6 ms·

Oh. Oh no. > Women on 10 flights, including five Australians who were on a Sydney-bound Qatar Airways flight, were removed from planes at gunpoint and taken in

Oh. Oh no. > Women on 10 flights, including five Australians who were on a Sydney-bound Qatar Airways flight, were removed from planes at gunpoint and taken into ambulances on the tarmac. > Some were instructed to remove their underwear and some were forced to submit to invasive gynaecological examinations for evidence they had recently given birth. /// My original comment is above, as many replies indicate, I did not include the context, which is: > women on planes on the ground at Doha, including 13 Australians, were subjected to the examinations as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag in the departures lounge at Hamad international airport. I apologize for not providing the full context.

userbinator 3y ago
I think it's also important to give the context, for those like me who just saw your comment and were wondering why exactly they would even think of doing that: > On 2 October 2020, women on planes on the ground at Doha, including 13 Australians, were subjected to the examinations as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag in the departures lounge at Hamad international airport.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  If only there were any less invasive way to determine biological relationship between a mother and a newborn. (It's not even obvious that I do or should support DNA testing for this, but if there were only two options, I'd sure as hell support that over forced gynecological examination of all women of potential child-bearing age.)
  - megablast 3y ago
    Is dna testing instant?
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Does it need to be in this case? Does the (real or perceived) need for immediacy justify the incredible level of invasiveness of this mass surveillance?
      - averageRoyalty 3y ago
        With multiple grounded aircraft at one of the busiest international airports in the world? Immediacy is definitely warrented. I'm unsure if the invasiveness is, but obviously a 24 hour+ process isn't viable.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        If it turns out one of the women is the mother, it would not be trivial to arrest and bring her to trial across international borders. This is also assuming the mother doesn't further vanish into thin air, so to speak. So while I find the methods questionable, I also accept there is merit in pursuing methods that can give reasonable evidence towards an arrest now before the mother can high tail it.
      - irjustin 3y ago
        > Does the (real or perceived) need for immediacy justify the incredible level of invasiveness of this mass surveillance? "mass surveillance" this is not; invasive - absolutely. What you're proposing, if I was a woman (I am not) to be searched is instead i have to give up my DNA to have them store on record in case I was the person who abandoned the newborn. That's much closer to "mass surveillance" than a body search. If given the choice, I would give the body search 100%.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        > "mass surveillance" this is not How so? I'm imagining they're intending to detain and investigate indiscriminately every woman of child-bearing age in the airport and on flights that recently boarded. That seems to meet the definition to me.
        3y ago
  - irjustin 3y ago
    > If only there were any less invasive way to determine biological relationship between a mother and a newborn. There isn't if you're looking for a fast answer.
  - batch12 3y ago
    I wonder if a urine sample would idenify elevated hormones normally found postpartum.
- onetokeoverthe 3y ago
  [dead]
fastball 3y ago
If you're going to quote the juicy bits of the article, it might be helpful to provide the full context as well. > women on planes on the ground at Doha, including 13 Australians, were subjected to the examinations as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag in the departures lounge at Hamad international airport. While I personally don't think this justifies their actions, I do think it matters that this was not a completely random "let's inspect some vaginas".
- addicted 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - averageRoyalty 3y ago
    > which is essentially rape That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? It's invasive and wrong (from western eyes anyway) for sure. But "we're inspecting viable suspects genitals due to a crime" is not worse than "we're inspecting random peoples genitals", which is the point that was being made. If an assault took place and witnesses saw a short asian woman, you'd expect the lineup to be of short asian women, not tall black men.
    - chfalck 3y ago
      It does not feel like hyperbole to me. “We’re going to insert something into/inspect your genitals. Do you consent to this?” “No.” “We’re doing it anyway at gunpoint.” Sounds like text book rape to me. Pretty Orwellian if you feel this is an acceptable approach to apply to innocent people en masse in response to a crime. Maybe take a lock of hair for a DNA test against the newborn if you’re really that concerned yah?
      - dfgfek 3y ago
        [flagged]
        3y ago

userbinator 3y ago

I think it's also important to give the context, for those like me who just saw your comment and were wondering why exactly they would even think of doing that: > On 2 October 2020, women on planes on the ground at Doha, including 13 Australians, were subjected to the examinations as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag in the departures lounge at Hamad international airport.

sokoloff 3y ago
If only there were any less invasive way to determine biological relationship between a mother and a newborn. (It's not even obvious that I do or should support DNA testing for this, but if there were only two options, I'd sure as hell support that over forced gynecological examination of all women of potential child-bearing age.)
- megablast 3y ago
  Is dna testing instant?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Does it need to be in this case? Does the (real or perceived) need for immediacy justify the incredible level of invasiveness of this mass surveillance?
    - averageRoyalty 3y ago
      With multiple grounded aircraft at one of the busiest international airports in the world? Immediacy is definitely warrented. I'm unsure if the invasiveness is, but obviously a 24 hour+ process isn't viable.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      If it turns out one of the women is the mother, it would not be trivial to arrest and bring her to trial across international borders. This is also assuming the mother doesn't further vanish into thin air, so to speak. So while I find the methods questionable, I also accept there is merit in pursuing methods that can give reasonable evidence towards an arrest now before the mother can high tail it.
    - irjustin 3y ago
      > Does the (real or perceived) need for immediacy justify the incredible level of invasiveness of this mass surveillance? "mass surveillance" this is not; invasive - absolutely. What you're proposing, if I was a woman (I am not) to be searched is instead i have to give up my DNA to have them store on record in case I was the person who abandoned the newborn. That's much closer to "mass surveillance" than a body search. If given the choice, I would give the body search 100%.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        > "mass surveillance" this is not How so? I'm imagining they're intending to detain and investigate indiscriminately every woman of child-bearing age in the airport and on flights that recently boarded. That seems to meet the definition to me.
        3y ago
- irjustin 3y ago
  > If only there were any less invasive way to determine biological relationship between a mother and a newborn. There isn't if you're looking for a fast answer.
- batch12 3y ago
  I wonder if a urine sample would idenify elevated hormones normally found postpartum.
onetokeoverthe 3y ago
[dead]

fastball 3y ago

If you're going to quote the juicy bits of the article, it might be helpful to provide the full context as well. > women on planes on the ground at Doha, including 13 Australians, were subjected to the examinations as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag in the departures lounge at Hamad international airport. While I personally don't think this justifies their actions, I do think it matters that this was not a completely random "let's inspect some vaginas".

addicted 3y ago
[flagged]
- averageRoyalty 3y ago
  > which is essentially rape That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? It's invasive and wrong (from western eyes anyway) for sure. But "we're inspecting viable suspects genitals due to a crime" is not worse than "we're inspecting random peoples genitals", which is the point that was being made. If an assault took place and witnesses saw a short asian woman, you'd expect the lineup to be of short asian women, not tall black men.
  - chfalck 3y ago
    It does not feel like hyperbole to me. “We’re going to insert something into/inspect your genitals. Do you consent to this?” “No.” “We’re doing it anyway at gunpoint.” Sounds like text book rape to me. Pretty Orwellian if you feel this is an acceptable approach to apply to innocent people en masse in response to a crime. Maybe take a lock of hair for a DNA test against the newborn if you’re really that concerned yah?
    - dfgfek 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - 3y ago