haha - true
^She must have been wearing her beer googles to strip for pseudolus or for borat for that matter.
The female Katie, under the terms and conditions of employment, has a "medical". Whether that infringes on her human rights as a female is cast aside because of ......
When one takes a plane ride one also accepts the airlines terms and conditions. Whether that infringes on ones human rights as a male/female is cast aside because of .....
When one enters a foreign country one accepts their laws/terms and conditions. Whether that infringes on ones human rights as a male/female is cast aside because of ......
For all those not willing to accept these "rules" I suggest staying in your bunker.
Last edited by OhOh; 28-10-2020 at 09:14 AM.
A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.
It all depends on jurisdiction, as he is saying. There is no worldly constitution and bill of rights.
Women in Qatar Qatar's policies regarding women's rights is restricted due to the male guardianship law.[3] and restrictions influenced by the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.
Again, you're quoting someone - who is this mysterious person all the time?
And you're wrong. Again. As usual. I'm sure this story gives you the warm and fuzzies, feeling up women against their will. You're a sick fuck.
Speaking of which:
. . . again that is bullshit. Qatari wahabism has very little to do with the Saudi wahabism you're trying to compare it to. Aside from that:
The most relevant news being:
Qatar finally apologises for genital examination incident.
The state of Qatar has finally apologised for any “distress or infringement” felt by women forced to undergo a genital examination at Doha’s Hamad Airport.However, the statement comes three days after the story was revealed publicly and almost one month after the incident itself occurred on 2 October.
Earlier this week, it emerged that 13 Australian women on board Qatar Airways flight QR908 from Doha to Sydney were asked to leave the plane to be escorted to ambulances for the invasive check, apparently carried out because staff found a premature baby abandoned in a bathroom.
On Wednesday, Australia’s Foreign Minister, Marise Payne, said that women from as many as 10 different aircraft were checked, and five women from other nationalities were also asked to leave the plane – though it’s not clear if all were invasively searched.
PROMOTED CONTENT
The Qatari government said in a statement the baby was rescued from “what appeared to be a shocking and appalling attempt to kill her”.
“This was the first instance of an abandoned infant being discovered in such a condition at HIA [Hamad Airport] – this egregious and life-threatening violation of the law triggered an immediate search for the parents, including on flights in the vicinity of where the newborn was found,” read the statement.
“While the aim of the urgently-decided search was to prevent the perpetrators of the horrible crime from escaping, the State of Qatar regrets any distress or infringement on the personal freedoms of any traveller caused by this action.
“His Excellency Sheikh Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz Al Thani the Prime Minister and Minister of Interior of the State of Qatar has directed that a comprehensive, transparent investigation into the incident be conducted.
“The results of the investigation will be shared with our international partners. The State of Qatar remains committed to ensuring the safety, security and comfort of all travelers transiting through the country.”
The state of Qatar effectively owns both Hamad Airport and the flag carrier, Qatar Airways. Before the statement, Minister Payne reiterated that she thought the treatment was “offensive” and “grossly inappropriate” to a parliamentary hearing.
She said the Qatari government had planned to hand her a report on the incident “very soon”, while Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary Frances Adamson added the Qatari government’s reaction “matches our own in terms of level of distress and abhorrence and a deep questioning of how this can have happened”.
So, a religiously back-arseward country apologises and is shocked at the treatment the women received but our two (among others, as is seen) rape and molestation apologists are all hot and bothered that women can't be treated as they wish they could . . . without getting locked up.
Just hope this never happen to your mothers, sisters, wives etc ... or would you be watching proceedings with sweaty palms . . .
No. Just you and OhOh fantasising
Last edited by panama hat; 28-10-2020 at 10:05 AM.
Free the Qatar "12".
Image/damage limitation. Possibly a settlement payment/free flight has already been offered, that will brush the incident under the carpet.
The "rules based" empire's vassals will observe some "rules" or ignore/rewrite/impose new "intentionally supported rules" as and when required.
Last edited by OhOh; 28-10-2020 at 10:20 AM.
It's in the news, before parliament and widely discussed . . . in a totalitarian state it could be 'brushed under the carpet', which is how you clearly like it
Yea, that's just more bullshit . . . and your continuing quotation underlines that
Unlike possibly yours and Skidmark's my preference aren't rape and/or using force to grope women.
In Qatar you are under Qatari law.
Which means they can pretty well do what they want. It doesn't actually say if they found the woman concerned, but giving birth out of wedlock is clear evidence of adultery, which is a year in nick if they decide they don't like you.
While I agree that the health of a mother who has just given birth is at great risk, the main reason a woman would hide it in that shithole is out of a fear of going to jail.
Women on Qatar Airways Flight Say They Were Strip-Searched - The New York TimesQatar Airways could not be immediately reached for comment. Hamad International Airport said the newborn found abandoned at the airport was being cared for but remained unidentified.
As for the medical examinations, a spokesperson for the airport said: “Medical professionals expressed concern to officials about the health and welfare of a mother who had just given birth and requested she be located prior to departing H.I.A. Individuals who had access to the specific area of the airport where the newborn infant was found were asked to assist in the query.”
Heather Barr, a lawyer and co-director of women’s rights at Human Rights Watch, said: “I have never come across something quite like this before.” She added, “These examinations can constitute sexual assault.”
She added that performing invasive exams on dozens of women was a “very strange and abusive way” to find and help a new mother in need. “It’s just not the right way to get help for the baby or for the mother,” Ms. Barr said.
How nice of you to draw even more attention to yourself in this regard.
Allegations? Allegations that you're possibly an apologist for molestation? Just reading your vehemence about justifying women being molested by strangers against their will in this thread could lead one to possibly think in that direction.
Skidmark being a rape apologist . . . yea, been there done that - that you don't see it says quite a bot about you.
Why you would support a totalitarian state's handling of this case . . . and the government actually apologised and was aghast at the actions taken by the people involved. Well, I guess you still support the acts. Good for you.
Demand for flights to Qatar from the North of England have suddenly quadrupled.
YOUR ALLEGATIONS ARE FALSE.
You have no evidence to back up your allegations. No apology posted.
I do not support any government that hangs it's employees out to dry for following the guidelines.
The coward tries to walk his unproven allegations back.
What an arsehole you are.
The government can print what they like.
I've posted my opinion in the thread.
Last edited by OhOh; 28-10-2020 at 06:07 PM.
Which allegations are these, OhOh?
Are you suffering from a case of self-importance?
There you go, doubling down on being an apologist . . . well done. Oh, and the government has, as stated numerous times now, apologised at the treatment meted out. Yet you keep pushing for the right to abuse and molest women. Care to have another shovel to dig your hole a bit deeper?
I've written nothing different. Your vile opinion could lead people to think you condone it.
Is this another brilliant 'QED' moment for you?
You mean like an apology for their mistreatment of the women - which you're still defending. Why, OhOh? Could it be that you . . .
(I can see why you enjoy writing open-ended whataboutist and snide crap - it's easy)
Yes, we know . . . it's a discussion. We can read your opinion about the unacceptable, for most, mistreatment of women by the heavy hand of authority. An authority which has apologised and announced its regret of over-reach . . . yet you still find it quite ok.
QED, OhOh?
They do have a point here:
The Qatari government said in a statement the baby was rescued from “what appeared to be a shocking and appalling attempt to kill her”.
Nobody was saying otherwise. It does not justify their response, though.
Actually, there is. It is called the "Universal Declaration of human rights".
Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Woman have vaginal examinations all the time (or they do if they have their heads screwed on). If it is carried out privately by qualified medical staff, does it really qualify as any of that?
It's not like they asked them to drop their knickers and gape at the passing passengers, is it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)