Back from Singapore and the next day the virus hit.
The one that my doctor says is sweeping Dubai - if you have it you have my sympathy, it's no fun. If you've escaped it so far I advise you to do whatever you can to avoid it.
I've been down and out for three days but as this afternoon I feel slightly less awful I thought I'd dip my toe gingerly into the blogosphere.
The Singapore Airlines flight back was going on to Cairo and I came across something that I haven't experienced before.
Cairo passengers were told, several times, that they could not leave the aircraft during the transit, including during the cleaning of the aircraft. Blackballed.
We Dubai passengers had to show our boarding passes to security people stationed right at the exit door of the aircraft to prove that we were indeed booked to Dubai and then they let us through.
Does this happen to passengers to/from other destinations or is the heavy hand reserved for Egypt I wonder?
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Here's one to get you going.
Discrimination. An interesting subject and one which causes heated debate.
Not just debate of course but abuse and extemist ranting. It's been a while since the ranters have screamed abuse at me, so here's an opportunity.
Anti-racism body welcomes UAE efforts to combat discrimination
Geneva: The UAE reviewed on Tuesday the achievements it has made regarding the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination before the committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
That's the beginning of a story in 'Gulf News' this morning.
Note that the presentation outlined the steps and measures taken by the country to enforce the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
All forms of racial discrimination.
Also in today's 'Gulf News' there are very many employment ads which are distinctly discriminatory and wouldn't be allowed in many other countries. Examples:
Accountant, Indian, age below 30,
Sales Consultant, Indian, with experience
Cashier (6 Nos.), Filipino, female.
IT Technician, Filipino.
Outdoor Sales Executive, female, Pakistani.
Young Pakistani, diploma & BSC in Electronics.
Pharmacist & Dentist, Arab, male, required.
Arab National Sales Manager.
Western Commercial Manager.
Legislation in many countries wouldn't allow those ads not only because they're specific about nationality/ethnicity but also because of gender and age specifications. Australia is a typical example, where the law forbids mention of nationality, ethnicity, male or female, or the age of the candidate because to do so would be discrimination.
In spite of the UAE reporting that it is eliminating all forms of racial discrimination, we have ads on a daily basis which are blatantly discriminatory.
So should it be banned? It's actually companies simply specifying precisely what they're looking for. There's an argument that it makes sense for, as an example, an Indian company with Indian employees and a mainly Indian clientele to want an Indian salesman and to be able to say so in its advertising. If they weren't allowed to be precise and had to say simply 'salesman required' very many people of other nationalities would apply for the job. But they'd be wasting their time and effort because the company would employ an Indian anyway
There's no question that it discriminates against all the other nationalities.
I think the most interesting point about banning discrimination is where the line is drawn.
Vilification and abuse based on ethnicity, certainly the line has to be drawn before that.
But should it be unlawful for an employment ad to specify a nationality? And for the company to deny other applicants the job based on their nationality?
And what about name calling?
An interesting insight into that came up not so long ago, about the term 'Paki'. In the UK it's a term of abuse, used and taken as an insult. In Australia it's just an abbreviation, so newspaper posters for example will refer to cricket along the lines of 'Paki bowlers tear through Aussies'.
So in the UAE, where is the line going to be drawn I wonder.
'Gulf News' has the story here.
Not just debate of course but abuse and extemist ranting. It's been a while since the ranters have screamed abuse at me, so here's an opportunity.
Anti-racism body welcomes UAE efforts to combat discrimination
Geneva: The UAE reviewed on Tuesday the achievements it has made regarding the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination before the committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
That's the beginning of a story in 'Gulf News' this morning.
Note that the presentation outlined the steps and measures taken by the country to enforce the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
All forms of racial discrimination.
Also in today's 'Gulf News' there are very many employment ads which are distinctly discriminatory and wouldn't be allowed in many other countries. Examples:
Accountant, Indian, age below 30,
Sales Consultant, Indian, with experience
Cashier (6 Nos.), Filipino, female.
IT Technician, Filipino.
Outdoor Sales Executive, female, Pakistani.
Young Pakistani, diploma & BSC in Electronics.
Pharmacist & Dentist, Arab, male, required.
Arab National Sales Manager.
Western Commercial Manager.
Legislation in many countries wouldn't allow those ads not only because they're specific about nationality/ethnicity but also because of gender and age specifications. Australia is a typical example, where the law forbids mention of nationality, ethnicity, male or female, or the age of the candidate because to do so would be discrimination.
In spite of the UAE reporting that it is eliminating all forms of racial discrimination, we have ads on a daily basis which are blatantly discriminatory.
So should it be banned? It's actually companies simply specifying precisely what they're looking for. There's an argument that it makes sense for, as an example, an Indian company with Indian employees and a mainly Indian clientele to want an Indian salesman and to be able to say so in its advertising. If they weren't allowed to be precise and had to say simply 'salesman required' very many people of other nationalities would apply for the job. But they'd be wasting their time and effort because the company would employ an Indian anyway
There's no question that it discriminates against all the other nationalities.
I think the most interesting point about banning discrimination is where the line is drawn.
Vilification and abuse based on ethnicity, certainly the line has to be drawn before that.
But should it be unlawful for an employment ad to specify a nationality? And for the company to deny other applicants the job based on their nationality?
And what about name calling?
An interesting insight into that came up not so long ago, about the term 'Paki'. In the UK it's a term of abuse, used and taken as an insult. In Australia it's just an abbreviation, so newspaper posters for example will refer to cricket along the lines of 'Paki bowlers tear through Aussies'.
So in the UAE, where is the line going to be drawn I wonder.
'Gulf News' has the story here.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Lost in translation
There's an interesting exclusive report in Maktoob Business, as Emjay pointed out in his comment left on my last post.
The report raises an old proposal and is headed Dubai mulls low-income driving ban.
I'm not going to get into the discrimination thing again, I've talked about this proposal in those terms before.
What interested me was the quotes attributed to Essa Abdul Rahman al-Dosari, CEO of the Public Transport Authority.
He is quoted as saying:
"There are certain categories of staff that are not able to use cars because their income is very low. Why should they drive in a city where they can’t afford to?"
"The wealthy, they are very few, why should we concentrate on them? Let them drive a car ... we should target the majority of people"
Did he really say that? Is that what he really meant?
They can't afford to drive. They're too poor to use their cars.
So if they're not driving why ban them?
The wealthy are very few.
Where is the line drawn under 'wealth' I wonder. What constitutes 'wealth' to the PTA? Earn less than, let me make a wild guess, Dh30,000 a month and you can't drive?
Was it beyond the ability of the 'journalist' to seek clarification.
The report is here.
The report raises an old proposal and is headed Dubai mulls low-income driving ban.
I'm not going to get into the discrimination thing again, I've talked about this proposal in those terms before.
What interested me was the quotes attributed to Essa Abdul Rahman al-Dosari, CEO of the Public Transport Authority.
He is quoted as saying:
"There are certain categories of staff that are not able to use cars because their income is very low. Why should they drive in a city where they can’t afford to?"
"The wealthy, they are very few, why should we concentrate on them? Let them drive a car ... we should target the majority of people"
Did he really say that? Is that what he really meant?
They can't afford to drive. They're too poor to use their cars.
So if they're not driving why ban them?
The wealthy are very few.
Where is the line drawn under 'wealth' I wonder. What constitutes 'wealth' to the PTA? Earn less than, let me make a wild guess, Dh30,000 a month and you can't drive?
Was it beyond the ability of the 'journalist' to seek clarification.
The report is here.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Kuwait jail for Aussie mother
The papers here, and radio discussion, have been talking about an Aussie mother of seven jailed in Kuwait for insulting the Emir.
I've also been reading about it in the Sydney Morning Herald where there was the original story about her arrest back in January. They also have family background and photos, which fills out the story more than our media here.
Nasrah Alshamery, who's been sentenced to two years in jail, is second left in this photo:
She has always denied the charge, her lawyer is appealing the sentence and they've petitioned the Emir for leniency, so the story may not be finished yet.
All of the family are Australian citizens, although most were born in Kuwait. The two youngest were born in Australia.
The Sydney Morning Herald says:
They had previously lived in Kuwait among the some 100,000 bidoons, or stateless Arabs.
Bidoons have no right to work, obtain a birth certificate for their babies or even get their marriage certificate attested.
It doesn't quite say that they are bidoon but that's certainly what's suggested.
The coverage being given to the story might just raise international awareness about the plight of the bidoon in the Gulf. And maybe some pressure to correct what is obviously an unacceptable situation.
The story originally broke in the SMH back in January, which you can read here.
The report of the jail sentence is here.
I've also been reading about it in the Sydney Morning Herald where there was the original story about her arrest back in January. They also have family background and photos, which fills out the story more than our media here.
Nasrah Alshamery, who's been sentenced to two years in jail, is second left in this photo:
She has always denied the charge, her lawyer is appealing the sentence and they've petitioned the Emir for leniency, so the story may not be finished yet.
All of the family are Australian citizens, although most were born in Kuwait. The two youngest were born in Australia.
The Sydney Morning Herald says:
They had previously lived in Kuwait among the some 100,000 bidoons, or stateless Arabs.
Bidoons have no right to work, obtain a birth certificate for their babies or even get their marriage certificate attested.
It doesn't quite say that they are bidoon but that's certainly what's suggested.
The coverage being given to the story might just raise international awareness about the plight of the bidoon in the Gulf. And maybe some pressure to correct what is obviously an unacceptable situation.
The story originally broke in the SMH back in January, which you can read here.
The report of the jail sentence is here.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Inexplicable discrimination
A piece in Gulf News today reminds us of another very strange rule that I struggle to understand.
There's a restriction on expat residents sponsoring their spouse based on income. Earn less than Dh4000 a month and you can't sponsor your spouse, which to me makes sense and I understand it.
But there's also a long list of job categories which are barred from sponsoring spouses regardless of their salary. Apparently there are 57 jobs on the list.
It was highlighted again because a Filipina bank cashier earning more than Dh6000 a month and with 'proper' accommodation had her application for her husband to join her rejected.
I suspect my rule about dealing with government counter staff might have applied - if the first person rejects your request you go out, come back in and take another ticket and try a different counter. If necessary repeat the process until you find one who says 'yes'.
Discrimination like this based on the job you do is surely indefensible.
The Gulf News website has the story here but it doesn't include the list of some of the barred categories which appears in the print edition.
As strange as the rule itself, the list includes cook (with the very specific catagories of Arabic cuisine cook, continental cuisine cook - does that include the highly paid Executive Chefs in our five star hotels I wonder? - falafel maker, sweets maker, pastry maker), goldsmith, butcher, waiter, tailor, hairdresser, make-up man (eh?) and, get this, salesman.
Time for a rethink?
There's a restriction on expat residents sponsoring their spouse based on income. Earn less than Dh4000 a month and you can't sponsor your spouse, which to me makes sense and I understand it.
But there's also a long list of job categories which are barred from sponsoring spouses regardless of their salary. Apparently there are 57 jobs on the list.
It was highlighted again because a Filipina bank cashier earning more than Dh6000 a month and with 'proper' accommodation had her application for her husband to join her rejected.
I suspect my rule about dealing with government counter staff might have applied - if the first person rejects your request you go out, come back in and take another ticket and try a different counter. If necessary repeat the process until you find one who says 'yes'.
Discrimination like this based on the job you do is surely indefensible.
The Gulf News website has the story here but it doesn't include the list of some of the barred categories which appears in the print edition.
As strange as the rule itself, the list includes cook (with the very specific catagories of Arabic cuisine cook, continental cuisine cook - does that include the highly paid Executive Chefs in our five star hotels I wonder? - falafel maker, sweets maker, pastry maker), goldsmith, butcher, waiter, tailor, hairdresser, make-up man (eh?) and, get this, salesman.
Time for a rethink?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Discrimination in Dubai
I expect this comment will stir up some unrest...
The question of discrimination in Dubai based on ethnicity comes up all the time, which came to mind as I walked around Satwa the other day.
The unpalatable fact that many refuse to accept is that it's largely imported by expatriates who bring their prejudices with them.
What I find ironic is that the group which in my experience complains longest and loudest is itself one of the most guilty of practicing discrimination.
For example, I came across many signs in Satwa demonstrating discrimination based on not only nationality but also by which area of a country people come from, and by religion.
You'll find the same thing in the Domestic Employment ads in Gulf News, where the majority exclude most job-seekers by specifying nationality and/or area and/or religion. For example:
"Housemaid, South Indian, preferably Keralite, required for a family residing in Sharjah.
Full-time Housemaid, Indian, urgently required for an Indian family in Karama.
Housemaid, Indian / Filipino, required for an Indian family residing Deira.
Think I'm exagerating when I say 'the majority' of ads? Check them out for yourself here.
Yes folks, discrimination is alive and well in Dubai.
The question of discrimination in Dubai based on ethnicity comes up all the time, which came to mind as I walked around Satwa the other day.
The unpalatable fact that many refuse to accept is that it's largely imported by expatriates who bring their prejudices with them.
What I find ironic is that the group which in my experience complains longest and loudest is itself one of the most guilty of practicing discrimination.
For example, I came across many signs in Satwa demonstrating discrimination based on not only nationality but also by which area of a country people come from, and by religion.
You'll find the same thing in the Domestic Employment ads in Gulf News, where the majority exclude most job-seekers by specifying nationality and/or area and/or religion. For example:
"Housemaid, South Indian, preferably Keralite, required for a family residing in Sharjah.
Full-time Housemaid, Indian, urgently required for an Indian family in Karama.
Housemaid, Indian / Filipino, required for an Indian family residing Deira.
Think I'm exagerating when I say 'the majority' of ads? Check them out for yourself here.
Yes folks, discrimination is alive and well in Dubai.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Racial discrimination in the UAE
There's a lively debate going on at the Community Blog, on a posting by SANS headlined Equal Opportunity. It uses an employment advertisement to illustrate the point of discrimination.
Racism and racial discrimination are alive and well in the region. It is an abomination and every step should be taken to remove it from society, but regrettably we have no legislation against the practice.
Unfortunately, SANS chose the wrong advertisement to illustrate a very valid and important point. There are many blatantly discriminatory advertisements every day, any of which would have supported the point much more accurately.
One quick glance through the employment pages of today's Gulf News came up with these examples:
It's a sad reflection of our society isn't it.
Racism and racial discrimination are alive and well in the region. It is an abomination and every step should be taken to remove it from society, but regrettably we have no legislation against the practice.
Unfortunately, SANS chose the wrong advertisement to illustrate a very valid and important point. There are many blatantly discriminatory advertisements every day, any of which would have supported the point much more accurately.
One quick glance through the employment pages of today's Gulf News came up with these examples:
It's a sad reflection of our society isn't it.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Irresponsible statistics & reporting.
There's a posting by trailing spouse on Gulf News' report that statistics show Indians & Pakistanis are the worst drivers.
It reminded me that I was going to write on the subject too, because it is totally irresponsible reporting. If these are truly the statistics published by the RTA, then they are at fault for publishing partial and misleading statistics. And Gulf News is at fault for not delving deeper and giving us the true picture.
If Gulf News have mis- or partially-reported the statistics, that is appalling 'journalism'.
The report shows unacceptable statistical anomalies, partial information at best, is guilty of not comparing like with like.
For example, it tells us that Pakistani drivers caused the maximum number of road deaths, while Indians caused most accidents in Dubai in the first half of the year. It doesn't tell us what percentage of drivers are Indian or Pakistani, so the statistic is meaningless. If, for argument's sake, Indians cause 30% of accidents but make up 50% of all drivers, the stat. gives a different picture.
Another example:
Indians caused most accidents in Dubai in the first half of the year, according to statistics released by the Roads and Transport Authority. It goes on: Indians committed 228 accidents causing 30 deaths and 344 injuries, which is 19.2 per cent of total accident victims.
You see, "caused most accidents" is compared with "is 19.2% of total accident victims."
Is it "accidents" or "accident victims" we're looking at? They are very different things.
Why accidents need to be presented by nationality is questionable. But if stats. are going to be presented in that way, then let's have the full picture so that they actually mean something.
Now of course it may be true that one particular nationality is over-represented in causing accidents. If it is true, and if South Asians are guilty of it, there's a sobering fact that trailing spouse reminds us of - they have to take lessons and pass the driving test in the UAE because their home licences are not accepted for transfer.
And one other point - sub-Continentals "cause" accidents while GCC nationals are "involved in" accidents. I quote: "Pakistani drivers caused the maximum number of road deaths, while Indians caused most accidents...GCC nationals were involved in 163 accidents"
It reminded me that I was going to write on the subject too, because it is totally irresponsible reporting. If these are truly the statistics published by the RTA, then they are at fault for publishing partial and misleading statistics. And Gulf News is at fault for not delving deeper and giving us the true picture.
If Gulf News have mis- or partially-reported the statistics, that is appalling 'journalism'.
The report shows unacceptable statistical anomalies, partial information at best, is guilty of not comparing like with like.
For example, it tells us that Pakistani drivers caused the maximum number of road deaths, while Indians caused most accidents in Dubai in the first half of the year. It doesn't tell us what percentage of drivers are Indian or Pakistani, so the statistic is meaningless. If, for argument's sake, Indians cause 30% of accidents but make up 50% of all drivers, the stat. gives a different picture.
Another example:
Indians caused most accidents in Dubai in the first half of the year, according to statistics released by the Roads and Transport Authority. It goes on: Indians committed 228 accidents causing 30 deaths and 344 injuries, which is 19.2 per cent of total accident victims.
You see, "caused most accidents" is compared with "is 19.2% of total accident victims."
Is it "accidents" or "accident victims" we're looking at? They are very different things.
Why accidents need to be presented by nationality is questionable. But if stats. are going to be presented in that way, then let's have the full picture so that they actually mean something.
Now of course it may be true that one particular nationality is over-represented in causing accidents. If it is true, and if South Asians are guilty of it, there's a sobering fact that trailing spouse reminds us of - they have to take lessons and pass the driving test in the UAE because their home licences are not accepted for transfer.
And one other point - sub-Continentals "cause" accidents while GCC nationals are "involved in" accidents. I quote: "Pakistani drivers caused the maximum number of road deaths, while Indians caused most accidents...GCC nationals were involved in 163 accidents"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
