The pending bills of the tourism sector for the protection of human rights of international tourists
Tourism has proved its contribution to national economies worldwide. It has proved too to be a strong vehicle for promoting peace and understanding between nations, thanks to the positive transformation a person has once traveling, particularly abroad, due the possibility that traveling brings to see other cultures and realities…
The countries are more and more engaged on giving a meaningful experience to tourist, as well as to distribute the incomes and develop the entrepreneurship skills of the local communities; but the protection mechanisms are still too much focus on its protection as consumers, but weak in many senses on its knowledge and protection as human beings.
The universal access to tourism (Art.24 of the Universal Humans Rights Declaration) is today one of the big homeworks – “Pending bills” – of the tourism sector, as destinations and enterprises not often offer a full access to tourism to tourists from the four families of disability: motor, visual, ear and mental impaired. Government not always have in place programmes for allowing persons in economic vulnerable situations to travel. Tolerance regarding gender equality and sexual diversity is as well another “Pending bill” in terms of non-discrimination at labour level and as a tourist; and cultural, religious and language differences are not always well considered while developing the National Tourism Policies, or by the different tourism service providers….
But what it could happen if we, the tourism sector, start to dedicate more efforts to get to know the tourist as a human being before than as a consumer? and to responds to its needs as a human being with equal importance than of how it is done today from a consumer perspective?
I think that if we do this: countries to take this in their hands, it will at last increase the loyalty of their tourists, national and international ones, and will become more competitive at international level. After all, if a tourist has a problem as a consumer, will probably change of enterprise but will remain in the country; but if suffers a problem of non-respect of its rights as a human being will never come back.
Wouldn’t be then more logic and fair to centre the efforts of taking good care of the tourist as a human being, more that only as a consumer?