Originally Posted by The Disco Volante
I think you may have missed the point. He was prosecuted for disobeying a lawful command, and he admitted it was a lawful command by his plea. He has the same or very similar rights under the Human Rights Act in the English courts as he enjoys in South Africa, yet he chose not to challenge the legislation in the English courts or indeed mount any defence.
But do protections against discrimination not take precedance in law over the command of a flight attendant, especially considering the "order" to cease and dissist in this case was not required for the safety of the aircraft? I am fairly certain this is the case in South Africa (where the constitution specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation). Not all laws are equal, especially in a federated constitutional system such as South Africa.
IATA regulations are also only as relevant as they are so made within the national legal systems, as is all international law (fundamentally anarchaic in the opinion of some). If obeying commands begins to infringe the rights of people, IATA regulations may find themselves under involuntary alteration by national lawmakers.
In South Africa, and I imagine in other legal systems, there seems to be a lot of talk of what "reasonable" men would do when faced with situations with large legal grey areas. In this case, it seems both the flight attendants and passengers went beyond what a "reasonable" men would do... the FA by making an issue to begin with, and the pax by blowing it out of proportion.