Travel: A Right for All? Reflections on Global Freedoms and Inequalities

Hello fellow travel enthusiasts! 🌍 As a traveler and blogger, I’ve often been struck by the huge inequalities tied to freedom of movement. While some cross borders with ease, others face major obstacles due to their nationality, background, or the restrictive policies of certain countries.

On the occasion of International Human Rights Day, I wrote an article reflecting on this issue: 📖 Travelers' Rights: A Reflection on Freedom of Movement and Global Inequalities

In this article, I cover topics like:

Inequalities between passports ("strong" vs. "weak" passports). The specific challenges faced by travelers from marginalized communities. How to take action to promote more inclusive and equitable travel.

I’d love to hear your thoughts! 😊 Have you ever experienced these inequalities while traveling? How do you think we could raise more awareness about this issue? Feel free to share your experiences or ask questions in this thread. I can’t wait to discuss this with you!

Travel is also about building bridges between cultures. So let’s make sure it becomes a reality for everyone. ✈️🌎 Thanks for reading, and I look forward to exchanging ideas with you!

This reflection on the challenges of moving around—depending on your passport, origin, or skin color—does it focus only on travel as a leisure activity, or does it also extend to other reasons people have for wanting to leave home?

Interesting topic.... I haven't read your article yet, but just the title already gives me a lot to think about.

Freedom of movement—you only have to look back at 2020 to answer whether we’ve ever faced this kind of travel difficulty before. And back then, some countries quickly banned travelers based on their nationality.

Can we raise awareness about this issue?... In my opinion, 90% of people couldn’t care less, including those with a supposedly "humanist" mindset who showed during Covid that their humanism was just on paper. Besides, I don’t really see how we can raise awareness about nationality and passport power... Take action, apart from signing petitions or writing to embassies...

Same goes for the idea that traveling is about "building bridges between cultures"—that deserves its own topic, but here again, traveling shows that the cultural side only interests a small minority of travelers. Plus, social media and smartphones are contributing to the erasure of cultures and the creation of a global "culture" based on selfies, stories, etc....

I can’t remember which American politician said: "All human beings are equal in rights at birth, and that’s pretty much the last time."

Otherwise, there’s also Jean Yanne: "Men are born free and equal in rights. After that, they’re on their own."

Hello,

First, an obvious point:

As long as different countries don’t have the same standard of living, the same level of freedom, or the same acceptance of differences, travel won’t be easy for everyone...

At the opposite end, the least powerful passports belong to countries like Afghanistan, Syria, or the DRC, where traveling becomes a real obstacle course.

That makes sense for the first two... (I don’t know enough about the DRC’s situation to comment on it.)

Then there’s also the question of unequal rights to leave one’s own country.

I don’t think a North Korean citizen could travel freely even if every other country in the world accepted them without a visa...

A person can be blocked just as much at departure as at arrival...

Finally, while many more countries are accessible to some nationals, it doesn’t change the fact that, for example, French citizens are also subject to rules when traveling to numerous countries—and the cost of visas and how easy they are to obtain weigh heavily when choosing a destination.

Some countries also opt for reciprocity: if you demand this from my citizens, I’ll demand the same from yours.

Global powers have often built their freedom on the exploitation of other nations.

Yes. Every nation on every continent has exploited its own population as well as its neighbors.

The wheel turns, and yesterday’s exploited become tomorrow’s exploiters, only to become the exploited again the day after.

We can’t stay stuck in the past. If we do, the future will remain just as blocked...

Hi there,

How do you manage to align your desire for more inclusive and equitable travel with your ecological concerns and your fight against overtourism?

Have you ever felt these inequalities during your travels? How do you think we could raise more awareness about this issue?

well yeah, there are obviously a lot of inequalities around the world. The risk with this discussion topic is stating the obvious, and we’re not going to change the world here. There are still tons of people living in slums, and social benefits like social protection or reduced working hours—many countries don’t have those. Oh, and your blog isn’t working.

You probably didn’t miss today’s article in *Le Figaro* about the impact of tourism on greenhouse gases.

If you did, here’s the end of the article: "A simple reduction in tourism volume (for example, if all countries reduced tourist demand by 5%) is 'not an ideal approach,' according to this *Nature Communications* study, as it isn’t 'fair and equitable' across countries. While efforts are being made in transport electrification and technology, aviation remains the Achilles’ heel of global tourism emissions. Limiting the growth in demand for air travel, particularly long-haul international flights, 'would yield desirable results from both a climate and social perspective,' suggests the international team behind the study.

'The inequality in carbon emissions from travel stems from the gap between those who can and those who cannot afford to travel abroad,' the authors note. 'Focusing on limiting the continued growth of international air travel rather than domestic tourism would offer a more socially equitable approach,' they argue."

As a climate skeptic, I don’t buy it for a second, of course.

the impact of tourism on greenhouse gases.

Instead of targeting long-haul flights, wouldn’t it be better to curb short-term trips?

Going to Rome for 2 days, Tenerife for 4, or Cancun for 6 seems like an aberration to me.

A tax of 500 € for a same-day round trip, 300 € for a weekend, 200 € for a week, and 100 € for a fortnight would greatly reduce global tourism and, therefore, carbon emissions from air travel. This would also solve the problem of the proliferation of Airbnbs in certain cities where residents now struggle to find housing (not to mention the nuisances).

Sure, that would spell the end for Ryanair and other low-cost airlines, but personally, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it... Short-term tourism would refocus on local travel. Restaurateurs, hoteliers, and shopkeepers wouldn’t suffer for it.

As a climate skeptic, I don’t believe in this for a second, of course.

Air travel also causes noise pollution. Overtourism does too, by the way (plus rising prices, housing shortages, waste management issues, etc.).

When it comes to the climate, I can only note the changes over the past 55 years. And especially the disruption! I don’t know the causes, but it seems hard to deny that things are evolving.

Your arguments are understandable, but I doubt we’re grasping the full picture. Whether it’s cars or planes, other fuels have been possible for a long time, but...

Regardless, flights departing from European airports will be powered by at least 20% sustainable fuels by 2035, with a target of 70% by 2050.

When it comes to weather, reasoning on a human lifespan scale doesn’t make sense. Besides, all the planets in the solar system are currently warming, and it’s not because of the flights we take.

And those alpine lakes in northern Italy that formed when massive glaciers melted 10,000 to 15,000 years ago—our cars didn’t cause that.

Studying history shows we’ve experienced warmer periods a thousand, two thousand, three thousand years ago. These periods are called climatic optimums because they provided excellent conditions—warmth and humidity—for agriculture. The Roman climatic optimum lasted from the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century CE and coincided with the peak of Rome, and it also affected... China, during the Han Empire. The "Beautiful Middle Ages" corresponds to the medieval climatic optimum, from the 10th to the 14th century, which also impacted Song Dynasty China. Historically, it was the cold periods, like the Little Ice Age from the 14th to the 19th century, that were... catastrophic.

18,000 years ago, the sea level was 120 meters lower.

To better monitor rising sea levels, Al Gore (the man behind *An Inconvenient Truth*) built himself a multi-dozen-room villa by the sea. Now *that’s* standing by your convictions.

The most comprehensive measurement records are maintained by the PSMSL (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level), founded in 1933 and based in Liverpool. This organization tracks around 2,900 observatories worldwide. The major ports of the Atlantic, North Sea, Baltic Sea, and Mediterranean show no perceptible acceleration in sea level rise.

With some uncertainty, there appear to be long cycles of warm and cold periods roughly every 12,000 or 16,000 years. The start of the last warm cycle enabled the rise of humanity. We’ve got about 3,000 to 4,000 years left. After that, as has happened many times before, the ice will return as far as the Mediterranean. By then, let’s hope our successors have a "Mars Exploration" section open on VoyageForum...

Whether it's for cars or planes, other fuels have been possible for a long time but...

The great global conspiracy preventing the rollout of new technologies???

No big deal—when there’s no more oil, we’ll just have to switch to something else.

Besides, all the planets in the solar system are warming up right now, and it’s not because of the planes we take.

Or is it...

The climate has naturally changed, is changing, and will continue to change.

But are humans disrupting natural cycles? That is the question...

A question some scientists will answer with a firm "yes," while others will say "no"...

When in doubt...

After all, I don’t have kids, so a flood story could be a fitting conclusion.

I think it’s more that the climate shapes people.

About a year ago, I saw a really interesting documentary on Arte, complete with maps, about the reasons behind the changing borders of the Roman Empire.

After its peak, there was a sharp decline, then a period when it almost fully rebuilt itself, and finally, the definitive fall.

The investigation concluded that the empire’s expansion and contraction strictly matched periods of favorable or unfavorable climate.

The same pattern held true for Pre-Columbian civilizations and many others.

In the past, yes. Man was nothing, or almost nothing.

But in the present? Billions of human beings now have access to technologies previously unknown.

Hey Jojoone, if the Roman Empire collapsed, it was mainly because the empire was vast—too vast to administer. And the central state, centralized in Rome, was too spendthrift. To maintain the communication routes, it was forced to levy heavy taxes.

So France must be way bigger than I thought, given how much we pay in taxes there.

We often say that the French flag flies over all the oceans, but when you see what's happening in New Caledonia, the French West Indies, and the social unrest that follows... you wonder if the French Empire isn't starting to wobble. Not to mention the African countries doing everything they can to expel French nationals from their soil. All that's left is for the Bretons, Basques, and Corsicans to demand their autonomy 😛

On the other hand, Mayotte has no desire to become Comorian again...

I’m not sure if becoming Russo-Chinese is a great tip for Africa.

Yes, it's certainly a question. But the Chinese bring in massive cash through investments in Africa, something the French state seems to have been unable to do. Investments help finance the local economy. However, it's not just a political issue but also a financial one, as local populations and governments risk becoming too indebted. That was the case for Sri Lanka at one point—the country struggled to honor a debt owed to China. . On a brighter note, the project to build a "barrier" against desertification in the Sahel seems to be taking shape by developing a green belt. Maybe one day we’ll be able to regreen the Sahel, so you see, it’s better to see the glass as half full rather than half empty 🙂

If you don’t consume (VAT), you’re not a property owner (property tax), and you use tax loopholes (income tax), your taxes end up being significantly reduced...

On top of that, if you only receive a pension of around 1,000 € per month, you avoid CSG, CRDS, and CASA while seeing your pension automatically adjusted according to the inflation rate!

Pure bliss...

The Chinese are the biggest capitalists you could ever find. Plus, they don’t mess around...

When the bill comes due, it’s gonna hurt...

Not for everyone, though—the locals in charge will have helped themselves, as usual.

In parts of Africa, locals have already had enough of the Chinese.

Sure, a lot of infrastructure has been built, but sometimes those who were hoping to get jobs only saw Chinese workers show up.

The messiah is an illusion...

Is Lionel the messiah? 😛 After wondering if the world is an illusion—the question has already been discussed several times.

Wondering on social media, during virtual interactions, if we're living in an illusion would send us into a multi-layered philosophical reflection. Coming from the "France d'en-bas," I wouldn’t have the inclination to engage in that kind of discussion. What’s more, since *The Matrix*, we already have the answer. I’m putting my sunglasses back on. 😎

Lionel is a messiah like the others (Jesus, Donald, Vladimir, Mohammed, the dollar, ecology, communism, socialism, anarchism, conspiracy theorists, ...)

A bit run-down, though!

Okay, he at least avoided selling himself to a petro-monarchy for money he doesn’t need.

Maybe he still deserves his name a little....

Coming from the "France d'en-bas," I wouldn’t have the taste for dialogue in that sense. What’s more, since *The Matrix*, we have the answer. I’m putting my sunglasses back on. 😎

Why deny ourselves the right to philosophize? Philosophizing isn’t an approach reserved for any particular social class. But it’s true that the Wachowskis’ film formalizes a lot of things 🙂 To continue, I recommend this book here

As my mom used to say: Being stupid isn’t good, but being too smart isn’t great either.

This reflection on the difficulties of moving around based on one's passport, origin, or skin color—does it focus only on travel as leisure, or does it also extend to other reasons people have for wanting to leave home?

Yes, I think the reflection covers all types of travel because it touches on the fundamental right to move around our planet.

Yes, I think this reflection applies to all types of travel because it touches on the fundamental right to move around our planet.

I’m not really getting this line of questioning: who fundamentally stops people from traveling? Unless you want to visit a country that requires a visa (like Russia, for example) and your visa gets denied. Otherwise, I don’t quite get it. For instance, if I want to go to Peru, who’s going to stop me from going to Peru? Well, maybe my bank if traveling costs too much and I’m overdrawn :)

The Chinese are the biggest capitalists that could exist. Plus, they’re no joke... When the bill comes due, it’s gonna hurt...

One way or another, we’re already paying the price, haha, with the trade balance being in deficit. Not to mention the recent bankruptcies of French companies.

I’m not really sure I understand this line of questioning: who fundamentally forbids people from traveling?

Well... try replacing travel with move around and remember that not all passports are golden keys that open the entire world.

Yes, I think this reflection applies to all types of travel because it touches on the fundamental right to move around our planet.

It’s never really been forbidden, except episodically.

I think this reflection applies to all types of travel because it touches on the fundamental right to move around our planet.

And in what marble would this 'fundamental right to move around our planet' be engraved?

It seems like Xavier Gorce read your post. His response to your lament:

And in what marble would this 'fundamental right to move around our planet' be engraved?

The "marble" is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which states in Article 13:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.

I hear you, Michel—no need to get into history to know that. But the author’s claim in the article, which is much broader, has never been and still isn’t reflected in the medium that would suit you, nor is it likely to be anytime soon.

So !

So we finally have a participant who cleverly slips their professional offers into VF through a thread that leads to a blog showcasing their commercial proposals?

We finally have a participant who cleverly slips in their professional offers on VF through a thread that leads to a blog presenting their commercial proposals?

No one’s fooled, but couldn’t there initially be the benefit of the doubt?

After that, a thread proposed for reflection doesn’t belong to the person who started it—especially if they don’t rise to the level of the issue they’ve raised. The discussion could take off by leaving the young woman to her carelessness and her possibly questionable intentions... we’ve seen this before.

Only, there are already plenty of similar discussions, and maybe not as much goodwill or available spirit to rekindle the sacred flame.

No one is fooled, but at the outset, can’t there be the benefit of the doubt?

Hence the question mark...

Then, a topic proposed for reflection doesn’t belong to the person who started it—especially if they don’t rise to the level of the issue they’ve raised. The discussion could take flight while leaving the young lady to her carelessness and possibly questionable intentions... this has been seen before.

Sure, with miss Atila, we’re competing in enthusiasm to contribute to topics and, without going so far as to tie the knot, we’re taking off together. Unfortunately, part of the squadron is missing...

So we finally have a participant who cleverly slips in their professional offers on VF through a thread that leads to a blog showcasing their commercial proposals?

I hadn’t even noticed it was an ad for the thread creator’s blog until you pointed it out 🙂

Good evening,

Sure, with miss Atila we’re competing in enthusiasm to contribute to the topics and, without going so far as to tie the knot, we take off together. Unfortunately, part of the squadron is missing...

The espadrille’s rope is worn out...

And then

In this post, I discuss topics like:

The inequalities between passports ("strong" vs. "weak" passports). The specific challenges faced by travelers from marginalized communities. How to take action to promote more inclusive and equitable travel. I’d love to hear your thoughts! 😊 Have you ever felt these inequalities during your travels?

And then... having a "strong passport", maybe for a little while longer, belonging to a marginalized group (females over 180 cm) that indeed faces a number of challenges but hasn’t yet formed a "community", I do have some ideas for promoting more "inclusive and equitable" travel (reducing the number of seat rows in economy class on planes, standardizing 2-meter-long beds in accommodations, etc.), but I have a feeling this isn’t the kind of participation that’s expected.

Cat

Going to Rome for 2 days, Tenerife for 4, Cancun for 6 seems absurd to me.

A tax of 500 euros for a same-day round trip, 300 for the weekend, 200 for the week, and 100 for a fortnight would greatly curb global tourism and thus carbon emissions from air travel.

Okay, that would spell the end for Ryanair and other low-cost airlines, but personally, I wouldn’t shed a tear...

They’re right to say that environmentalists are primarily characterized by their tax rage! Taxing travel like you suggest mainly means only the rich will be able to travel as they please. That’s the second hallmark of environmentalism—it benefits the wealthy. The poor stay home and make way for the rich. Damn the poor! Obviously, the demise of Ryanair wouldn’t upset those who only travel business class—when there’s no first class...

I didn’t read Attila’s message as dismissive of bank accounts. More like pointing out that the low cost of air travel, which shrinks distances, reduces travel to just another consumer product: "Well, Saturday, should I buy a nice sweater or sip whisky in Glasgow?"

I hadn't even noticed it was an ad for the creator of this thread's blog, not until you pointed it out :)

And even then, I rarely click on links shared by other members, figuring that if they're posting here, they could just as well share the main points or their travel journals directly on VF.

The message wasn't clear enough, so I wanted to know more, but the travel agency vibe really jumped out at me.

I didn’t read Attila’s message as a disdain for bank accounts. More like the fact that the low cost of air travel, which shrinks distances, reduces travel to just another consumer product: "Let’s see, Saturday—should I buy a nice sweater or sip whisky in Glasgow?"

Thanks in part to low-cost carriers, travel has risen (not fallen) to the level of an everyday consumer product—and there’s no reason to be ashamed of that. On the contrary, I think we should celebrate it.

I remember the pre-deregulation era, when flight tickets were exorbitantly priced—and I had to give up a lot to travel. Now, young people and those with modest means can fly without having to sacrifice too much elsewhere, and that’s a great thing. They should make the most of it—it might not last forever...

Herb Kelleher (Southwest), Michael O’Leary (Ryanair), Stelios Haji-Ioannou (easyJet), and József Váradi (Wizz Air) are benefactors of humanity. We should erect statues in their honor.

PS: Between a nice sweater and a trip to Glasgow, I don’t hesitate for a second—like most regulars on this forum, I imagine—but for me, it’ll be a beer over whisky.

Hi there!

Thanks in part to low-cost carriers, travel has risen (not fallen) to the rank of an everyday consumer product—and there’s no reason to be ashamed of that. On the contrary, we should celebrate it, in my opinion.

A desire immediately fulfilled only offers mediocre satisfaction, at least for those who also lived before these poor *anthropoi* were reduced to mere consumers. The ease of travel, for those who do it effortlessly, devalues these frantic little hops.

I remember the pre-deregulation era, when flight tickets were exorbitantly priced—and I had to go without so many things just to travel. Now, young people and those with modest means can fly without having to sacrifice too much else, and that’s a great thing. They should make the most of it—it might not last forever....

Same here. It made the hierarchy of my values crystal clear, always having to choose. And back then, with little money, I traveled mostly by train, to my great delight, on routes that low-cost airlines have since killed off, leaving us with the choice between flying or driving (maybe the bus... but that’s not my thing).

Catherine

I don’t see the connection between what I said and class struggle.

Whether you earn 1,500 € or 1,500,000 €, it doesn’t change the fact that taking a weekend flight is nonsense. Ecologically, maybe, but not just that... I don’t get the point of collecting cities like Panini stickers.

Heavily taxing round-trip flights over a short period would significantly reduce this compulsive—even bulimic—tourism, which would help ease the impacts of overtourism.

That said, I was a bit stingy with my tax amounts.

5,000,000 € for a day, 500,000 € for a weekend, 50,000 € for a week, and 50 € for two weeks would be fairer.

99.99% of the planet would then be affected, instead of just 90% of the French with my initial figures.

Instead of taking 6 two-day trips, people would travel once for 15 days. It wouldn’t cost them any more...

So, we have to accept giving up small pleasures that cost us some financial sacrifices after reading things like:

Gabriel Attal’s plane made a 7-minute flight between Rochefort and La Rochelle to visit... an eco-district. Source: "La Dépêche"

In just four months, the Minister of Ecological Transition, Christophe Béchu, took a private jet eleven times for domestic flights. All done very discreetly. Source: "Reporterre.net"

For their back-to-school trip to Liffré, Gabriel Attal and Élisabeth Borne chose a 38-minute flight on the presidential jet over a 1h30 TGV to Rennes. Source: "Le Soir"

A 52-minute flight, 800 kg of fuel consumed. It was aboard a Dassault Falcon 7X that Prime Minister François Bayrou traveled this Monday, December 16, to Pau to preside over the city’s municipal council, despite numerous criticisms from the opposition. Source: "BFM"

It’s true that it all comes down to perspective. And when have the sacrifices of the middle class ever served as an example for the wealthy and ultra-wealthy to follow?

At the very least, I can much better understand why Leonardo DiCaprio chooses to take a private jet for his trips instead of a long-haul flight—he knows full well that you’d take the opportunity to swoon all over him. Oh, it’s not just you—you wouldn’t be the only one! 😛

A little objectivity is necessary. It’s not just frenetic tourists on those low-cost flights. When I went to Vietnam in 2019 and Bulgaria in 2023, both on the way there and back, there were a lot of people from those two countries on the plane. What do we do in that case—tax them to the max or give them special treatment? There are also a lot of people on planes who take them for a day or two for work. Do we tax work too? It’s not all that simple.

A desire immediately fulfilled offers only mediocre satisfaction, at least for those who also lived before these poor *anthropoi* were reduced to mere consumers. The ease of travel, for those who do it effortlessly, devalues these frantic hops

I totally agree with you on this.

I remember the time before deregulation, when flight tickets were exorbitantly priced—and I had to go without many things to be able to travel. Now, young people and those with modest means can fly without having to sacrifice too much elsewhere, and that’s a great thing. They should make the most of it—it might not last...

Same here. It made the hierarchy of my values crystal clear, always having to choose.

Exactly. For my part, I had my best trips with very little money.

@B737 If flight tickets were expensive, the cost of living in most visited countries was very low. With one month’s minimum wage, you could live for 3 months in South or Southeast Asia! That’s far from the case today🙁