Ah, here we go again.
Some poor passengers on an Air New Zealand flight from Auckland to Christchurch were disturbed by the cries of a two-year-old boy before take-off.
Oh, those poor, poor passengers and their sensitive ears, how ever did they
cope?
The good news for them was that they didn't have to. The woman, and her two sons - aged five and two respectively - , were asked the leave the flight by an air hostess because 'the pilot could not take off with unsettled passengers'.
Yes, that's right, a woman who had paid for her ticket, and paid for the tickets of her children, was asked to leave a flight
because her child was annoying the passengers.
Air New Zealand later said this wasn't true, and claimed that the woman was asked to leave the flight because the two-year-old refused to be properly restrained. Now, that is a more sensible argument, as it is a Civil Aviation requirement that all passengers wear a seat belt for take off and landing. However, if it is true, why did Air New Zealand wait until
after the woman and her children had been forced to disembark before explaining this to them?
Sounds like a case of damage control to me.
The woman and her two sons were supposed to catch another flight to Christchurch an hour later but, by the time their baggage was unloaded from the first flight, they were too late to board the second flight. In fact, the woman's youngest son wasn't allowed to fly at all! Her husband had to abandon his own plans for the weekend and drive up from Hamilton to Auckland to pick up his son, that's nearly an hour and a half trip each way. The woman and her oldest child got to Christchurch, but the article didn't say if the youngest had remained in Hamilton with his mother's partner, or if he had eventually made it to Christchurch with his mother and brother.
Now, the quote in this title came from a comment published underneath the article on
The Daily Life online. User
pOiter's full comment is below.
I'm afraid I have endured one too many flights with crying/screaming babies and toddlers. If your kids can't behave, don't fly until they can.
pOiter is obviously not a parent with young children, or a particularly understanding or compassionate person. In fact, their comment smacks of arrogance, insensitivity and egocentricity. You don't like babies crying, therefore they and, by default, their parents, should be housebound until they learn to communicate?
Sorry bucko, it doesn't work like that.
For babies and very young children who have not yet learned to communicate their needs using language, crying is the only way they can tell their caregiver they need something. Whether it be a nappy change, some food, a sleep, comfort, or just to tell their carer that they're scared or unhappy. Whatever
pOiter and others like him/her may believe, children do not cry on flights to annoy other passengers. They cry because they need to communicate.
Also, a crying child
is not a misbehaving child. This is often a contentious topic among those who don't have children themselves, as there is a deep-seated, but misguided, belief that 'good' children and quiet children. It's the old 'children should be seen, not heard' argument that was popular in our grandparents' day.
This is not true. As I mentioned above, children cry to communicate. The cry of a young child would be the equivalent of an older child saying 'Mummy, can I have something to eat now?' or 'Daddy, I'm scared, can I have a cuddle?'
A further point, while
pOiter doesn't explicitly state that he/she has a 'right' to travel in peace and quiet, this is a statement often made by people with similar, narrow-minded opinions. Not only are these people rude and judgmental, they are also ignorant of what actually constitutes a 'right'.
A 'right' is defined as
'that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principals etc., often protected by a constitution or a Bill of Rights'.
Considering
pOiter's comment appeared in an Australian newspaper (The Daily Life is owned by
Fairfax Media), I'm going to guess that he/she is Australian. Australia has a constitution, in which our rights are protected, and nowhere in that document is 'the right to travel in peace and quiet' listed. This so-called 'right' exists only in the minds of ignorants like
pOiter.
As I mentioned above, babies and young children cry, it's what they do. You can't stop them, and you can't stop their parents from travelling with them, or taking them out places. Imagine a world where children were housebound until they could communicate with language, where they were not allowed to go and play in the park, go to a cafe, or ride on a train or airplane because of their level of development.
What a terrible world that would be.
The attitude of
pOiter, and many others, shows that children are not valued in Australia, and, as a future early childhood educator, this saddens me greatly. Why don't we value our children? Why are they thought of as nothing but annoyances? Why are we so selfish to think that think we should be able to prevent parents travelling or going out with their young children, just because they cry?
Well,
why?
I have some advice for
pOiter and his/her friends in the anti-childhood camp: buy some earplugs and get over yourselves.
~ Australian Kiwi
If you are interested in reading the article I have used for this post, you can find it
here. It certainly makes for interesting reading, as do the comments below.
