Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wooley on August 30, 2006, 11:29:40 AM
-
Nice to see freedom of expression is alive and well in the west
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5297822.stm)
:eek:
-
Originally posted by wooley
Nice to see freedom of expression is alive and well in the west
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5297822.stm)
:eek:
Try wearing a t-shirt that says "Hijack!" on a domestic flight and see what happens. ;)
-
that's ****ed up at all levels
Mission complete: Anything Middle Eastern related is automatically offensive in tha West
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Try wearing a t-shirt that says "Hijack!" on a domestic flight and see what happens. ;)
too obvious and you'll be removed faster than the blink of the eye.
On the article, his shirt says "We will not be silent", refering to the current mid-east hard core regimes such as Saddam and that hardliner from Iran (his last name starts with letter A...)
-
The passenger expressed his views with his shirt.
The airline expressed their views not allowing it on their plane.
What's the problem?
-
The first paragraph says it all.
An architect of Iraqi descent has said he was forced to remove a T-shirt that bore the words "We will not be silent" before boarding a flight at New York.
-
Another fine example of US freedom.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Shifty
The passenger expressed his views with his shirt.
The airline expressed their views not allowing it on their plane.
What's the problem?
Exactly.
And why didn't this get wooley's attention 3 days ago?
A devout Christian was banned from flying with the budget airline Easyjet after she asked staff to "stop blaspheming".
Fiz Thomson, 55, was returning from a trip to Israel where she had been helping war victims, when she heard boarding staff at Stansted airport repeatedly exclaiming "Oh, my God" after a child fell and hurt herself.
She said she politely asked them to stop taking God's name in vain. She was then approached by a security official and she claims she was called a "racist" for remarking that her complaint would have been taken more seriously had she been Islamic.
As a result of the altercation on Tuesday, her boarding card was withheld, her luggage was taken off the Edinburgh-bound flight and she was barred from flying with the airline for 24 hours.
The grandmother, from Burntisland, Fife, who worships at the independent Vine Church in Dunfermline, said: "There was absolutely nothing at all that I said to the airport staff which could have been interpreted as racist. "I was very polite and non aggressive, but one of the ladies angrily asked me if I expected everyone to follow my religion and do as I did.
"A member of the security staff then appeared and started arguing with me."
Mrs Thomson, a registered foster carer with Fife Council, added: "All the other flights to Edinburgh that evening were with Easyjet. I ended up having to hire a car and drive to my daughter's home in Bolton. "I stayed the night there before driving home the following day. It cost me more than £200, including petrol."
According to Easyjet, Mrs Thomson was "ranting at female gate staff of Indian origin" who had had no intention to be blasphemous.
A spokesman said her remarks appeared to be racist and a view was taken that she needed to calm down and would not be allowed to fly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/26/ngod26.xml
So much for freedom of speech in England! :rofl
-
Originally posted by Birddogg
Another fine example of US freedom.
:rofl
Actually it was. There needs to be more examples like it. There are many people who want freedom from all the militant PC thug crap that they are assaulted with regularly.:aok
-
What a surprise... The 1st Amendment doesn't apply at airports or airplanes.
Hell... the 4th doesn't apply either.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What a surprise... The 1st Amendment doesn't apply at airports or airplanes.
Hell... the 4th doesn't apply either.
Try the 2nd and see where that gets ya. :p
Bronk
-
This has alot less to do with freedom of speech than it does with smart business.
He doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to cost your business money by upsetting other customers. If it were a government operated airline, he'd have a valid complaint. Since it's a privately (or even publically traded, because public does not equal state) owned company, they can treat their customers as they see fit. If it's bad treatment, you'll lose customers. That simple.
If you come to my office, and upset my customers, you'll get one chance to apolgize and conform, or you'll get shown the door. If you come back, you'll get shown the inside of a police cruiser.
In the great state of Texas, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
-
Dunno what the big deal is. A corporation exercises its right to serve who it choses. No biggy.
If you think this is a big deal, then you really do not understand how things work in the U.S. as it pertains to corporations.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What a surprise... The 1st Amendment doesn't apply at airports or airplanes.
Hell... the 4th doesn't apply either.
The man freely expressed himself.
Freedom of expression, means you are free from persecution .
A persons dress is freedom of expression.
A company drawing the line on how it's customers are dressed is also freedom of expression.
The US Government didn't keep him from boarding the plane. The airline did. To post this as a lack of freedom of expression in the US is just lame.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
The US Government didn't keep him from boarding the plane. The airline did. To post this as a lack of freedom of expression in the US is just lame.
Please point to the part in the article that states this.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Please point to the part in the article that states this.
After a difficult exchange with airline staff, Mr Jarrar was persuaded to wear another T-shirt bought for him at the airport shop.
JetBlue said it was also investigating the incident but a spokeswoman said: "We're not clear exactly what happened."
Doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption. The only thing not clear is who the two gentleman that approached him with the initial complaint worked for.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What a surprise... The 1st Amendment doesn't apply at airports or airplanes.
Hell... the 4th doesn't apply either.
Own your own airline some day and you can allow all the Jihadis wearing the latest jihadi gear you want on board.
I'm sure if I tried to board a plane in UAE that said "EAT PORK OR DIE SISSYS" they'd have reservations about me as well.
Try wearing a KKK outfit into a black owned business.
This is freedom at it's best. The airline is free to choose to serve the man and the man is free to choose if he wants to remove his shirt.
Also I'm with bronk on this one....how come you didn't mention the 2nd amendment while flying?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Also I'm with goon on this one....how come you didn't mention the 2nd amendment while flying?
WTH GOON :furious :furious :furious
Ok i might be... just a little .:D
Bronk
-
None of which invalidates my statement.
-
Call someone a macaca and watch what happens. Tell Strom Thurmond he shoulda been president and watch what happens. Share your religious convictions in a public forum and watch what happens.
I agree, PC has replaced freedom of speech in the US.
-
Thanks Indy.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
None of which invalidates my statement.
I only see your point if you are speaking in sarcasim.
-
go to the middle east wearing a t-shirt with a picture of muhammad on it, see what happens.
-
Let's use barbaric fundamentalist islamic ****holes as our standard for tolerance. :aok
-
I have no sympathy.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Exactly.
And why didn't this get wooley's attention 3 days ago?
So much for freedom of speech in England! :rofl
That was about a woman being refused on a plane for (alegedly) acting in a threatening manner to staff and - at best - trying to impose her religious beliefs on another. In this case, if the airline's story is correct, they acted entierly correctly. At JFK, the guy was minding his own business and did nothing that could be interpreted as threatening (from what we know).
But don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusions that personal freedoms are being curtailed in the UK every bit as much here. Hence the reason I said "...in the west" and not "in the USA...", in my original post.
And I'm Scottish, not English by the way.
Here's the thing - does anyone think the guy would have been hassled by staff had his t-shirt merely had arabic on it? Possibly, but I doubt it given by their own admission they had no idea what it meant. Also, would there have been an issue if it merely said "We will not be silent" in English?. Again, possibly (given his ethnic origin) but I still doubt it. Certainly I would not expect a white person to have any trouble wearing such a t-shirt (most people would not immediately associate the slogan with Middle-East related politics). It was the combination of English and Arabic and the guy's skin color which caused the problem. Wrap that up any way you like, but to me it says 'racism'.
My own view is the guy was a fool to wear the t-shirt in the current climate, but that doesn't change the fact his personal rights were tramplled all over here. I also respect the airline's right to refuse service, but to say they were going to loose money is nonsense - no one refusing to get on a plane because someone was wearing a t-shirt they didn't like would get a refund. However as others have pointed out - their plane, their choice.
For me, the security (or airline) staff took the wrong person aside. The people needing to be talked to were the people complaining. A swift re-education on rights and freedoms would not have been out of place.
-
There was someone a few months ago who was denied boarding because they had a shirt which said "F*** BUSH" or some closely related saying.
A passenger having a potentially offensive shirt, or a shirt which raises concern of other passengers on a flight should be a concern of the crew, as it potentially effects the safety of the flight.
A fight between passengers can endanger the flight.
-
Originally posted by john9001
go to the middle east wearing a t-shirt with a picture of muhammad on it, see what happens.
Invalid arguement - remember the whole premise of why we consider our society better than theirs - and one of the major justifcations for 5 years of interventionist foreign policy - is we can wear t-shirts with pictures of Mohammed on them if we want to.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
There was someone a few months ago who was denied boarding because they had a shirt which said "F*** BUSH" or some closely related saying.
A passenger having a potentially offensive shirt, or a shirt which raises concern of other passengers on a flight should be a concern of the crew, as it potentially effects the safety of the flight.
A fight between passengers can endanger the flight.
Holden, are you trying to bring common sense into an argument on the O'Club? I didn't think that was allowed.
-
Originally posted by wooley
A swift re-education on rights and freedoms would not have been out of place.
Start with yourself.
The guy had the freedom of expression to wear the tee-shirt.
The airline had the right to deny his access to thier aircraft.
Your the one who thinks only one side had rights or freedoms in this case. You have not given one side the same consideraton you gave the other. In fact you refered to the side you dissagree with as racist for practicing their rights. It's the companies right, not yours , to determine whats good , bad , safe or un-safe, for their business. They get to make that decision. Just like the guy that decided to wear the tee-shirt had every right to make his decision.
Nobody had their freedoms or rights violated. The system worked. You seem to be the one who wants to one side to steamroll over the other. So question your own understanding of freedoms and rights , before you make knee jerk accusations against America.
-
Originally posted by wooley
Invalid arguement - remember the whole premise of why we consider our society better than theirs - and one of the major justifcations for 5 years of interventionist foreign policy - is we can wear t-shirts with pictures of Mohammed on them if we want to.
but , wooly, have you no respect for islam , which forbids idolatry?
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Start with yourself.
The guy had the freedom of expression to wear the tee-shirt.
The airline had the right to deny his access to thier aircraft.
Your the one who thinks only one side had rights or freedoms in this case. You have not given one side the same consideraton you gave the other. In fact you refered to the side you dissagree with as racist for practicing their rights. It's the companies right, not yours , to determine whats good , bad , safe or un-safe, for their business. They get to make that decision. Just like the guy that decided to wear the tee-shirt had every right to make his decision.
Nobody had their freedoms or rights violated. The system worked. You seem to be the one who wants to one side to steamroll over the other. So question your own understanding of freedoms and rights , before you make knee jerk accusations against America.
Don't let the fact that airports aren't necessarily privately owned and the fact that the TSA are government employees muddy your point. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Don't let the fact that airports aren't necessarily privately owned and the fact that the TSA are government employees muddy your point. ;)
and don't let facts get in the way of yours
He said he had cleared security at John F Kennedy airport for a flight back to his home in California when he was approached by two men who wanted to check his ID and boarding pass.
After a difficult exchange with airline staff, Mr Jarrar was persuaded to wear another T-shirt bought for him at the airport shop.
-
You missed the point, Guns.
At airports, our rights and freedoms are often a controversial topic because airports are not privately owned and security is provided by the government.
But to answer your post...
Raed Jarrar said security officials warned him his clothing was offensive after he checked in for a JetBlue flight to California on 12 August.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Don't let the fact that airports aren't necessarily privately owned and the fact that the TSA are government employees muddy your point. ;)
Pretty sure the pilot wouldnt let this idiot on. Are the pilots in on the plot to steal our liberties too?
-
Copied from link. After a difficult exchange with airline staff, Mr Jarrar was persuaded to wear another T-shirt bought for him at the airport shop.
I find it amusing how pesky rights and freedoms can be for some of you people when they apply to all equally.:huh
-
Raed Jarrar said security officials warned him his clothing was offensive after he checked in for a JetBlue flight to California on 12 August.
-
Did they warn him and then force him to remove said shirt, or did they warn him that the airline might require a more neutral shirt?
-
Here's the thing though... if the shirt simply said "We Will Not Be Silent" and only said it in english, no one would have made a fuss.
They got their panties in a wad because of the arabic.
-
Security did their job. They warned him. What's your point?
The Airline staff are the ones that advised him to change shirts if he wanted to fly.
-
Raed Jarrar's Story
I went to JFK in the morning to catch my Jet Blue plane to California. I reached Terminal 6 at around 7:15 am, issued a boarding pass, and checked all my bags in, and then walked to the security checkpoint. For the first time in my life, I was taken to a secondary search . My shoes were searched, and I was asked for my boarding pass and ID. After passing the security, I walked to check where gate 16 was, then I went to get something to eat. I got some cheese and grapes with some orange juice and I went back to Gate 16 and sat down in the boarding area enjoying my breakfast and some sunshine.
At around 8:30, two men approached me while I was checking my phone. One of them asked me if I had a minute and he showed me his badge, I said: "sure". We walked some few steps and stood in front of the boarding counter where I found out that they were accompanied by another person, a woman from Jet Blue.
One of the two men who approached me first, Inspector Harris, asked for my id card and boarding pass. I gave him my boarding pass and driver's license. He said "people are feeling offended because of your t-shirt". I looked at my t-shirt: I was wearing my shirt which states in both Arabic and English "we will not be silent". You can take a look at it in this picture taken during our Jordan meetings with Iraqi MPs. I said "I am very sorry if I offended anyone, I didnt know that this t-shirt will be offensive". He asked me if I had any other T-shirts to put on, and I told him that I had checked in all of my bags and I asked him "why do you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn't it my constitutional right to express myself in this way?" The second man in a greenish suit interfered and said "people here in the US don't understand these things about constitutional rights". So I answered him "I live in the US, and I understand it is my right to wear this t-shirt".
Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank". I said "but the message on my t-shirt is not offensive, it just says "we will not be silent". I got this t-shirt from Washington DC. There are more than a 1000 t-shirts printed with the same slogan, you can google them or email them at wewillnotbesilent@gmail.com . It is printed in many other languages: Arabic, Farsi, Spanish, English, etc." Inspector Harris said: "We cant make sure that your t-shirt means we will not be silent, we don't have a translator. Maybe it means something else". I said: "But as you can see, the statement is in both Arabic and English". He said "maybe it is not the same message". So based on the fact that Jet Blue doesn't have a translator, anything in Arabic is suspicious because maybe it'll mean something bad!
Meanwhile, a third man walked in our direction. He stood with us without introducing himself, and he looked at inspector Harris's notes and asks him: "is that his information?", inspector Harris answered "yes". The third man, Mr. Harmon, asks inspector Harris : "can I copy this information?", and inspector Harris says "yes, sure".
inspector Harris said: "You don't have to take of your t-shirt, just put it on inside-out". I refused to put on my shirt inside-out. So the woman interfered and said "let's reach a compromise. I will buy you a new t-shirt and you can put it on on top of this one". I said "I want to keep this t-shirt on". Both inspector Harris and Mr. Harmon said "No, we can't let you get on that airplane with your t-shirt". I said "I am ready to put on another t-shirt if you tell me what is the law that requires such a thing. I want to talk to your supervisor". Inspector Harris said "You don't have to talk to anyone. Many people called and complained about your t-shirt. Jetblue customers were calling before you reached the checkpoint, and costumers called when you were waiting here in the boarding area".
it was then that I realized that my t-shirt was the reason why I had been taken to the secondary checking.
I asked the four people again to let me talk to any supervisor, and they refused.
The Jet Blue woman was asking me again to end this problem by just putting on a new t-shirt, and I felt threatened by Mr. Harmon's remarks as in "Let's end this the nice way". Taking in consideration what happens to other Arabs and Muslims in US airports, and realizing that I will miss my flight unless I covered the Arabic script on my t-shirt as I was told by the four agents, I asked the Jet Blue woman to buy me a t-shirt and I said "I don't want to miss my flight."
She asked, what kind of t-shirts do you like. Should I get you an "I heart new york t-shirt?". So Mr. Harmon said "No, we shouldn't ask him to go from one extreme to another". I asked mr. harmon why does he assume I hate new york if I had some Arabic script on my t-shirt, but he didn't answer.
The woman went away for 3 minutes, and she came back with a gray t-shirt reading "new york". I put the t-shirt on and removed the price tag. I told the four people who were involved in the conversation: "I feel very sad that my personal freedom was taken away like this. I grew up under authoritarian governments in the Middle East, and one of the reasons I chose to move to the US was that I don't want an officer to make me change my t-shirt. I will pursue this incident today through a Constitutional rights organization, and I am sure we will meet soon". Everyone said okay and left, and I went back to my seat.
At 8:50 I was called again by a fourth young man, standing with the same jetblue woman. He asked for my boarding pass, so I gave it to him, and stood in front of the boarding counter. I asked the woman: "is everything okay?", she responded: "Yes, sure. We just have to change your seat". I said: "but I want this seat, that's why I chose it online 4 weeks ago", the fourth man said " there is a lady with a toddler sitting there. We need the seat."
Then they re-issued me a small boarding pass for seat 24a, instead of seat 3a. They said that I can go to the airplane now. I was the first person who entered the airplane, and I was really annoyed about being assigned this seat in the back of the airplane too. It smelled like the bathrooms, which is why I had originally chosen a seat which would be far from that area.
It sucks to be an Arab/Muslim living in the US these days. When you go to the middle east, you are a US tax-payer destroying people's houses with your money, and when you come back to the US, you are a suspected terrorist and plane hijacker.
source (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Here's the thing though... if the shirt simply said "We Will Not Be Silent" and only said it in english, no one would have made a fuss.
They got their panties in a wad because of the arabic.
quite possibly because there is an threat out there....particularly at airports, airplanes and air travel.......involving people of islamic religion that are generally are arabic (and yes I know that pakis and Iranians arent arabic but I beleive the writing, to include farsi is similar)
So lets say there's some kind of black convention in some city who's had daily threats from race hate groups. The convention is open to all and the city refuses to let a white guy with a shaved head wearing an arian propaganda T-shirt into the building for fear of cause a disturbance.......wrong or just common sense for the common good.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Start with yourself.
The airline had the right to deny his access to thier aircraft.
Your the one who thinks only one side had rights or freedoms in this case.
I've already agreed it was the airline's choice.
Originally posted by Shifty
...knee jerk accusations against America.
You mean "accusations against the west". I though I had been clear that I wasn't just singling out America.
Look - you're absolutely right - the airline has to do what it thinks is best for the safety and well-being of its passengers and aircraft and I did say I thought the guy was a fool for wearing the t-shirt to an airport where he knew tensions were high. But can you honestly say the whole thing was not a series of complete over-reactions - firstly by the passengers complaining and subsequently by the airline / security staff?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Here's the thing though... if the shirt simply said "We Will Not Be Silent" and only said it in english, no one would have made a fuss.
They got their panties in a wad because of the arabic.
Exactly.
This country suffered greatly five years ago from young arab men who had their panties in a wad. Mr Jarrar would not feel the need to wear a shirt like that if he'd get his own panties out of a wad.
-
It sucks to be an Arab/Muslim living in the US these days. When you go to the middle east, you are a US tax-payer destroying people's houses with your money, and when you come back to the US, you are a suspected terrorist and plane hijacker.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Well maybe that's because nearly every terrorist that has been arrested or committed a terrorist act in the western world has been an arab muslim or from the middle east. To top it off you have the balls to wear a T-Shirt praising them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck......
Free expression died back in the 90s when the PC movement took over.
That's precious. Either way it sounds like the airline had a problem with it and asked security to help them out. Don't I have a right NOT TO BE OFFENDED by a T-shirt? Aren't schools operated by govt. funds and don't they have the right to enforce standards and send kids home who arent dressed appropriatly "denying their right to free expression"
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Here's the thing though... if the shirt simply said "We Will Not Be Silent" and only said it in english, no one would have made a fuss.
They got their panties in a wad because of the arabic.
Id be a little nervous too if I got on a plane in the US and saw that .
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
To top it off you have the balls to wear a T-Shirt praising them.
Praising the terrorists? You may have misread the shirt.
-
Originally posted by wooley
But can you honestly say the whole thing was not a series of complete over-reactions - firstly by the passengers complaining and subsequently by the airline / security staff?
I agree over-reaction took place.
Try and put yourself in the passengers position. We're coming up on the five year anniversary of 911. It's on everybodys mind, and everybody wonders could it happen again?
Put yourself in Mr Jarrars position. You have the same knowledge as the rest of the world about 911. You know young arab men carried it out. You are about to travel on an airline................. Your pissed about the war in Iraq, and you want everyone to know by wearing your tee shirt. You have the right to put the tee-shirt on and attempt to board a plane.............. Or could you maybe just try and use a little better judgement?
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Exactly.
This country suffered greatly five years ago from young arab men who had their panties in a wad. Mr Jarrar would not feel the need to wear a shirt like that if he'd get his own panties out of a wad.
So that'll be Muslims and everyone else of Mediteranean, North African, Middle Eastern, Pakistani, Indian, Malaysian and Indoneasian descent everywhere tried, convicted and sentenced.
Next case please.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Raed Jarrar's Story why I had originally chosen a seat which would be far from that area.
It sucks to be an Arab/Muslim living in the US these days. When you go to the middle east, you are a US tax-payer destroying people's houses with your money, and when you come back to the US, you are a suspected terrorist and plane hijacker.
source (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/)
Would that have anything at all to do with sleeper cells of terrorists living in this country?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Praising the terrorists? You may have misread the shirt.
Hmmm what else could it mean considering that is all you hear about now a days. If this is silence I'd hate to see loud.
-
Originally posted by wooley
So that'll be Muslims and everyone else of Mediteranean, North African, Middle Eastern, Pakistani, Indian, Malaysian and Indoneasian descent everywhere tried, convicted and sentenced.
Next case please.
-5 points for complete generalization and poor application of a statement
-
Originally posted by Shifty
I agree over-reaction took place.
Try and put yourself in the passengers position. We're coming up on the five year anniversary of 911. It's on everybodys mind, and everybody wonders could it happen again?
Put yourself in Mr Jarrars position. You have the same knowledge as the rest of the world about 911. You know young arab men carried it out. You are about to travel on an airline................. Your pissed about the war in Iraq, and you want everyone to know by wearing your tee shirt. You have the right to put the tee-shirt on and attempt to board a plane.............. Or could you maybe just try and use a little better judgement?
OK - we're getting closer to consensus here :aok
The guy was asking for trouble wearing the t-shirt. But I have to say, I would have no problem getting on the plane with the guy.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure no terrorist would get on a plane wearing something that so clearly said "sit next to me Mr Air Marshall".
-
Originally posted by wooley
So that'll be Muslims and everyone else of Mediteranean, North African, Middle Eastern, Pakistani, Indian, Malaysian and Indoneasian descent everywhere tried, convicted and sentenced.
Next case please.
Wooley don't jump off the deep end.
Nobody tried convicted , and sentenced any group. People of all nationalities fly into America dailey. I don't know why you're trying so hard to play the race card. Maybe you think it will give you instant victory in the debate?
The terrorist were young arab men. To notice or aknowledge that does'nt make a person racsist. Nor does the fact that you ignore it make you some tower of tolerance and wisdom.
-
Originally posted by wooley
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure no terrorist would get on a plane wearing something that so clearly said "sit next to me Mr Air Marshall".
You have a point there.:D
Then again would you have thought before 911 a group of people would hijack 4 different aircraft on the same day armed with box cutters?
You just never bud, you just never f***in know.;)
I gotta get back to work!!!!!!!!:confused:
-
Hi Sandy,
Originally posted by Sandman
Here's the thing though... if the shirt simply said "We Will Not Be Silent" and only said it in english, no one would have made a fuss.
They got their panties in a wad because of the arabic.
Given the current situation, having a man wearing a T-Shirt with an Arabic Slogan that most Westerners could not read would have created a panic amongst the other passengers. For all they know, it could have said "Allah hu Akbar." It need not even have said anything, if they man had attempted to board the plane wearing a red or green headband, I am sure he would have been stopped as well.
The action was not taken to stiffle his freedom of speech, it was done for the safety of the other passengers. And before we get into extended discussions of their fear being "unreasonable" given 9/11 and the recent attempt to bring down almost a dozen commercial flights at once, and the fact that the intervention of passengers was the only thing that saved the U.S. Capitol building and the plane that Richard "You'll be Judged by Allah!" Reid was flying on, I think a certain amount of passenger wariness at this point is both reasonable and understandable. The Jihadis certainly aren't showing any signs that they plan to stop targeting commercial flights.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Wooley don't jump off the deep end.
Nobody tried convicted , and sentenced any group. People of all nationalities fly into America dailey. I don't know why you're trying so hard to play the race card. Maybe you think it will give you instant victory in the debate?
The terrorist were young arab men. To notice or aknowledge that does'nt make a person racsist. Nor does the fact that you ignore it make you some tower of tolerance and wisdom.
OK - that post went a bit far (my post I mean).
Here's my last point: I accept the majority of the terrorism threat in the world comes from very specific areas of the world and that people from those parts of the world are, unfortunately for them, going to be under closer scruteny - especially at airports. But lets not go too far people. The guy - in my opinion - was guilty of bad judgement, but for other people to express offense and almost have him denied access to the plane was also highly inconsiderate.
Right, I really need to do some work..
-
I have a shirt that says, "Practice Safe Lunch: Use a Condiment" I hope to get a few smiles when I wear it.
The guy wearing the shirt got just the reaction he was looking for.
You don't wear a shirt making a statement without asking for a reaction.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Hmmm what else could it mean considering that is all you hear about now a days. If this is silence I'd hate to see loud.
It means that he disagrees with the war in Iraq, and he will "not be silent" about it. What part of disagreeing with the war in Iraq equals supporting terrorists?
Second, read the article:Inspector Harris said: "We cant make sure that your t-shirt means we will not be silent, we don't have a translator. Maybe it means something else". I said: "But as you can see, the statement is in both Arabic and English". He said "maybe it is not the same message".
He wasn't in trouble because it said "We will not be silent", he was busted because it was in arabic, and anything in arabic is suspicious. The guy apparently didn't have a problem with the message.
-
Another point that should be made, since it was brought up........
The TSA doesnt do security at all airports anymore, and soon will not do security at ANY airports. All airport security is being turned over to private security companies.
This doesnt say one way or the other if they were TSA agents or private security agents. I doubt it matters. One is just about as ignorant as the other, in my experience. And that comes from someone who makes his living in private contract security. Airports require such a huge investment in manpower that only the largest companies can afford to shift enough employees around to take the contract, and even then they have to do ALOT of hiring. You dont get the cream of the crop, especially not at first. Rather ironic, isnt it? Either way, security should have handled that better, they just dropped the ball.
Not defending the guy mind you, I think it was a boneheaded thing to do wearing that shirt, and JetBlue had every right to refuse him access to the plane. It would have never been blown out of proportion like this though if the Security guards had used a bit of tact and had some education.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have a shirt that says, "Practice Safe Lunch: Use a Condiment" I hope to get a few smiles when I wear it.
The guy wearing the shirt got just the reaction he was looking for.
You don't wear a shirt making a statement without asking for a reaction.
I'm wearing a shirt right now that has a cartoon picture of a knife (with an anthropomorphic face and legs) and the caption is "Hey kids! Put me in your enemies!"
Does this mean it's ok for a police officer to hold me? Or would that be an overreaction?
-
Maybe not, but you sure have a sick sense of humor.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'm wearing a shirt right now that has a cartoon picture of a knife (with an anthropomorphic face and legs) and the caption is "Hey kids! Put me in your enemies!"
Does this mean it's ok for a police officer to hold me? Or would that be an overreaction?
I would consider it to be a reasonable school policy if when you walk into a school that you be asked to change to another shirt.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
The man freely expressed himself.
Freedom of expression, means you are free from persecution .
A persons dress is freedom of expression.
A company drawing the line on how it's customers are dressed is also freedom of expression.
The US Government didn't keep him from boarding the plane. The airline did. To post this as a lack of freedom of expression in the US is just lame.
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Infringe uppon the rights of others (I'm pretty sure the t-shirt WOULD, and DID) and you forfeit "your 1st Amendment rights".
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Maybe not, but you sure have a sick sense of humor.
Thanks!
-
what exactly did he mean by "We Will Not Be Silent"?
i guess he made enough noise to be noticed, which is what he wanted.
'hey look at me.......hey look at meeee, i'm a arab an i'm flying on your plane, look at meeee"
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law....
If Jet Blue makes a rule, how does that violate the first amendment?
-
Originally posted by john9001
what exactly did he mean by "We Will Not Be Silent"?
Hi John,
I see that you didn't get a chance to read the whole thread before posting. It means that he disagrees with the war in Iraq, and he will "not be silent" about it.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Call someone a macaca and watch what happens. Tell Strom Thurmond he shoulda been president and watch what happens. Share your religious convictions in a public forum and watch what happens.
I agree, PC has replaced freedom of speech in the US.
too, too true, this statement is.
Going to watch interracial porn and eat friend chicken I am.
-
<>
so, he supports the terrorists, if the terrorists would stop killing iraqs the "war" would be over.
and i will not be silent.
-
Hmmm...
Against the Iraq War = Terrorist.
Where's the Koolaid?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm...
Against the Iraq War = Terrorist.
Where's the Koolaid?
you irrational hatred of the "neo-cons" clouds your judgment.
-
Oh... so the Iraq war was rational.
Okey dokey.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Congress shall make no law....
If Jet Blue makes a rule, how does that violate the first amendment?
It doesn't, which is what I provided. I agree with you.
-
Originally posted by the usuals
...or a shirt which raises concern ...
Brrr the HORROR!!!! dangerous writing on a shirt CAN BE HARMFULL!!!
What a bunch of twits ye all are...
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Brrr the HORROR!!!! dangerous writing on a shirt CAN BE HARMFULL!!!!
Yep it's stupid
When I was 16 I got banned from a pub for wearing a t-shirt with a picture of the Confederate flag and the writing 'the south will rise again' on it.
That happened back in the 70's..almost pre PC days. The shirt had no meaning to me; nz never even had a confederacy. But for some reason the management of a pub in backwater nz got all anal over it. It was just a cool looking t-shirt that my brother gave me.
-
Wrong audience to pimp that shirt to..
-
I't was a country pub full of mostly farmers. As long as you didn't look gay they didn't give a stuff what anyone wore. It was the publican who threw a wobbly. I was under age, so I wasn't in a good position to argue with the bugger either.
-
in the same vein:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=156021
-
Why no outrage when hari krishnas were banned from airports?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Why no outrage when hari krishnas were banned from airports?
Granted I'm only 26, but... I've only ever seen hari krishnas at airports in the movies.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Brrr the HORROR!!!! dangerous writing on a shirt CAN BE HARMFULL!!!
What a bunch of twits ye all are...
It is not the writing that is dangerous, it is people's reaction to it, whether or not the reaction is ignorant is not the point.
If it were the judgement of the airline that some "thing" may be a concern to the safety of the flight, then it is their duty to take action and reduce that concern, PC or not.
If I were to wear a t shirt that said something completely innocent but could be mistaken by some as threatening, I would expect the flight crew to ask me to change to a more neutral shirt. It is easier to ask to change the shirt than to educate 200 passengers that it really is of no concern. As a T shirt wearer, I should be understanding and not indignant.
-
Please tell me how exactly some "writing on a t-shirt" can be dangerous / concern to the safety of the flight?
I'm eager to hear that one out.
Meanwhile, I'll keep on wearing my "iron my shirt b**ch!" T-shirt and offend a lot of petty people, thank you very much.
-
Boarded a jet blue flight a few years back at laguardia, to go to ft lauderdale for the air show.
My friend was wearing a camo baseball hat that he wrote the words "F--- Liberals!!" on with black magic marker. The "F" word was spelled out. A bunch of the passengers came up to him and asked where they could get one, or said great hat.
But one or two others complained to the stewardess and they asked him to take it off.
What's funny is that the people asking where he got it, were fathers, with there wife and kids standing next to them, old retired guys, and a couple of women.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Brrr the HORROR!!!! dangerous writing on a shirt CAN BE HARMFULL!!!
What a bunch of twits ye all are...
No argument from me. When we stand by while the rights of a few are denied it's only a matter of time before we all lose. Political Correctness has been weakening the foundation of our First Amendment for decades.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Please tell me how exactly some "writing on a t-shirt" can be dangerous / concern to the safety of the flight?
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is not the writing that is dangerous, it is people's reaction to it, whether or not the reaction is ignorant is not the point.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Brrr the HORROR!!!! dangerous writing on a shirt CAN BE HARMFULL!!!
What a bunch of twits ye all are...
EXACTLY!!!
Poeple packed in like sardines locked inside an aluminum tin can going 500+ MPH at 30,000 ft + should be able to do what ever the heck they want.
-
Hello Saw,
Originally posted by Saintaw
Brrr the HORROR!!!! dangerous writing on a shirt CAN BE HARMFULL!!!
What a bunch of twits ye all are...
I see...
So
(http://www.qantara.de/uploads/476/1297/42fb3086dff70_hamas_2.jpg)
as long as she remembers to leave the gun at home, you'd have no problem with her boarding the airplane as is?
And shouting fire in the movie theatre is protected speech as well, along with hanging out in front of the school dressed in a Jason "Friday the 13th" outfit complete with Hockey Mask?
Personally, I have enough problems dealing with other passengers who are on the verge of panicking just because they are afraid of flying. Having someone on board dressed in "Jihadi vogue" would be the straw the broke the camel's back for many.
And frankly, I think it makes about as much sense from an ideological standpoint as allowing men in brown shirts with swastika arm bands to ride buses in the USA during the Second World War would have. Either we get serious about being at war with militant Islam or we should begin negotiating the terms of our dhimmitude. After all, I understand that Burkas now come in a variety of flattering colors - and just think of the advantages, never again will we have to hear "Does this make me look fat?"
- SEAGOON
-
so if someone wears a t-shirt with a slogan i don't agree with i can exercise my 1st amendment rights to political self expression by punching them in the stomach?
i put slogan t-shirts in the same class as bumper stickers. no class.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What a surprise... The 1st Amendment doesn't apply at airports or airplanes.
Hell... the 4th doesn't apply either.
Last I heard Aircraft are private property.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a surprise... The 1st Amendment doesn't apply at airports or airplanes.
Hell... the 4th doesn't apply either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As the shirt was in plain public view, so there was no search,
and as; the man still has his shirt so there was no seizure,
I guess that's right...the 4th doesn't apply here.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a surprise... The 1st Amendment doesn't apply at airports or airplanes.
Hell... the 4th doesn't apply either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the shirt was in plain public view, so there was no search,
and as; the man still has his shirt so there was no seizure,
I guess that's right...the 4th doesn't apply here.
Oh snap... They don't do searches and siezures at airports. My bad. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh snap... They don't do searches and siezures at airports. My bad. :rolleyes:
He said he had cleared security at John F Kennedy airport for a flight back to his home in California when he was approached by two men who wanted to check his ID and boarding pass.
Mr Jarrar said he was told a number of passengers had complained about his T-shirt - apparently concerned at what the Arabic phrase meant - and asked him to remove it.
He refused, arguing that the slogan was not offensive and citing his constitutional rights to free expression.
By his own admission, the man had passed security...a search to which he willingly submitted himself.
The non search (he did not need to be searched because the shirt was in plain sight... come to think of it if it had not been in plain sight we would not be discussing it now would we?) and non siezure of his property, which he still has in his possesion, happened after he willingly agreed to be searched at security.
Yeah... your bad.
-
I wasn't commenting on Raed Jarrar specifically. I was commenting on airports and airlines in general.
Here... I'll post it again, so you can re-read.
Originally posted by Sandman
What a surprise... The 1st Amendment doesn't apply at airports or airplanes.
Hell... the 4th doesn't apply either.
-
Then why were you sarcastic in your reply when I sort of agreed with you?
I seems a reasonable assumption that your post about the 1st and 4th not applying was a sarcastic remark.
-
I was being sarcastic.
For some, the fact that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in airports and airplanes is a revelation.
Hence, my reminder that the 4th Amendment hasn't applied for quite some time.
-
As we voluntarily submit to a search of our persons and things when we pass security, the constitutional guarantee to unreasonable search and seizure is moot, as by submitting, we give approval of the process. A warrant is not required for a search that is approved of by the searched. Hence the 4th is intact.
The first is still in force in this particular case, because there is an implicit contract between the airline and passengers that certain behaviors are to be expected. Congress passed no law to require a certain wardrobe be worn, the airline told the man to change his shirt or stay off the plane.
-
It sucks to be an Arab/Muslim living in the US these days.
I totaly agree. He would be much happier in the citizen`s paradise in Sandland.
The nerve. Asking the moron to change his T shirt.
I think I`ll find out what rights group he hooks up with and file complaints against all the strip joi......errr gentlemens clubs who have requested the Harley apparel be removed or reversed.
My right to stick dollar bills into G-strings has been totaly stomped on.
-
Was down in Deetroit a couple of years ago and saw a big'ol woman key a brand new pickup because it had a stars and bars plate on the front, i'm sure she felt she was justified.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Dunno what the big deal is. A corporation exercises its right to serve who it choses. No biggy.
If you think this is a big deal, then you really do not understand how things work in the U.S. as it pertains to corporations.
what he said,
plus if you want to be a provocative arab, an airliner is not the place to do it stupid.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
provocative arab
Is that like an "uppity negro"?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Is that like an "uppity negro"?
Did the guy have a shovel too?:huh
-
Good morning Seagoon.
That picture shows a female dressed in medieval style fashion and is obviously intent on killing me, i get it. If you remove the gun (and i suppose, any other weapons) she doesn't scare me more than a fluffy teddy bear would. she would probably be annoying, but dangerous... without a weapon?
I would find a well suited/polite/silent terrorist much scarier than a loud blashpemous t-shirt wearing student personaly, it's harder to spot them.
People who are affraid of some writing on a cloth make me cringe.
-
Screaming fire in a tight crowd isn't a bad idea because there really is a fire..