Article
Airport security staff walk the tenuous line of administering bespoke customer service and murky jurisdiction. It isn't necessarily easy to sift through thousands of split second verbal and non-verbal cues to help identify contraband. Nevertheless, those with disabilities are feeling the brunt of security legislation. If some aren't made to feel their disabilities are generally burdensome as per The ABC and The Guardian it's people like Tammy Milne, who are subject to intense frisking and pat down searches. Even The Breast cancer Association has received letters of complaint about airport security procedures. I, too, have been subject to secondary contraband screenings. Possessing neurodiversity and anxiety, ostensibly conveying guilt, this seems the reason. Even those without chronic disabilities, such as nervous flyers, are subject to hard-line questioning. So is it time to ask if these protocols are really working and if they are more discriminatory than anything else?
America and Australia have some of the strictest airport security procedures in the world. In just about every travel magazine or info blog, Australia ranks at least number three or four in the world after Israel and the USA. Coming back from Dallas airport the throng of us vacationers had to go through two sets of metal detectors and security gates. In the era of September 11 it's understandable that airports exercise vigilance. But this is where profiling becomes an issue. The need for security protocols is congruent with conspicuousness - wheelchairs that might sound metal detectors; prostheses where stuff can be hidden; nervousness or swiftness, conveying possible guilt.
However, these laws carry a certain level of ridiculousness. While this kind of legislation, including in Australia, is “seen to be doing,” it is often superfluous, where no one in their right mind would have contraband in anything that gets searched, or would act so conspicuously. Popular TV show “Border Security” might provide voyeuristic justification of security screening at airports. But it doesn't account for protractedness, futility and feelings of many others along the way. As the show also underlines, would-be crims are more secretive - having nuanced restitched suitcases; shuffling feet and hands yet a calm demeanor; sweating for no reason.
I've been screened roughly around seven times already over the past few years. What seemed unbiased at first, is starting to make me insecure about how I come across psychosocially and it makes me agitated and angry feeling layers of injustice. This is intensely so as I am one of the most empathetic. That's because I used to be a security guard. As per another Guardian article people with disabilities after all, are a niche market. Making security processes easier is a lucrative market to cash in on.
It could even be an underhanded compliment that I seem nice enough to approach.
Even if it is complimentary, am I a person who can be easily picked? - It makes me feel different and alienated.
In one of the most stark and daring documentaries by Four Corners, “Inside the cartels controlling Australia's cocaine trade” shows the futility of these procedures. Possessing courage under heavy disguise, a businessman brazenly elaborates how he bribes airport officials to overlook drug importations by his affiliates.
This just absolutely turns protocols on their heads.
In essence then, security officials should be looking for the poker faced business person or confident commuter not necessarily sole nervousness or fast demeanour. However, they'd be targeting the untouchable.
Why better technology isn't fully implemented is one question, perhaps coming down to cost. In any case while security staff are administering protracted and sometimes officious protocols, they are also overloaded and distracted, which is a security issue unto itself.
Despite this, anyone subject to security searches must comply and can be detained if they don't. On the Home Affairs website, those of who oversee The Airport Security Act 2010, there is a Travellers with specific needs section. This lists in great detail how security screenings are administered, and the person's rights. People with disabilities can now also attend any airport concierge to receive information on procedural directions before entering the security area.
However, it sometimes doesn't seem like these discretionary actions are being implemented or are well publicized when there is an escalation of complaints by those with disabilities. Perhaps again it's a form of underhanded progressiveness seeing an influx of more people with disabilities travel, who are then speaking up about their experiences.
In the meantime there is little chance of seeing any movement. These seemingly miniscule laws are implemented by the Commonwealth Government and sanctioned by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, along with hundreds of other influential government departments. The only chance of change is a submission to The Royal Commission. Perhaps if enough become vocal change might eventuate.