Aussie court says women can sue Qatar Airways over strip-search ordeal
SYDNEY : A group of Australian women strip-searched after boarding a Qatar Airways flight in Doha won a court victory today that paves the way for them to sue the airline.
In an incident that sparked international outrage, Qatari authorities pulled women off 10 planes in Doha in 2020 and forced them to take invasive gynaecological exams.
Authorities were hunting for the mother of a newborn found abandoned in an airport bathroom.
Five Australian women caught up in the ordeal lodged legal action against Qatar Airways, claiming they were assaulted and falsely imprisoned.
Australia's federal court last year ruled they could not directly sue the airline.
But that decision was reversed today on appeal, with three federal court judges stating the case should be heard at trial.
Australia's government cited the incident as a reason to block Qatar Airways from operating more flights into the country.
Qatar's then prime minister, Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz Al Thani, at the time offered his 'sincerest apologies for what some female travellers went through'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
12 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Australia should compromise to reach EU trade deal, says minister
Australia and the EU are expected to conclude the second phase of a trade pact by the end of the year. (EPA Images pic) CANBERRA : Australia should accept compromises to reach a trade deal with the EU and demonstrate that such agreements can still be reached in a more protectionist world, trade minister Don Farrell said today. Farrell said in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney that free trade was under threat and that Australia should work with other countries to defend it. In a question and answer session after the speech, Farrell said Australia-EU trade negotiations that restarted this year would be successful and it was in both sides' national interest to make it so. 'It will require some compromises in our negotiations, but I think the imperative here is to show the rest of the world we're fair dinkum about free and open trade and we can do agreements with other countries,' he said, using an Australian phrase meaning honest, genuine or sincere. Asked if he meant that Australian industry would have to step up in the national interest, he said: 'I'm saying exactly that'. A previous attempt to reach a trade deal failed in 2023, with Canberra wanting more ability to sell farm goods in Europe. The EU is seeking greater access to Australian critical minerals and lower tariffs on manufactured goods. Farrell also said a trade agreement with India should be reached 'in the very near future'. The two countries are aiming to conclude the second phase of a trade pact by the end of the year. Australia is also seeking to negotiate with the US to reverse tariffs enacted by President Donald Trump and prevent new ones from being imposed. Yesterday, Canberra loosened biosecurity rules to allow greater access to US beef, though it said this was the result of a long-running scientific assessment rather than a part of trade talks.
New Straits Times
13 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Wan Ahmad Farid to be sworn in as Chief Justice tomorrow
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, who has been appointed as the 17th Chief Justice, will be sworn in tomorrow. Wan Ahmad Farid, 62, succeeds Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who retired on July 2. The swearing-in ceremony and the handover of the letter of appointment are scheduled to take place at Istana Negara. In addition to Wan Ahmad Farid, eight newly appointed Court of Appeal Judges and 14 High Court Judges are also expected to be sworn in. Also appointed are Federal Court Judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais as the President of the Court of Appeal, and Datuk Azizah Nawawi as the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, replacing their respective predecessors who are due to retire. Wan Ahmad Farid, who hails from Kuala Terengganu, was appointed as a Court of Appeal Judge on Nov 12, last year. He received a law degree from the University of West London in 1985, and received a Certificate in Legal Practice from Universiti Malaya in 1986. His legal career began as an advocate and solicitor at the law firm Messrs Adnan and Wee in Kuala Terengganu, where he served from 1987 to 2003. In addition to his legal career, he was active in administration and politics, having served as political secretary to former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from 2003 to 2008, before being appointed as deputy home minister from 2008 to 2009. Between 2011 and 2015, he returned to legal practice as an advocate and solicitor at Messrs Wan Farid and Surin in Kuala Lumpur. Wan Ahmad Farid began his judicial career as a Judicial Commissioner at the Shah Alam High Court, the Kuala Lumpur High Court, and the Kota Baru High Court from 2015 to 2019. He was subsequently appointed as a High Court Judge from 2019 to 2024, serving at the Kota Bharu High Court, the Shah Alam High Court (Special Powers Division), and the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Special Powers Division 3). In 2024, he played a key role in delivering judgment in a suit filed by lawyer Dr Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar Al Mahdzar concerning the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's powers in declaring a state of emergency. In his ruling, Wan Ahmad Farid held that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's power to declare an emergency under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution is non-justiciable and therefore cannot be reviewed by the courts. Wan Ahmad Farid was also part of the panel of judges that heard a Federal Court case involving a land dispute over 263.272 acres at Duta Enclave, involving Semantan Estate Sdn Bhd.
Daily Express
15 hours ago
- Daily Express
Dangerous word game violates MA63
Published on: Sunday, July 27, 2025 Published on: Sun, Jul 27, 2025 Text Size: Declaring the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Federal Constitution as the Authoritative is a Backdoor Amendment — and that's tantamount to unconstitutional THERE is nothing wrong with loving Bahasa Malaysia. But there is everything wrong with using language to quietly change the meaning of the Constitution. The recent proposal to declare the Bahasa Malaysia (BM) version of the Federal Constitution as the 'authoritative text' may appear harmless or symbolic. It is not. It amounts to a backdoor constitutional amendment — one that risks overriding decades of legal precedent, reshaping fundamental rights, and violating the special safeguards promised to Sabah and Sarawak in 1963. Translation Is Not Neutral — It Shapes the Law Malaysia's Constitution was drafted in English by the Reid Commission and adopted in 1957. Every clause, word, and phrase reflects legal concepts from the common law tradition. The BM version, while official, is still a translation — not a legal twin. Article 160B of the Constitution allows the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare the BM version of the Constitution as 'authoritative.' However, this must be read in harmony with other constitutional provisions. Declaring a different-language version legally authoritative changes the words by which the Constitution is interpreted. That shift is not merely linguistic — it is legal. Here, it is important to clarify - is a declaration under Article 160B a law or an administrative act? Articles 159 and 161E apply to constitutional amendments and legal changes, not mere administrative declarations. However, if the effect of declaring the BM version as authoritative is to alter how rights are interpreted or protected, then it must be treated as a legal amendment — regardless of form. Otherwise, it would allow circumvention of constitutional safeguards through executive discretion. Regardless of whether Article 160B is exercised administratively, its legal effects must comply with the Constitution's substantive limits. The courts have long held that constitutional compliance is determined by outcome, not form. Importantly, Article 160B was introduced in 1971 through Act A514. Hansard records from that period make clear that the provision was intended to affirm the BM version as authoritative only after a careful process of harmonisation with the English version. The legislative intent was never to permit divergence in meaning, but rather to ensure that both versions align. Declaring the BM text authoritative without resolving inconsistencies would create a parallel text capable of altering constitutional meaning through linguistic drift. One Parent or Both? The Real Consequences Article 12(4) of the Constitution states that the religion of a minor shall be determined by 'his parent or guardian.' In English, 'parent' was interpreted by the Federal Court in Indira Gandhi (2018) to mean both parents must consent. The BM version says 'ibu atau bapanya' ('mother or father'), suggesting one parent may act unilaterally. If the BM version becomes authoritative, this change in wording could allow unilateral conversion of children to Islam without both parents' consent. That is a major shift — one which cannot be made without proper constitutional amendment. For Sabah and Sarawak, This Isn't Just a Legal Shift — It's a Constitutional Breach When Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), they did so with express constitutional safeguards, especially in matters of religion, language, and autonomy. These safeguards are found in the Constitution: Article 161E(2)(d) Requires consent of Sabah and Sarawak for any amendment that affects the religion of the State. If the BM version alters the understanding of conversion of minors, it directly interferes with religious rights. Article 161E(2)(d) Requires consent for any amendment that affects the language in use in the State. English is still used officially in Sarawak and arguably in Sabah. Declaring the BM version authoritative displaces English as the legal baseline — which triggers this clause. Article 161E(2) Requires consent for any amendment affecting the operation of the Constitution in those States. Changing the authoritative text changes how the Constitution is interpreted and enforced. This clause covers not just the content of the Constitution, but its application in practice, which reinforces that such a declaration affects operational law. These Articles show that consent is not a formality. It is a legal safeguard. To bypass it is to breach the Federal Constitution. Legal Chaos, Constitutional Drift If courts are forced to choose between the BM and English texts, precedents like Indira Gandhi could be revisited. This move invites confusion over fundamental rights, undermines legal certainty, and erodes public confidence in constitutional protections. A History We Must Not Forget Sabah and Sarawak were not absorbed into Malaysia — they co-founded it. Their agreement to join was conditional upon express guarantees, including the continued use of English and protections for religious freedom. To change the terms of that understanding through translation — not legislation — is to violate the spirit and letter of MA63. Article 160B Is Not a Blank Cheque Yes, Article 160B gives the Agong discretion to declare the BM version authoritative. But that discretion must be exercised within constitutional limits. It cannot override Articles 161E, 159, or 4(1) (the supremacy clause). You cannot change the legal operation of fundamental rights by simply changing the language used to describe them. That would amount to amending the Constitution without using the amendment process. What Must Happen Before any BM version is declared authoritative: Disclose all discrepancies between the English and BM texts for public review; Obtain consent from Sabah and Sarawak as required by Articles 161E(1), 161E(2)(c), and 161E(2)(d); Use the amendment procedure under Article 159 if substantive legal changes occur; Establish a Constitutional Harmonisation Commission to conduct a line-by-line reconciliation of both versions of the Constitution, ensuring consistency of meaning. This Commission should include judicial and constitutional experts from all regions, including Sabah and Sarawak. Until then, the English version must remain authoritative — not because it is in English, but because it is legally and constitutionally valid. Don't Change the Constitution Without Saying So If this move proceeds without proper process and consent, it sets a chilling precedent - that the Constitution can be changed by translation, not legislation. Language can unite a country — or unmake its laws. We must not allow a quiet switch of wording to transform the rights of millions, especially in Sabah and Sarawak. To do so without consent is not just unconstitutional. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
