Pax removed from QF838 MEL-DRW 02 Feb

[Hvr]

A Qantas flight from Melbourne to Darwin was disrupted when passengers refused to buckle their seatbelts in protest to the attempted deportation of a Tamil asylum seeker by immigration authorities.

Qantas confirmed a "number of passengers" on QF838 became disruptive when they refused sit down and follow cabin crew instructions on Monday morning's flight.


The 25-year-old Tamil man, Puvaneethan, was being deported to Sri Lanka after the Refugee Review Tribunal found him not to be a refugee. He has been living in Australia since 2012.
"After boarding QF838 in Melbourne a number of passengers became disruptive. The passengers refused to follow cabin crew instruction so were offloaded and met by the AFP (Australian Federal Police)," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

While the merits of deportation can be argued disrupting a commercial flight is not the place to do it. Here's hoping those who participated are penalised, maybe with loss of fare.

 

[TomVexille]

While the merits of deportation can be argued disrupting a commercial flight is not the place to do it. Here's hoping those who participated are penalised, maybe with loss of fare.

I think that's fair.

Refuse to follow crewmember instructions, be offloaded. They shouldn't get away scot free for wasting the other passengers time.

 

[RooFlyer]

Prosecute to the full extent of the law. What is the penalty for refusing to follow crew's instructions?

 

[defurax]

What is the penalty for refusing to follow crew's instructions?

Good question. Unfortunately, I think in most cases there are no consequences. It almost always end in the PAX being questioned by police and released without further actions. Except maybe a few recent well publicised cases of alcohol fueled rage and lunatic behaviours.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

So you expect passengers to follow the rule of law, even when the government does not?
Deporting asylum seekers back to the country from which they fled is réfoulment, and contrary to international law.
Such determinations that Tamils are not refugees are based on the false assessment that Sri Lanka is now "safe"- despite continued human rights abuses.
Abuses which the Sri Lankan Govt has refused to allow the UN to investigate.
Abuses to which our Govt is turning a blind eye in return for Sri Lanka's cooperation to "stop the boats".
Regardless of the cost in human suffering.

The government is compromising aviation security by using commercial airlines to do their dirty work.
It is manifestly unsafe to carry a passenger who does not want to be onboard and has nothing left to lose.
Airlines should refuse to carry any passengers in such circumstances.
Put the blame where it belongs.

 

[mannej]

So you expect passengers to follow the rule of law, even when the government does not?
Deporting asylum seekers back to the country from which they fled is réfoulment, and contrary to international law.
Such determinations that Tamils are not refugees are based on the false assessment that Sri Lanka is now "safe"- despite continued human rights abuses.
Abuses which the Sri Lankan Govt has refused to allow the UN to investigate.
Abuses to which our Govt is turning a blind eye in return for Sri Lanka's cooperation to "stop the boats".
Regardless of the cost in human suffering.

The government is compromising aviation security by using commercial airlines to do their dirty work.
It is manifestly unsafe to carry a passenger who does not want to be onboard and has nothing left to lose.
Airlines should refuse to carry any passengers in such circumstances.
Put the blame where it belongs.

That is not the point of this thread, the passengers in question should use more appropriate methods to protest.

Even if one disagrees with the treatment of asylum seekers, it does not give them the right to carry on like this.

 

[RooFlyer]

Hey, mannej, we agree :shock: :mrgreen: .

I visited Sri Lanka a few years ago. Its a lovely place.

 

[juddles]

....Deporting asylum seekers back to the country from which they fled is réfoulment, and contrary to international law.......

Not if you determine them not to be genuine asylum seekers.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

That is not the point of this thread .

It is entirely the point.
But you're right.

No-one should try to save people's lives through any means which inconveniences us rich white middle class people who want cheap holidays in third world countries.

Completely inappropriate. What WERE they thinking?

If you had your way Mahatma Ghandi would have politely asked the British to leave India.
Martin Luther King would have simply petitioned the white house to let black people vote.
And Nelson Mandela would be .. Nelson who?

 

[juddles]

....No-one should try to save people's lives through any means which inconveniences us rich white middle class people ......

I am not white, I dont feel rich, and I feel your views are those of a typical misguided, under-educated, fanatical idealist.

You will not win my vote for your cause or situation by disrupting my travel. When you dont even have the politeness to understand MY situation.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Any of us who can afford to fly at all, let alone frequently, is rich and extremely priviliged by global standards.
The vast majority of the world's population will rarely, if ever, board an aircraft.

Civil disobedience has to be disruptive or it will be ineffective.

 

[Denali]

Darwin is the place to be these days for rich white people?

There are other ways to protest without holding up a few hundred people and tens of thousands of dollars in hardware and infrastructure. All the protesters did was piss off the majority of news.com readers that is going to consider the protesters as part of the great unwashed.

Australia has spoken numerous times, across different political parties. Non genuine asylum seekers are not welcomed. You don't have to accept this but you also don't have the right to intentionally board an aircraft with the aim to cause disruption/delays and possibly frighten people.

 

[juddles]

Any of us who can afford to fly at all, let alone frequently, is rich and extremely priviliged by global standards.....

That is a very shallow perception. Understandable with a restricted western education, but laughable in other places. I have to fly a bit every year, but I know many people who have never seen a plane that have an amazing quality of life. So much better than mine. You need to get out of the idealism that you feel and actually experience real life. Happy to help......

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Bigots may be in the majority but they can't force those of us who still have a shred of human decency and compassion to be silent.

Bigots deserve to have their lives disrupted. The more the better.

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>

If you had your way Mahatma Ghandi would have politely asked the British to leave India.
Martin Luther King would have simply petitioned the white house to let black people vote.
And Nelson Mandela would be .. Nelson who?

Any of us who can afford to fly at all, let alone frequently, is rich and extremely priviliged by global standards.
The vast majority of the world's population will rarely, if ever, board an aircraft.

Civil disobedience has to be disruptive or it will be ineffective.

You equate these selfish nitwits to Ghandi, King and Mandela? Oh good grief. Really?

Just remind me to be civilly disobedient every time some one wants to fly .. in fact every time they go out of their house, OK? My civil right to protest a cause I believe in, right? To make their life completely unworkable because I think I'm in the right and therefore I can be civilly disobedient and to heck with the consequences to anyone else. Day in, day out, year in, year out. Because its a cause I believe in. I'll be just like Mandela, King and Ghandi .

Bigots may be in the majority but they can't force those of us who still have a shred of human decency and compassion to be silent.

Bigots deserve to have their lives disrupted. The more the better.

Words simply fail me beyond these.

 

[juddles]

.....Words simply fail me beyond these.....

never ever thought I would agree with a geo......

 

[mannej]

Bigots may be in the majority but they can't force those of us who still have a shred of human decency and compassion to be silent.

Bigots deserve to have their lives disrupted. The more the better.

If bigots deserve to have their lives disrupted, that just enforces my belief that this protest was not appropriate.

FWIW, this is the travel section of AFF. Any moral dilemmas of asylum seekers can be discussed in the appropriate section.

Before you label me a bigot, I can still believe in a certain ideology or point of view, yet disagree in the delivery of such view. As such, the moral big-noting is not the point of this thread.

 

[Major]

What they were protesting about is irrelevant. You follow the instructions of aircraft crew or you don't travel.

QF should be congratulated for swiftly removing those who jeopardize the safety of their passengers. Add their names to the no fly list and allow the courts to further deliberate.

 

[defurax]

It is the government which jeapordises the safety of passengeers by using commercial airlines to do their dirty work.
You lot would have collaborated with the naz_s because "rule of law".

So Australia is akin to naz_ Germany
Time for me to unsubcribe from this thread...

 

[JohnPhelan]

As usual, the morally self-righteous think that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot.

And that, in the prosecution of their cause, they have the right to enforce their view on everyone else.

There's another word for this - selfish.

The irony is that these people - who claim to be concerned about others - are actually only concerned about their own importance.