Exec_Plat

And what is your 'offensive'?

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

I'm not answering for M0hamed but for me, 'offensive' would be an article of clothing that contained wording (or pictures) that were either illegal (ie in breach of the various anti-discrimination laws, or criminal law), or otherwise insulting or degrading.

serfty

Sandals have, at the very least, a back strap - Without that strap, they are 'thongs' ...

m0hamed

Offensive is what I witnessed pax wearing on JQi: Girls with denim shorts with their butt cheeks clearly on display, boys wearing loose footy shorts that you could see their underwear and loose singlets showing their nipples.

I was ashamed for them when passing through Thai immigration.

Exec_Plat

This is like deciding what is pornography. "I dont know, but I'll tell you when I see it"

I am sure we can go another 2000 posts, each person adding their view of 'offensive', yet be not much closer to an actionable, totally unambiguous and enforceable policy.

So a micro bikini on a buxom woman would meet your definition, yes? (You dont get to decide what SHE considers 'degrading')

My point is not to be argumentative, but to point out that deciding what is "offensive" is a pointless conversation.

I find people behavior to be far more of a concern than their appearances....

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

We have laws in Australia against discrimination, against incitement etc.

If the article of clothing isn't illegal and the person wants to wear it, who am I to complain?

RadioGirl

Absolutely agree. Blocking a passenger based on footwear alone (rather than overall appearance) and defining non-acceptable footwear on simplistic factors (back strap, piece of material between the toes, etc) is going to lead to stupid decisions.

In the SMH photo, I thought Kate looked more presentable and elegant than her companion (who had dirty-looking slightly distressed jeans and grubby-looking trainers). Not that I think he should have been blocked, either.

BadgerBoi

I'd bet good money that KC tidied herself up considerably before she posed for the SMH picture. And imho she still looked pretty sloppy.

m0hamed

Of course you make the argument gendered when I specifically mentioned men and women.

I don't want to see exposed buttocks or underwear in an airport, lounge or on board, regardless of gender. These locations are not the beach and a bikini or speedos would also not be appropriate.

I make no comment on what's degrading but you seem to be able to speak for me.

perthite

The main difference is the presence of a 'thong' - which fits between the toes.

i.e. Thongs are sandals held on by a thong.

Dave Noble

Only certain discriminations are illegal

There is no law that I am aware of that prohibits discrimination based on attire

I completely disagree. Whatever the rules are, they need to be objective and specific. Leaving it to an agent's opinion on what is or isn't ok, is not a fair way to have dess code

If the rule is clear and objective , then it is easy to point out to the person the details of why they fail to meet the requirements

Much better than being subjective and then the agent being subjected to abuse for accusing a person of being scruffy/untidy etc

RadioGirl

I agree that "objective and specific" rules are easier to enforce and defend. But such rules need to closely match the (intrinsically subjective) "smart casual dress standard" espoused by QC.

"No torn clothing" is consistent with "smart casual". "No gang colors" and "no swimwear" and "no dirty jeans" and so on are all consistent with "smart casual".

"No rubber beach thongs" is consistent with "smart casual". But there are lots of dressy thong-style sandals which would be completely consistent with a "smart casual" outfit. No one would look twice if they were worn at a high-end restaurant or red-carpet event. So an objective rule of "no shoes with a tie between the toes" or "no shoes without a back strap" is a poor match with "smart casual." It's objective and specific but not appropriate.

(Hi-vis is not smart casual either - try wearing it to a 5* restaurant and see how far you get - but QC gives it a pass.)

SuiteFlight

Dress codes can fall afoul of Australian discrimination law, usually (in terms of Commonwealth laws, but also the various State and Territory laws not cited here) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

Various case law examples exists in discrimination law due to certain religious/cultural attire (hijabs, niqabs, burkas, turbans, etc) hitting conflict with dress codes (that did not have a justifiable occupational health and safety reason), unequal application of dress code as it applied to women, or dress code conflict due to things worn for medical reasons.

For example strict enforcement of "no open toed footwear" dress codes can run afoul of those in moonboots, casts, certain othopedic wear, etc with respect to the Disability Discrimination Act if people don't act with commonsense (fail to provide reasonable adjustment).

So sometimes conflict between attire and dress codes falls with the discrimination acts. Organisations do have a right to specify conditions of entry but they do have to be constructed with care.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

My point was that if the clothing contains material (printed words or pictures) which are illegal under the various laws that would be the test for whether it is offensive.

I don't consider ripped jeans, or not wearing a bra 'offensive'. Not my cup of tea, but hardly 'offensive'.

Dave Noble

items can be offensive well before they reach a level that wearing then commits a criminal offence

Regardless, Qantas has now had for quite a while, a list of what is and is not permitted

Either the person was in compliance and should have been admitted or was not in compliance and was correctly declined entry


The ODO ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de.../english/thong ) defines a thong as