Man Thrown Off Jet For Bush T-shirt
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) -- A man was removed from a Qantas flight to London because he would not take off a T-shirt with a picture of President Bush and the slogan "World's 1 terrorist."
Ref. https://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/...e.ap/index.html
Man Thrown Off Jet For Bush T-shirt (Hover)
I hope he does sue. There is a price to be paid for freedom of speech and it should not be thrown around in gest. Many have given their lives for such freedom, not a simple forfeiture of plane fare. I can only imagine the analogies that the defense can present:
*Should you be allowed to wear a T-Shirt that says "Child Molester" on it with an arrow pointing to the person next to you? Remember...Freedom of Speech!
*Should you be allowed to wear a T-Shirt that says "I am going to blow up this plane" and not be subjected to more scrutiny than other passengers?
*Should you be allowed to wear a T-Shirt that says "Brits are Inbred" while flying to London?
I am sure that this guy would see no problem in getting an audience with the Pope in a "Catholics Suck" T-Shirt.
Would someone on the plane be right in suing the airline for allowing that guy on the plane with what would be potentially offensive apparel to some? This guy got his 15mins of fame and he needs to let it go.
He basically got the same result as Cindy Sheehan did when she went to the capital in her fancy T-Shirt.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Actually, what I was thinking is this... if the picture were of Chavez, Osama Bin Laden or other 'enemy' of the USA, would they have done differently?
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
I was also thinking along the lines of what JB said. Would he have been thrown off the plane had he worn a t-shirt that said Bin Laden was the number one terrorist. This whole story is sickening. I cannot believe how ridiculous airlines are becoming in the name of security.
I have heard of another story where a British anglo man was thrown off a long haul flight because he was sitting next to two Muslim men who spoke in Arabic. All three were ejected because a couple of stupid passengers said they felt the men were a terrorist threat. Of course all three men sued and won substantial damages. But these examples pose the question what is this world coming too?
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
This is just paranoia, but I will be interested to see the grounds for a passenger being removed. You know, when you buy a ticket you get a list of do not bring this or that... now you will also see... do not wear a terrorist based T-shirt or do not wear anything with a political statement.
Rather off topic, but... Archvic: I was wondering if the report was about you because it said that the guy was in Australia going to London, and given your feelings about Bush here. Sorry for the pun - could not help myself. |
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
It comes back to is it ok to yell "fire" in a crowded theater all in the name of freedom of speech. Sure, in the literal sense of freedom of speech, this should be allowed. However, there are consequences to your actions when you use your freedom of speech and some can be quite severe. In this case, the guy got booted off the flight. It actually doesn't even state that he has lost his air fare. The best part of the story is that he went out of his way to display the t-shirt . He wanted this to happen and Quantas obliged.
Actually, I would have been interested to see what would have happened in the case that JB and Arvhic describe. The airlines aren't taking anyone lightly as I can testify. My recent trip back to the US had me in every "special" inspection line and my suitcases were filtered through at every opportunity to the point we missed 2 connections. I complained a bit, but as I told my wife: "if it can reduce the chance by just a little that the plane we are going to get on won't become a lawn dart, then so be it".
As far as the other shirts suggested, I think it is a matter of common sense. You might be able to get on your plane with the anti-Osama t-shirt and then again, you might not. Let's say you are a westerner and you are flying on a plane from Cairo to Damascus, should they let you on the plane with a t-shirt that has a picture of GWB beheading Mohammed with the caption "Welcome to the New World Order...Texas Style"? Throw a few sequens around it to draw extra attention. Now they can't stop you from walking on the streets of Cairo or Damascus and getting your rear-end handed to you, but they can stop you from doing it in their house at 35,000ft. Now if that turned out to be a picture of Osama beheading GWB with wording that says "Welcome to Jihad", you might get on that flight.
Now I am not saying that we should have vacation uniforms for flying like some schools have for children going to class, but we should use some common sense. It really should be freedom of speech not freedumb of speech.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
He's the one who brought it to the attention of the Qantas staffers. They didn't pull him out of a waiting line and say, "Hey, you! You can't wear that on our plane!" The man is apparently looking for a reason to sue the airline, but they can't figure out what law Qantas has violated.
QUOTE |
Jasson said he wore the shirt unchallenged through official security checks, then approached a Qantas staff member at the gate to draw attention to it....'I'm surprised you got this far, the staff should have stopped you'... |
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Jasson said he wore the shirt unchallenged through official security checks, then approached a Qantas staff member at the gate to draw attention to it because he had been asked to remove it before boarding a domestic flight days earlier.
I think you guys are being a bit unfair in insinuating he wore the t-shirt solely for the purpose to be kicked off. The guy was asked to remove it on another flight and he was testing the waters with this international flight to measure how absurd his last episode was.
Quite frankly, his motivation is beside the point. The whole notion that you can get removed from a flight where you have paid about $1000 because of a t-shirt slogan is insane. Why shouldn't this guy stand up for his right to free speech? It's not like he is running around with a loud speaker announcing he hates Bush. He is merely stating his feelings towards the US president in a peaceful way. Is it a crime to negative towards the US president? Certainly not where I live.
I think if the same t-shirt was targeted towards just about any other politician in the world there would be no problem. But now that US-bashing is such a sensitive issue, this particular international carrier felt this man would offend. I think it's obscene.
Anyway, the wider issue which this story illustrates is airline security. I am not sure if there is another thread for this topic?
However, I am interested starting a debate about current levels of airline security. Are they sufficient? Does everyone feel comfortable flying?
Recently, I waited for 2 hours in a London airport to board a plane to Sweden. The security line was longer then the flight. I understand the need to have security, but if it cannot be administered in an efficient way should we be forced to accept it? Do you wait in line for two hours for any service?
When they are banning things like lipsticks, eyedrops and other tiny quantities of liquids, I begin to raise questions. Thankfully, they have recently been more lenient, but the initial ban amused me to say the least. This all happened after the alleged failed terrorist plot in England, where several men were arrested for allegedly planning to smuggle chemicals on board to blow up a plane.
However, do the authorities really need to go to such extremes so that I have to buy an airport drink bottle before boarding? Is this just hysteria by the Blair Government to scare the UK citizens, as he has done repeatedly throughout his tenure? Other European airports didn't have the same bans.
I raise these doubts because I am rather cynical of anything that surrounds the use of Bush/Blair catchphrase 'terrorism" and I have also learned that making a TATP explosive is near impossible on an aeroplane.
How hard is it to make TATP?
QUOTE |
Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies? We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane. Or at least that's what we're hearing, and loudly, through the mainstream media and its legions of so-called "terrorism experts." But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living. But they've seen the same movies that you and I have seen, and so the myth of binary liquid explosives dies hard. What does everyone think? |
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%