[quote=“Dangermouse”]Spook, it’s a fucking T-shirt and he was made to take it off because it insulted people. Like many white, middle class, middle aged people have been asked to remove their t-shirts because they were regarded as offensive to the people on the plane.
It’s an offence issue, not a one sided “lets all point at the muslim terrorist on the plane” issue.[/quote]
I disagree, the security staff claimed it was offensive after people questioned what the arabic phrase meant. This means two things:
They did not know it’s meaning and hence cannot know if it was offensive or not
He was Middle-Eastern looking and wearing a T-shirt with arabic characters - clearly the concern was related to terrorism (based on recent events) and thus the analogy to white people wearing a T-shirt with offensive content like ‘Fuck you’ is moot at best.
Is it really offensive to wear a T-shirt expressing a political opinion (whereas such content is not offensive in itself, i.e. it didn’t say e.g. “Bush is an evil warmonger”)?
Are there any clear rules at the airport or from the airline as to what can be said and what cannot be said on a T-Shirt?
That said I wonder where the defenders of free political speech are now … ?
Oh, and by the way I do not object that the guy had to undergo additional checks, I just question if it was necessary to force him to wear another T-Shirt afterwards.
[quote=“spook”][quote=“Dangermouse”]Spook, it’s a fucking T-shirt and he was made to take it off because it insulted people. Like many white, middle class, middle aged people have been asked to remove their t-shirts because they were regarded as offensive to the people on the plane.
It’s an offence issue, not a one sided “lets all point at the muslim terrorist on the plane” issue.[/quote]
Is it reasonable though to be offended by Arabic script or an historical reference to a non-violent anti-Fascist resistance group?
Ignorance of the facts just doesn’t suffice for me.[/quote]
Where does it say that they were offended by the Arabic script? Maybe in your mind only?
Now YOU provide proof that the phrase ‘We will not be silent,’ A:is directly linked to the White Rose Movement, and that B: is common knowledge to airline passengers (and therefore showing that they had some ‘hidden agenda’ which you seem to be alluding to).
The world you project seems far scarier than the one Tom sees. Yours is a world where we are all political historians with racist undertones.
[quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“spook”][quote=“Dangermouse”]Spook, it’s a fucking T-shirt and he was made to take it off because it insulted people. Like many white, middle class, middle aged people have been asked to remove their t-shirts because they were regarded as offensive to the people on the plane.
It’s an offence issue, not a one sided “lets all point at the muslim terrorist on the plane” issue.[/quote]
Is it reasonable though to be offended by Arabic script or an historical reference to a non-violent anti-Fascist resistance group?
Ignorance of the facts just doesn’t suffice for me.[/quote]
Oh for fuck’s sake spook, they were at an airport waiting for a flight. No one had an encyclopedia on hand. A quick decision had to be made. Was it reasonable? Yes, considering all they asked was that he remove the T-shirt and put on the one they had bought. Yes, considering the results of making the wrong decision could be death for hundreds.
Have you never made a hasty decision based on insufficient information? Give the people a fucking break.[/quote]
What exactly were they frightened of or offended by then? Arabic script on a t-shirt?
Question: if the guy was a danger flying while wearing a t-shirt, how was he less of a threat wearing a different shirt?
[quote=“Lord Lucan”]Flying is traumatic enough [color=red][fear; semi-rational, approaching irrational][/color] without wankers in stupid T-shirts trying to make political points. Just STFU and get on the plane [color=red][expedient reaction][/color]. Have people just taken leave of their senses altogether [color=red][fear inhibits higher-level cognition][/color]? What sort of a reception do you expect if you walk into a Royal Marines barracks with “All Marines Are Poofy Wankers” on your T-shirt [color=red][false analogy][/color]?
Fuck the guy [color=red][expedient, targeted reaction][/color]. He should have been stripped and made to take the flight starkers [color=red][over-reaction][/color]. An airport is a private place of business anyway [color=red][security: state concern][/color]. It is not a venue for political protest [color=red][the Commons conform! Individuality has no place in public! Political thought is NOT to be expressed][/color]. By walking into the airport you accept the terms of the licence to be present on airport property granted to you by the owner of the property [color=red][Conform! Obey!][/color]. One of those conditions is not to fuck around with the security staff [color=red][Your t-shirt’s got attitude, boy. Don’t you give me any attitude, or I’ll fuck you up.][/color]. [/quote]
[quote=“Muzha Man”]Cries about authoritarianism are a red herring as it was customer complaints that lead to the man being asked to remove his t-shirt. The company was just responding to the nervous complaints of their customers [color=red][The range of possible responses exceeds the bounds of scapegoating ‘the dark-skinned fella’][/color]. And if they hadn’t and a disaster had resulted, yes of course everyone would be after the security guards’ blood [color=red][disaster: 1. a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life; 2. a person, act, or thing that is a failure. A disaster (2), did occur; fear (terror) and ignorance won. Score one for terrorism in the war.][/color].
The security guy were obviously in a dilema not wanting to make a big deal out of a t-shirt but also not wanting to cause panic among the general flight members [color=red][“Excuse me, sir, but we’re afraid that, if you’re wearing that t-shirt, you might attempt to bring down the airplane. No, no, that’s fine; you can stay on the plane. If you just change your shirt, we’re sure that in the absence of such a lucky charm, you’ll not attempt to martyr yourself in the process of murdering us.”][/color]. Sorry, but in this day and age a little overkill will happen [color=red][“Look, we now accept that internment camps for ‘foreign’ nationals in a time of war was a bad idea. And we’re not going to ship you off anywhere. But, if you insist of traveling with we more sensible folk, we’d appreciate it if you wear this t-shirt while onboard… Yes, it’s a very bright orange. Yes, the fine print reads, “If, in the event that I die while wearing this t-shirt, I agree to forfeit and forgo any and all fruits of paradise in the next life. Moreover, I request and require that my eternal soul be condemned to everlasting torment.” We’re not sure that the Almighty will respect the contract, but, you understand, in this day and age, it’s better to be safe than sorry.”][/color]. As LL said, he was not shot, he was not refused passage, he was not fined, he was not rounded up and sent to a POW camp [color=red][All true.][/color]. He was asked to remove a t-shirt [color=red][Because… Why?][/color].
I don’t understand the reference to George Orwell in the OP’s title. No government agency was involved in this matter. You can chalk it up to prejudice and fearmongering if you like but then such human behavior belongs to Orwell’s earlier work on race and imperialism which is surely not what the OP had in mind. There is no 1984 scenario going on here. Just a tense situation that the people in charge tried to diffuse. [color=red][The political utility of an environment of heightened fear, and the corrosive effect of fear on the fabric of society is a theme of 1984…][/color]
[quote=“George Orwell: 1984”]‘Up with your hands!’ yelled a savage voice.
A handsome, tough-looking boy of nine had popped up from behind the table and was menacing him with a toy automatic pistol, while his small sister, about two years younger, made the same gesture with a fragment of wood. Both of them were dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirts, and red neckerchiefs which were the uniform of the Spies. Winston raised his hands above his head, but with an uneasy feeling, so vicious was the boy’s demeanour, that it was not altogether a game.
‘You’re a traitor!’ yelled the boy. ‘You’re a thought-criminal! You’re a Eurasian spy! I’ll shoot you, I’ll vaporize you, I’ll send you to the salt mines!’
Suddenly they were both leaping round him, shouting ‘Traitor!’ and ‘Thought-criminal!’ the little girl imitating her brother in every movement. It was somehow slightly frightening, like the gambolling of tiger cubs which will soon grow up into man-eaters. There was a sort of calculating ferocity in the boy’s eye, a quite evident desire to hit or kick Winston and a consciousness of being very nearly big enough to do so. It was a good job it was not a real pistol he was holding, Winston thought.
Mrs Parsons’ eyes flitted nervously from Winston to the children, and back again. In the better light of the living-room he noticed with interest that there actually was dust in the creases of her face.
‘They do get so noisy,’ she said. ‘They’re disappointed because they couldn’t go to see the hanging, that’s what it is. I’m too busy to take them. and Tom won’t be back from work in time.’
‘Why can’t we go and see the hanging?’ roared the boy in his huge voice.
‘Want to see the hanging! Want to see the hanging!’ chanted the little girl, still capering round.
Some Eurasian prisoners, guilty of war crimes, were to be hanged in the Park that evening, Winston remembered. This happened about once a month, and was a popular spectacle. Children always clamoured to be taken to see it. He took his leave of Mrs Parsons and made for the door. But he had not gone six steps down the passage when something hit the back of his neck an agonizingly painful blow. It was as though a red-hot wire had been jabbed into him. He spun round just in time to see Mrs Parsons dragging her son back into the doorway while the boy pocketed a catapult.
‘Goldstein!’ bellowed the boy as the door closed on him. But what most struck Winston was the look of helpless fright on the woman’s greyish face.
Back in the flat he stepped quickly past the telescreen and sat down at the table again, still rubbing his neck. The music from the telescreen had stopped. Instead, a clipped military voice was reading out, with a sort of brutal relish, a description of the armaments of the new Floating Fortress which had just been anchored between lceland and the Faroe lslands.
With those children, he thought, that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for symptoms of unorthodoxy. Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it. The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother – it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak – ‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used – had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police. [/quote]
Middle eastern people acting suspicious or arousing suspicion on a flight are going to be asked to explain themselves. Hell, anyone acting suspicious will. And a t-shirt with that kind of statement on it is certainly enough to arouse suspicion. [color=red][emphasis added: enough said. Thank god he didn’t have a Doonsbury cartoon printed on that t-shirt. Imagine if it’d been printed in Danish.][/color] [/quote]
I think the rational thing to have done would have been to have subjected the guy and his belongings to extra scrutiny to assuage people’s fears.
As Jaboney points out, removing his t-shirt didn’t make anyone one whit safer if he truly was a threat of any sort.
I think making ignorance the defacto arbiter of public expression though is a sad state of affairs in a country whose greatest strength is its legacy of freedom.
You aren’t even [i]willing[/i] to try and learn, are you?
[quote]Several weeks before the attacks, the actor James Woods was in the first-class section of a cross-country flight to Los Angeles. Four of his fellow-passengers were well-dressed men who appeared to be Middle Eastern and were obviously travelling together. “I watch people like a moviemaker,” Woods told me. "As in that scene in ‘Annie Hall’ "—where Woody Allen and Diane Keaton are sitting on a bench in Central Park speculating on the personal lives of passers-by. “I thought these guys were either terrorists or F.B.I. guys,” Woods went on. "The guys were in synch—dressed alike. They didn’t have a drink and were not talking to the stewardess. None of them had a carry-on or a newspaper. Nothing.
“Imagine you’re at a live-music event at a small night club and you’re standing behind the singer. Everybody is clapping, going along, enjoying the show— and there’s four guys paying no attention. What are they doing here?” Woods concluded that the men were “casing” the plane. He said that his concern led him to hang on to his cutlery after lunch. He shared his worries with a flight attendant. “I said, ‘I think this plane is going to be hijacked.’ I told her, ‘I know how serious it is to say this,’ and asked to speak to the captain.” The flight attendant, too, was concerned. The plane’s first officer came over immediately and assured Woods that he and the captain would keep the door to the cockpit locked. The remainder of the trip was bumpy but uneventful, and Woods recalled laughingly telling his agent, who asked about the flight, “Aside from the terrorists and the turbulence, it was fine.”
Woods said that the flight attendant told him that she would file a report about the suspicious passengers. If she did, her report probably ended up in a regional Federal Aviation Authority office in Tulsa, or perhaps Dallas, according to Clark Onstad, the former chief counsel of the F.A.A., and disappeared in the bureaucracy. “If you ever walked into one of these offices, you’d see that they have no secretaries,” Onstad told me. “These guys are buried under a mountain of paper, and the odds of this”—a report about suspicious passengers—“coming up to a higher level are very low.” Even today, eight months after the hijacking, Onstad said, the question “Where would you effectively report something like this so that it would get attention?” has no practical answer.[/quote]
[quote]I disagree, the security staff claimed it was offensive after people questioned what the arabic phrase meant. This means two things:
They did not know it’s meaning and hence cannot know if it was offensive or not [/quote]
So the words “we will not be silent” have a different meaning in English to what they mean in Arabic?
My guess is that if there had been no English on the T-shirt, then he wouldn’t have been questioned. It was the “We will not be silent” in English that caused all the fuss, not the Arabic phrase.
[quote]2. He was Middle-Eastern looking and wearing a T-shirt with arabic characters - clearly the concern was related to terrorism (based on recent events) and thus the analogy to white people wearing a T-shirt with offensive content like ‘Fuck you’ is moot at best.
[/quote]
No it’s not moot. White people have to bow down to Politically Correctness all the time so as not to offend anyone. Yes, this may have been connected to concerns about terrorism but, under the circumstances, so what?
[quote]Is it really offensive to wear a T-shirt expressing a political opinion (whereas such content is not offensive in itself, i.e. it didn’t say e.g. “Bush is an evil warmonger”)?
[/quote]
Not really. But it’s a bit silly to get on a plane with said t-shirt under the circumstances (ie, on an aeroplane - not too long ago, some were hijacked and crashed in the US, remember?), so yes, it could be construed as offensive.
Walking down the street with the t-shirt probably wouldn’t have attracted much attention. I’m sure no-one would have a problem with it. There is a time and a place for everything.
Again, time and place.
Yes, he should have been made to wear another t-shirt.
Is it reasonable to be offended by your neighbour keeping pigs as pets, or the George Cross?
I dunno, anyone looking in any way suspect is fair game these days, and rightly so I hasten to add. The 'slamofascists have won a victory of sorts, a demented victory, but that’s their way.
Mind you if t-shirt slogans are the new security criteria I’m going to have to cover up the pirated Nike t-shirts I picked up in Dubai proclaiming in Arabic and English, “Just do it!!”
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]
Mind you if t-shirt slogans are the new security criteria I’m going to have to cover up the pirated Nike t-shirts I picked up in Dubai proclaiming in Arabic and English, “Just do it!!” [/quote]
You realize no one is going to let you anywhere near their camels.
How do you know the Arabic was a translation of the English? The concerned passengers certainly didn’t, else they wouldn’t have been concerned. Please see the quote below.
Nope:
I guess what other passengers may have thought was along the line of [English:] We will not be silent / [Arabic:] Let’s blow them up (under the circumstances of recent events and his look).
This was not about political correctness but clearly about fears of terrorism.
Stupid maybe but if that’s considered offensive then any political opinon that differs with mine or yours must also be considered offensive.
Agree, but after being cleared by security again there was no need to remove the T-Shirt since that by itself did not pose any threat.
But who decides what is and what is not “offensive”?
I’ve read this kind of story before concerning others who were forced to remove t-shirts or buttons before boarding a plane. It doesn’t just happen to arab passengers, or people with arabic writing on their shirts, or people who look like terrorists. Recently airlines and others have taken to prohibiting anything that they feel might offend anyone.
[quote]Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was asked to leave her flight from Los Angeles to Portland, Ore., Tuesday for wearing a T-shirt with pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film title “Meet the Fockers.”
. . . The airline felt that the T-shirt was offensive and that other passengers would be outraged by it, the spokeswoman said, adding that the incident is about “decency.” [/quote] money.cnn.com/2005/10/06/news/fo … t/?cnn=yes
[quote]You probably already know about my opposition to useless airport security crap. I’m suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various other agencies over making people show IDs to fly – an intrusive measure that provides no security. (See freetotravel.org). But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a political button on someone’s lapel.
My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers’ political speech. The button, which was created by political activist Emi Koyama, says “Suspected Terrorist”. Large images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason Magazine this month, and the story is entitled “Suspected Terrorist”.
The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested, and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a “badge”). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a political statement and declined to remove it.
They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.
We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable". She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my button was in “poor taste”. . . [/quote] freetotravel.org/terrorist.html
Incidentally, it used to be legal in the US to wear offensive t-shirts:
[quote]In Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971)Paul Robert Cohen, 19, was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" inside the Los Angeles Courthouse. He was convicted of violating section 415 of the California Penal Code, which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct.”
The conviction was appealed to the state Court of Appeals, which held that “offensive conduct” means “behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace,” and affirmed the conviction.
The Court, by a vote of 5-4, overturned the appellate court’s ruling. “Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions,” it said, “the State may not, consistently with the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense.”[/quote] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_T-shirt
But as we all know, the world has changed with Bush and Blair’s super-mega-hyped War on Terror and anyone who disagrees with their positions. It’s not just the US either.
[quote]There have been arrests in Britain of people wearing T-shirts bearing the phrase Bollocks to Blair. This has provoked much debate on whether Britain’s freedom of speech is being eroded.
In September 2005, 20 year old Charlotte Dennis was arrested at a Gloucestershire event for wearing this item.
In April 2006, a Conservative Party worker was threatened with arrest for wearing a Bollocks to Blair T-shirt '[/quote] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_T-shirt
Lord Lucan’s idea about flying naked is probably not as far-fetched as it sounds. Surely some airline execs somewhere are mulling over the feasibility of having all passengers fly naked. Or Proposal 14D, which suggests that putting all passengers to sleep, or into some deep freeze, would be an effective security measure.
:eh:
James Woods as a reliable witness to four suspicious looking gents? As much as I love his older movies, is he currently in or out of rehab? In fact, we should ask all actors to weigh in on “what they have seen”. Reliable chaps, those pure-hearted blokes. AFter that we can ask cartoon characters.
:snoopy:
Are all the terrorists planning to take-over a civilian airline of a darker skin tone? Surely the leadership of such an future evil act would want to slip in a few more whities?
To protect against such a devious threat, and to maintain an equal stance towards people of all shades, I have taken the vow of [color=indigo]“Uber-SchweineHund!!!”
TM [/color]. Glare menacingly at ALL ages, give ‘em that "I know what you’re up to…’ kind of stare. Converse hurriedly in dark corners with the flight crew (ordering a brace of bloody marys), while staring at certain passengers, all the while appearing to share some deep dark secret. :saywhat:
You aren’t even [i]willing[/i] to try and learn, are you?[/quote]
I thought that this would have been clear from day one, but obviously I’ve been wrong on that count. So, then, in all sincerity…
[color=black]
If you’re willing to be (somewhat, but please not too) serious about it, [/color]
[color=green]I’m more that happy to learn all that I can from you.[/color]
…well, maybe not all.
[color=blue]I’m sure that there’s more than a little that I could learn from you… from everyoneon this site.[/color]
