Australian women on Qatar flight internally examined

[kangarooflyer88]

You know very well that they weren’t Qatar airlines employees. You are very fond of using the word 'incorrect' etc. applying to others' posts, how about this one?

It is literally the same thing. Qatar Airlines is fully owned by the Qatari government they are an agent of the Qatari government. This is different from say Qantas which I am told is owned by shareholders from around the world.

Come on, then, show us how Qatar airlines ( the 'company' in question) are supporting a terrorist organisation. Show us very clearly and precisely, please.

If Qatar airlines makes a profit, then presumably that profit goes to the Qatari government and the Qatari government has been shown to support the terrorist organization. Qatar Airways is the Qatari government.

yes, the first flight back to Australia from the Middle East is going to be Qatar Airways bringing over 200 Australians home. I’m sure Minister King will be there to welcome them at the airport.

Seems ironic that the first flight bringing Aussies back from Israel after a deviating attack launched by Hamas is the same airline that supports Hamas. Again, and to reiterate, Qatar Airlines is state owned. Qatar Airlines and the Qatari government are one and the same.

 

[Lynda2475]

You know very well that they weren’t Qatar airlines employees. You are very fond of using the word 'incorrect' etc. applying to others' posts, how about this one?

No you are playing semantics. Yet again I will remind you that the lawsuit filed by the women in the Federal Court names 3 parties:

1. Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA)
2. Qatar Airways
3. Qatar Company for Airport Operation and Management (MATAR) which is a wholly owned corporate subsidiary of Qatar Airways and had been contracted by QCAA to manage Hamad Airport in Doha where the assaults took place.

The legal action states the nurse and armed personnel who conducted the strip searches were employees of MATAR; ergo employees of QR.

And 1-3 also wholly owned by the Qatari government.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

No you are playing semantics. Yet again I will remind you: The lawsuit filed by the women in the Federal Court names 3 parties:

1. Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA)
2. Qatar Airways
3. Qatar Company for Airport Operation and Management (MATAR) which is a wholly owned corporate subsidiary of Qatar Airways and had been contracted by QCAA to manage Hamad Airport in Doha where the assaults took place.

The legal action states the nurse and armed personnel who conducted the strip searches were employees of MATAR; ergo employees of QR.

In addition, if we are to believe that Qatar Airways and the various organizations listed above are completely separate from the Qatari government, how on earth could they claim sovereign immunity from the claims made by these women in an Australian court? It would seem to me that if the Australian government wants Qatar Airways and the Qatari apparatus that caused this infringement in civil rights to "play ball," they need to threaten locking them out of the Australian market and potentially even getting the Kiwis involved too. Heck, what is to stop the Australian government from forcing all Australian airlines to cut any ties with the Qatar Airlines?

The Australian government now has a very strong hand they can play with the Qataris. Whether they choose to exercise it remains to be seen. But given all of the developments we've seen, I think it's fair to say that it's unlikely we see all those slots being granted to Qatar Airways. With that being said, I'd love to hear the case that could be made for Qatar being given extra slots. Perhaps there is a direct argument that can be made to the Australian people that we should ignore their human rights violations and alleged illegal activity and simply look at those shiny new routes and fares.

-RooFlyer88

 

[oz_mark]

In addition, if we are to believe that Qatar Airways and the various organizations listed above are completely separate from the Qatari government, how on earth could they claim sovereign immunity from the claims made by these women in an Australian court? It would seem to me that if the Australian government wants Qatar Airways and the Qatari apparatus that caused this infringement in civil rights to "play ball," they need to threaten locking them out of the Australian market and potentially even getting the Kiwis involved too. Heck, what is to stop the Australian government from forcing all Australian airlines to cut any ties with the Qatar Airlines?

Qatar Airways (the airline) has not claimed sovereign immunity.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Qatar Airways (the airline) has not claimed sovereign immunity.

That is correct at least from the article I read. However, what would stop Qatar Airlines from claiming sovereign immunity given they are a department of the Qatari government just like the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority? It is my understanding that Qatar Airlines said the search was outside of their control and was decided by someone else (i.e. pointing the finger at someone else). Whether that is true remains to be seen as one would have to look at the other airlines operating at Doha at the time of the search to see if they "complied" with the order or told the airport authority to bugger off. Part of me is inclined to believe the authorities didn't ask women on a British Airways flight to be searched not the least of which for the diplomatic row it would cause but perhaps I'm naive.

-RooFlyer88

 

[RooFlyer]

It is literally the same thing. Qatar Airlines is fully owned by the Qatari government they are an agent of the Qatari government. This is different from say Qantas which I am told is owned by shareholders from around the world.

'It' is NOT 'literally the same thing'. Pls check the meaning of "literally".

The claim was that the people who assaulted the passengers at DOH were employees of Qatar Airways. I've tried to discover who did the offending examinations, but can't, let alone who their employer was, but as the examinations reported as happening in ambulances, after the women were taken off the aircraft by armed airport guards, it seems a long bow to draw to say that they were airline employees. The common ultimate owner of the airport, security apparatus and the airline does not go to who employed the people who did the examinations which was the argument made above.

If Qatar airlines makes a profit, then presumably that profit goes to the Qatari government and the Qatari government has been shown to support the terrorist organization. Qatar Airways is the Qatari government.

The Qatari Government part owns Sydney Airport. Users of Sydney airport pay all sorts of fees to the airport via airlines, shops etc. If Sydney Airport makes a profit, presumably some of that profit goes to the Qatari government, and if the chain is completed, Hamas.

So, are users of Sydney airport supporting a terrorist organisation?

And Qatar Airways is not the Qatari Government, any more than 'Qantas was the Australian government' when it was government-owned. If it was, I should have complained to Paul Keating when Qantas lost my bag in 1995.

EDIT: I think we are straying away, so no more from me on this aspect.

 

[Lynda2475]

The repartiations are urgent,

Yes and the actual evacuations form Israel were done by RAAF and Qantas.

If the pax didn't want to fly on a free QR flight, no-one was making them.

True which is why many are waiting for the Qantas one or booking commercial flights with other carriers now they are out of the immediate danger zone.

Perhaps their perspective is more realistic than yours?

Their perspective is theirs, it has no bearing on mine.

Anyway, you use Sydney Airport, which is part owned by the Qatari government. How do you justify that?

They own ~3% stake which I am not happy about and have written to my local member as personally i do not think any key infrastructure should be allowed to be foreign owned let alone by a foreign government whose values are so misaligned to ours.

 

[RooFlyer]

They own ~3% stake which I am not happy about and have written to my local member as personally i do not think any key infrastructure should be allowed to be foreign owned let alone by a foreign government whose values are so misaligned to ours.

No-one forces you to use Sydney airport, same as no-one forced people onto the QR flight, so I guess its just a matter of convenience for everyone as to whether they accept help from the Qataris on the flight or contribute to the Qatari coffers by using Sydney airport?

 

[PineappleSkip]

EDIT: I think we are straying away, so no more from me on this aspect.

Agreed. There's another thread for this.

 

[Lynda2475]

I've tried to discover who did the offending examinations, but can't, let alone who their employer was,

Lol clearly didn't try very hard. The accused companies in the court case clearly named as was the fact the guards and nurses accused of the assault worked for Matar which is owned by QR. <Redacted>