitted discrimination in the case of Mirko Fischer rather than say their whole policy is wrong.
It means right now in a plane in the air, British Airways could be sexually discriminating against a man and tacitly accusing him of being a paedophile by asking him to move because he is sitting next to an unaccompanied child (it is not he who has chosen the seat of course).
It also show the endemic and casual sexism against men that largely goes unchallenged. This is the same causal institutional sexism that allows the Government to propose bringing forward male retirement age by 8 to 10 years but only a women's by 4 years (it has not given a date yet).
The other point of course is the pathetic silence from organisations like the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who have said nothing on this case. The Commission is supposedly meant to be about supporting equality for men and women, so it should be writing to the Chief Executive of British Airways demanding that they end this policy. But there is nothing but silence but like British Airways, the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not believe in equality if it means equality for men.
Posted by Skimmington
Very good piece.
A politician in New Zealand took the issue to their human rights commission and got nowhere either.
Bit disappointed by the lack of coverage of the story - strangely, the BBC seem to have gone crazy over it for a change, yet the rest of the UK media has totally ignored it, (despite the fact it's attracting interest internationally).
Here are links to further BBC articles on the issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10182869.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10404478.stm
Posted by: John Kimble | Friday, 25 June 2010 at 02:25
Other good news is that Mr Fischer was originally planning to donate the money to the NSPCC but changed his mind and instead chose the far less hysterical and superior charity Kidscape instead
Posted by: John Kimble | Friday, 25 June 2010 at 02:28
Having established this precedent - an admission of fault in a single case - let us hope that more men come forward and make a similar complaint.
May I also suggest that any lawyer who happens across this article or this case has the nous to start a class action and search out a whole plane-load of such discriminated against men.
'Tis pity that Mirko didn't put the money in a fighting fund.
Posted by: amfortas | Friday, 25 June 2010 at 03:44
A small but important victory. A very good point about the NSPCC. The truth is that such abuse is rare in stable families and concentrated in areas and chaotic families. There is a tendency for some big charities to talk up the issue to support funding drives. Hence the foolish bans. Having written to the ehrc I don't really expect much. The pensions issue is another that men should protest. Trom covered this well in the exelent election pieces.Write to mps and respond to the consultation.
Posted by: Groan | Friday, 25 June 2010 at 08:32
I suspect that this might signal the beginning of the end of that policy. BA has opened the door to paying out claims every time it does this. Perhaps BA needs to be asked, what effect this policy has on our children? How does a mother explain to a son, or a daughter for that matter, that father isn't allowed to sit next to an unaccompanied child because men can't be trusted? The twisted message this sends can't be justified.
And does the policy suggest that women aren't abusers? Wow!
Posted by: Pierce Harlan | Friday, 25 June 2010 at 15:26
Thanks for keeping these updates coming. This is a great sign. We are finally seeing men beginning to stand up for their rights.
Your post inspired me to do a piece about this on one of my own blogs:
http://armchairchauvinist.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/misandrists-on-a-plane/
Posted by: Ayami Tyndall | Friday, 25 June 2010 at 19:38