home

Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Plane

An Iraqi architect was denied permission to board a Jet Blue flight because of an inscription on his t-shirt:

Raed Jarrar was wearing a T-shirt that read We Will Not Be Silent in Arabic and English, when he was approached by security officers. The officers said the Arabic script was upsetting other passengers, and told Jarrar to either turn the shirt inside out or wear something else. Jarrar protested but finally wore a T-shirt provided by a Jet Blue employee.

Jet Blue's response:

A spokesman for Jet Blue says the airline is investigating to see if the security officers were with the airline, the Transportation Security Administration or the Port Authority. He also said the airline does not forbid Arabic T-shirts, but that it does take into account the concerns of its passengers.

[hat tip Patriot Daily.]

< AT&T Wiretap Lawyers to Subpoena White House | Rumsfeld Hires Otter As Speech Writer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#1)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    Suppose it were in English and Hebrew and Muslim passengers had objected, or indicated "concern". You can do in-your-face, if you want. But recent activities of the bedwetting left make their feigned offense somehow a requirement that somebody else be restricted in speech or action. This is just one more example, although, admittedly, the victims were not the ones anticipated when this crap was started.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    Suppose it were in English and Hebrew and Muslim passengers had objected, or indicated "concern".
    then the muslim passengers would have been removed for causing a disturbance.
    But recent activities of the bedwetting left
    Uhh, were the ones saying you guys are over reacting, nice bit of projection there.
    their feigned offense somehow a requirement that somebody else be restricted in speech or action.
    provide links. "We Will Not Be Silent" is a call for free speech. No wonder rethuglicans feel threatened.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 09:37:51 AM EST
    Sailor - you know by now that "free speech" emboldens the terrists and boosts their morale. Don't you???

    As we know, t-shirts are among the Bush regime's wiliest and craftiest enemies, and a cause for arrest in themselves.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pete Guither on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    Anyone want to start marketing a line of T-shirts with the text of the First Amendment, followed by "God Bless America," all written in Arabic? It would be fascinating to watch peoples' reactions.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    Now, if his T-Shirt had said "Give Peace A Chance" across a map of Iran with a mushroom cloud over it, he might have received a presidedential commendation, or at least a thumbs up and recommendation for one from some here.

    They hate us for our fredoms.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    Oscar, you mean they support bush's wot? Jeeze, go figure!

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#9)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    Sailor. Links, hell. Look at any campus speech code.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    Uhh, what does a campus speech code have to do with a man getting kicked off an airplane for wearing a t shirt?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    C'mon RA, link to a campus speech code that says t shirts calling for free speech will get you kicked out.
    Look at any campus speech code.
    You mean like this one?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 10:57:46 AM EST
    I tried this one earlier, so I apologize if it's a double post. My question is can airlines refuse service to passengers based on thier clothing? If not, under what criteria can they refuse to allow someone onboard?

    Sailor. Didn't say a campus speech code could get you kicked out. You can always roll on the floor and piss on yourself and take a sensitivity course. And not get kicked out. The reference was to feigned offense having become sufficient to restrict somebody else's speech or actions. See campus speech codes. Now, I'm not going to link to it so you can say Aubrey's funning and it doesn't really happen and you don't have to pay any attention to the folks who know it does happen. I'm doing you a favor.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    Hey Sailor? Why don't we all chip in on a tshirt for him?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#15)
    by Aaron on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    Such incidents bode the coming police state. Be prepared to renounce your Muslim neighbors, and swear allegiance to God Emperor Bush, lest you find yourself in a federal detention center. All hail the New American Empire!

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sumner on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    Cæsar non supra grammaticos. Translation: (L.) - Cæsar is not above the grammarians.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#17)
    by roy on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    You are also reminded that any inappropriate comments or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest.
    Broadcast regularly over the PA system in the Houston airport. They're not even trying to pay lip service to the First any more.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    See campus speech codes.
    still no links, while I gave a link to an actual campus speech code.
    Now, I'm not going to link to it so you can say Aubrey's funning and it doesn't really happen and you don't have to pay any attention to the folks who know it does happen. I'm doing you a favor.
    Keep dreaming. why are you justifying kicking a person off of an airplane for wearing a t shirt?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#19)
    by cpinva on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    RA, i was just curious how you manage to keep from exploding, because you are so obviously full of it. geez, your eyes must be brown. yeah, i can certainly see how a t-shirt advocating free speech might be "troubling" to some people. of course, those people are commonly known as tyrants. i have a proposed t-shirt for RA: "jesus loves you, the rest of think you're an ass*ole". sorry if this violates your standards TL, but it really just had to be said.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:38:37 AM EST
    RA, i was just curious how you manage to keep from exploding, because you are so obviously full of it. geez, your eyes must be brown. yeah, i can certainly see how a t-shirt advocating free speech might be "troubling" to some people. of course, those people are commonly known as tyrants. i have a proposed t-shirt for RA: "jesus loves you, the rest of us think you're an ass*ole". sorry if this violates your standards TL, but it really just had to be said.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    And those of you interested in school speech codes, please read through the archives of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. It's a great non-partisan group, with enough stories of infringed liberal, conversative, and other speech to anger even the most chipper among us.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:05:52 PM EST
    roy writes:
    They're not even trying to pay lip service to the First any more.
    Actually the fist time I saw this in action was 1976, I think February, not too long after the Southern Arlines airliner was hijacked to Cuba. We were on our way to Seattle on Braniff when the flight was cancelled and we were put on Eastern. As we went through security one of our guys, grousing about the stop in Denver making us late, announced he would just tell the pilot to fly straight to Seattle. Overhear by Security he was pulled out of line, didn't get on the aircraft and had some real fun times for a few weeks. Now, last time I checked Bush wasn't President. Link et al - Free speech is not unlimited, boys and girls. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can't say/do/wear things that cause problems in public locations. Someone needs to explain that to Raed Jarrar and remind him that it other countries he likely would have been stoned, beheaded or imprisoned. A little common sense and consideration for his fellow travelers would have went a long way in greasing the wheels of commerce and just living together.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    Hey Roy, I'd be happy to take up campus free speech on an open thread, it's a good topic, but this one is about a t shirt getting a person kicked off an airplane.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#24)
    by Al on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    My question is can airlines refuse service to passengers based on their clothing? (Patrick)
    That's exactly the right question. The airline's paltry excuse that "the passengers made us do it" is unacceptable. Aubrey, you may want to read what Mr. Jarrar had to say about this incident:
    I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes. and i know that these things happen. But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the U.S. Especially that I moved from Iraq because of the war that was waged in Iraq under titles like democracy and freedom.


    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#25)
    by Al on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    Someone needs to explain that to Raed Jarrar and remind him that it other countries he likely would have been stoned, beheaded or imprisoned. (PPJ)
    Probably not. But regardless, this makes you feel better?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    Al - I repeat. He needs to read our constitution. He didn't move to a country in which he is allowed to do/say anything/anywhere/anytime. And it is sad that no one is explaining that to him.

    et al - Free speech is not unlimited, boys and girls. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can't say/do/wear things that cause problems in public locations.
    Um. Jim. The mere sight of Arabic is now a "problem"? What the hell is the rationale here? It makes some jack*ss from Terra Haute uncomfortable? Walking around Georgia Tech, I see people with foreign languages on their shirts all day long. Maybe I'm a man of steel, but not once have I ever notified federal authorities. In fact, and you can quote me on this, even if a guy sat next to me on a plane wearing a turban and a shirt that featured Arabic and no English whatsoever, I wouldn't complain or try to get him removed from the flight. How is this possible? Well, for one, I'm a decent human being and don't see skin color or t-shirt choice as an acceptable reason to harass and inconvenience someone. But I've always had this crazy theory that a terrorist would probably not try to look like a cartoon stereotype of a terrorist. Furthermore, I would know that this man has been through a metal detector and an x-ray, and a quick visual examination would reveal that he doesn't have a jackhammer or anything else capable of breaking through a steel reinforced cockpit door. Not that hijacking a plane is even possible in a post-9/11 world, mind you. So, in short, I have less fear than you because I'm capable of rational thought. Come, join me, don't be afraid.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    Scar? He needs to read the constitution. And it is sad that he doesn't seem to understand it.

    And here's the really odd part. The other passengers evidently acquiesced because he put on a different shirt. Not because he became a different person or even underwent a strip search or something. But evidently the mere sight of Arabic writing causes deep-rooted anxiety in some people, much as the sight of even a photographed spider will make an arachnophobic panicked and irrational; all you have to do to calm them down is... make the bad writing go away? Shouldn't these people be offered psychiatric assistance instead of congratulatory blog posts?

    While I don't support the airline's actions, don't they have the right to refuse service to whomever they want? Unless the service refusal was due to race/religion/etc., and not due to the t-shirt, I think the airline is probably operating completely w/in the law.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    Shouldn't these people be offered psychiatric assistance instead of congratulatory blog posts? Gasp! You don't mean, open their eyes???!! But... but... but, wouldn't that mean the end of bush, bigotry, racism, and fear? My gawd, here would they get their power from?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    err... "where"

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Someone should tell him that he didn't move to a country in which he is safe from Islamophobic reactions and hysteria calculatedly whipped up by bigots and warmongers.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    The only source that would leave them is "hate". And that has never worked before, has it?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    As we went through security one of our guys, grousing about the stop in Denver making us late, announced he would just tell the pilot to fly straight to Seattle.
    how does that connect to a guy wearing a t shirt!?
    Unless the service refusal was due to race/religion/etc.
    white john smith wouldn't have been kicked off.
    A little common sense and consideration for his fellow travelers would have went a long way in greasing the wheels of commerce and just living together.
    what does wearing a t shirt advocating free speech have to do with that? trust ppj to constantly endorse censorship & xenophobia. What a bunch of bedwetters "oooh, scary t shirt, ooh!'

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#36)
    by John Mann on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    et al - Free speech is not unlimited, boys and girls. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can't say/do/wear things that cause problems in public locations.
    Gee, Jim, I thought the U.S. was the "land of the free and the home of the brave". What problem is caused in a free and brave society by someone wearing a t-shirt saying "we will not be silent"? Seriously, Jim, what problem?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    scar - The issue is public safety, which trumps free speech. You may not like it, but so what? The individual can protest, write letters, even get his story on Talk Left. I repeat. Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Innocent people should not be injured because some dummy gets excited over the actions of some guy who had to know that he was being provocative. BTW - Pure conjecture, but I would guess the passengers quieted because they believed the offending person had acknowledged his offense and corrected it. BTW - Note that I haven't assigned fault, just tried to note some real world facts. Come join me in it.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    The issue is public safety
    yep, that t shirt could have killed millions ... now where did I put that gene pool bleach?
    Innocent people should not be injured because some dummy gets excited over the actions of some guy who had to know that he was being provocative.
    get rid of the dummy, not the guy expressing free speech. Only wackos would get nervous at a shirt advocating free speech.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    Why is this a lesser story than Karr? he should have confessed to killing Natalee Holladay so he could have gotten some air time.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    Sailor - Intelligent people would note that saying certain things and/or actions have been banned for 30 years. I apologize to others that I have to explain that to you, but I am here to help. BTW - In the above case, white john smith was kicked off. John Mann - Why don't you do a little reading and discover for yourself, that free speech is not unlimited. Better yet, drive down to Seattle, get an airline ticket, get in the security line and start screaming outrageous comments. Yes. Do that. ;-) Sailor writes:
    What a bunch of bedwetters "oooh, scary t shirt, ooh!'
    Oh, I don't know, my guess is that there was anger, not fear. Fear would have caused them to flee. You may have heard of the "Fight or fight" syndrome. Perhaps not. et al - Again I see that you folks panic at the thought of what is out there in the real world, and attack anyone who brings it up. Gesh. Jondee - Yes they should, because he didn't. A little common sense goes a long way while the general public is being educated.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    Give it up, Jim. You're not helping your image here.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#42)
    by roy on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    Jim, What is it with you and shirts? First a shirt impeded others' hearing, now one's a threat to public safety? Do you do your clothes shopping in the storyling of a cheesy comic book or something, buddy? I have a shirt that says (again, with letters, not out loud), in Japanese, "I can't read Japanese". Good thing I didn't wear that when I flew. They'd have Tazed my butt crispy, and Jim would be telling you all that Kanji emits mind-control rays when printed on pre-shrunk cotton.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#43)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    Yes they should, because he didn't.
    they were the rude, racist, over reacting ones. and yes, racist is accurate because if he'd been white they wouldn't have said anything. Someone needs to teach them and ppj a little bit about our constitution. And ppj is constantly asking how our freedoms have been suppressed by bush, this is a prime example and he endorses it whole heartedly.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#44)
    by soccerdad on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    Why don't you do a little reading and discover for yourself, that free speech is not unlimited.
    the words of a facist. PPJ why dont you tell us under what circumstances the courts have said what you claim and then tell us how this shirt fits those criteria. What PPJ really wants to be protected here is stupidity and racism. In fact his comments have that stench about them, although not overt.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 02:15:42 PM EST
    After a google search I found out that the Iraqi Architect is also the well known Iraqi blogger Raed in the middle. I am familiar with his site. Here is a bit from his blog about the incident:
    Then I once again asked the three of them [security] : "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".
    Hard to believe that this is possible....but then again some here would have done worse to the blogger/architect.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    thanks Squeaky! I knew that name was familiar. I became familair with raed in the run up to the war in Iraq by following Salman Pax's blog from Bahgdad Where is Raed? Now, if only someone could inform me on Salman Pax's whereabouts.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    It is not so much that it is an assault on the constitution or freedom of speech. It is ridiculous that a shirt that has not threat or vulgarities was to be covered up. Goes again to my longstanding argument, that many in this country are morons. "We will not be silent" is a wonderful statement, albeit he was silenced. His fear was real. First a t-shirt and what next? English only on planes? If we are going to profile Arabs (and I am willing to wager that 90% of those employed at the airports cannot tell and arab from a hindi, let's just tell them so. Why take a passive aggressive approach? I will tell you why..... Because 90% of the airport employees cannot tell the difference between an arab and a hindi.........

    Innocent people should not be injured because some dummy gets excited over the actions of some guy who had to know that he was being provocative. So we let the response of the 'dummy' drive everything else? Sounds reasonable to me, PPJ. Intelligent people would note that saying certain things and/or actions have been banned for 30 years. Intelligent people would know that having a t-shirt with something in Arabic on it hasn't been an action that has been banned for 30 years, even post 9/11. Also, you should write about what you know, not about intelligent people :) I apologize to others that I have to explain that to you, but I am here to help. I apologize to others that PPJ doesn't have any manners, he must have been born in a barn. Again I see that you folks panic at the thought of what is out there in the real world, and attack anyone who brings it up. You mistake panic for disgust, and you engage in daft rationalizations when you aren't disparaging the intelligence of others.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#49)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    Oh, I don't know, my guess is that there was anger, not fear. Fear would have caused them to flee.
    No, fear made them run to daddy and say 'this t-shirt scares us, boo hoo' and daddy did away with the t shirt. It was their peoblem, not the man who wore the t-shirt. even ppj admits that the complainers might have become disruptive, not the wearer. Get rid of the disruptive folks, not the person expressing free speech. We should all wear that slogan on our chests and in our hearts, translated into hebrew, arabic, hindi, spanish, ... etc.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 03:25:26 PM EST
    Jlvngstn: It is ridiculous that a shirt that has not threat or vulgarities was to be covered up.
    It is ridiculous that a shirt that has not threat or vulgarities was to be covered up.
    Well said, JL! "We will not be silent" is a good theme for anyone, especially for people like many here, who do and will believe it and live by it, until (and after) those who want to silence anyone who wears it proudly on their chest are relegated to history.

    FIRE is good on campus speech codes, and see Nat Hentoff. The reference to campus speech codes is to make the point that feigned offense has become sufficiently institutionalized to cause others to restrict their speech or actions. See examples at FIRE or from Hentoff. So, you asked for it, you got it. Only this time, it's normal people pulling this crap. But it was your idea.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#52)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 06:30:30 PM EST
    Of course, the proper response from the airline to anyone troubled by the man's t-shirt would have been to say, "We're sorry. If that man's t-shirt bothers you, feel free to take another flight." That should satisfy even PPJim.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:04:19 PM EST
    Liberal leftwing campus speech codes made the passengers hysterical. Who would have thought? Brilliant analysis.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    roy - I have no idea what your point is except you want the right to wear shirts and he zapped. I advise a little less Long Island in the Tea. edger - Oh well, just as long as I don't invite someone to kill themselves.
    Saturday :: September 03, 2005 Red Cross Banned From Bringing Food and Supplies to Nola Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM ...This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes... Jim... you know how to use a gun? Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em... You only need one, though...
    Sailor - You have no idea, as neither do I. Maybe they're saying, fix this before I do something myself. Now, wanna keep arguing a stupid point that neither of us knows about?
    even ppj admits that the complainers might have become disruptive, not the wearer.
    Ah, now you're seeing the problem. Maintaining public order and safety has very little to do with right and wrong, but with keeping the majority calm. What you are finally backing into is that you aren't allowed to take actions that may cause harm to others, even if your right to express yourself is limited. JL writes:
    Goes again to my longstanding argument, that many in this country are morons
    Has nothing to do with the problem at hand. Dark Avenger - Barn? No, but there was a guy born in a manger 2000 or so years ago. He never called for a jihad, either. Sailor writes:
    they were the rude, racist, over reacting ones. and yes, racist is accurate because if he'd been white they wouldn't have said anything.
    Yes, they may have been all of that. So what?
    Someone needs to teach them and ppj a little bit about our constitution.
    Actually I think the people there were interested in getting on the plane and on the way. What they didn't need was someone doing things to stir everything up. As I said, he can demonstrate, complain whatever, but a little common sense and courtesy can prevent such things from happening at such time and places, leaving the arguments to times and places better suited. To his credit he changed the shirt and let things smooth over. I started this thread with a story, I'll end with one. A few years ago on a hot, humid afternoon this guy was giving the Flight Attendant a very hard time. Finally someone shouted:
    Could you please shut up and sit down so we can get home? You can complain about your center seat when we get to LA.
    You know, all you guys want to yell about democracy until the majority starts bringing the subject up.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#55)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:54:42 PM EST
    I think the people there were interested in getting on the plane and on the way. What they didn't need was someone doing things to stir everything up.
    In that case, why weren't the passengers who were disturbed by the shirt asked to exit the plane? The guy with the shirt was not the one causing the problems. The loonies who were hysterical about the shirt were the problem, and I would much rather have a quiet guy with a t-shirt on the plane than a hysterical loonie who goes crazy at the sight of a shirt.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 07:58:09 PM EST
    Yeah, all you guys want to yell about democracy until the majority starts bringing the subject up. We'll have to do this again sometime. How's mid-november look on your calendar? You should have lots of free time by then.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#57)
    by roy on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 08:35:58 PM EST
    Jim, Say what you must about me, but leave my drink out of it.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 08:50:21 PM EST
    RePack - Because there were more of them than the shirts. Try to remember. The objective is safety through crowd control, not starting a riot. And then we do want democracy, right? Roy - I understand your last point. ;-) Edger - Enjoy your anticipation. Like sex sometimes, it may be better than the real deal. My time? I'm retired, dear boy. And living in my palatial retirement compound, catfish farm and BBQ Stand. And you don't do that on SS.

    The objective is safety through crowd control, not starting a riot. So, you're in favor of mob rule, PPJ, just like on some occasions in the Old South, no doubt? Dark Avenger - Barn? No, but there was a guy born in a manger 2000 or so years ago. He never called for a jihad, either. Not quite, but I wouldn't like to share a flight with someone who was attributed with the likes of this:
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household." (Matthew 10:34-36 NASB)
    I will grant you that he didn't talk about chopping peoples' heads off, but I think DHS should be looking into folks like you who think highly of an obvious troublemaker who used hate speech in a religious context.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#60)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 11:46:43 PM EST
    RePack - Because there were more of them than the shirts.
    I do not understand why you would prefer loonies, especially multiple loonies, to make such decisions. After they have revealed their loonie status by going off on a t-shirt wearer, haven't they surrendered any reason for respect?
    Try to remember. The objective is safety through crowd control, not starting a riot.
    Correct, and that means GET THE LOONIES OFF THE PLANE NOW. They are trying to incite a riot. Loonies have no "right" to be on an airplane if they cannot control themselves.
    And then we do want democracy, right?
    Not on a damn airplane. I want a dictatorship, with the pilot in charge, just like a ship at sea. How often do you participate in votes among passengers on airliners as to how the flight should be conducted? I have never heard of that happening. In addition, we have this thing in America where the majority is not permitted to abuse the minority just because they outnumber the minority. After all, as long as a sufficient number of townsfolk agree that you need hanging, is a trial unnecessary? If the loonies as a group decided that the plane should go to another destination or that the pilot should be attacked, would you go along with that? If not, please tell us where the line is drawn between the collective rule of loonies that you agree with and that which you do not.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 07:31:48 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - You do love to make it up as you go along.... We're talking about an airline boarding area...You do know the difference, don't you? No? No surprise. If I were in favor of mob rule I would be saying the security person/airline employee should have said, "Go get him!" And no, we don't have unfettered rights in public places. BTW - Seen any current christians yelling "Convert or die?" RePack - The situation under discussion happened in the boarding area, not inside the aircraft. So, outside of trying to score points, why do you take the conversation inside the aircraft? As you know, well perhaps you don't, the situation on board is totally different. Had any of this happened on board the pilot would have called security and everyone would been forced to leave the plane while the details were sorted out. On board you have the right to sit there and be silent. In the gate area, the question becomes, does the minority have the right to take an "action" that offends the majority, and how does that play into the security issue. Since free speech is not, and never has been, unlimited, I would say the man had the right to wear the shirt in a mall, but not in an airport becuase the shirt can be taken wrong. It approaches the so-called "fighting words," especially in some locations. Like it or not, young Moslem males are connected in the public's mind with death and destruction and airplanes.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#62)
    by soccerdad on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 07:42:07 AM EST
    BTW - Seen any current christians yelling "Convert or die?"
    not relevant to present discussion but nice attempt to infuse your racial/religious biases. What PPJ wants protected is the right to discriminate against Muslims. (They are evil and backwards dont you know) As usual PPJ exhibits a profound lack of understanding wrt American flavor of Democracy. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were written to defend the rights of the minorty in face of the tryanny of the majority. Of course PPJ and his ilk have made it well known that they prefer a much more authoritarian form of government in which the government gets to decide as to which peoples have access to the full spectrum of rights and which can have their rights infringed upon.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#63)
    by maddendude on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 08:06:39 AM EST
    He should now do the American thing...Sue.

    We're talking about an airline boarding area...You do know the difference, don't you?' Yes, PPJ, and I was in an airport in 1977 where two young guys got in trouble for making stupid remarks about hijacking, and they were taken in immediately. I applaude such actions, so you telling me I know nothing about this is most telling. Of course, it doesn't bring me to your level of expertise in Airport security, as you claim to be an expert in whatever subject that suits you at a given time, which is typical. BTW This isn't the same thing, oh doofus Son of the South Having a slogan on a t-shirt isn't the same level of threat, even for lily-livered yellow-pants types like you if you have a modicum of common sense.
    No?
    No, you display a great deficit common sense, in case you missed it the first time. No surprise. I think that Repack Rider, kdog, SD, and others aren't surprised by the level of non sequiters and illogical invective that you've displayed on this subject. If I were in favor of mob rule I would be saying the security person/airline employee should have said, "Go get him!" No, the security folks acting in place of the mob, which isn't much better than your scenario. And no, we don't have unfettered rights in public places. A slogan on a t-shirt isn't like crying fire in a crowded theater, unless you propose that in any given situation, the most fearful and ignorant should be in charge of the way things are run in such matters. Rule of the yellowbellies, now that's something you could get behind, and perhaps be part of the vanguard, comrade.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#65)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 09:11:09 AM EST
    In the gate area, the question becomes, does the minority have the right to take an "action" that offends the majority, and how does that play into the security issue.
    Okay, let's use YOUR facts and logic. You are saying that the loonie minority has the "right" to disrupt a flight because they are hysterical about a t-shirt. Why do you believe that?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#66)
    by HK on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    The only thing that does not surprise me about the ugliness of this situation is Jim's response to it. Maybe we could all chip in to buy Jim's next travelling companion this to wear. I can't imagine airport staff and fellow travellers having any objections.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#67)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 01:49:39 PM EST
    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#68)
    by John Mann on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    John Mann - Why don't you do a little reading and discover for yourself, that free speech is not unlimited.
    I understand perfectly well that free speech has its limits. What's the big deal about a guy wearing a t-shirt with a pretty innocuous message on it?
    Better yet, drive down to Seattle, get an airline ticket, get in the security line and start screaming outrageous comments. Yes. Do that. ;-)
    Well, we've gone from wearing a t-shirt saying "we will not be silent" to "screaming outrageous comments". I bet even you would agree with me that there is a world of difference between the two.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    it's not just an 'innocuous message', it's the one that was used by the German anti-war movement ... against Hitler. Ironic, ehh?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 30, 2006 at 07:32:46 PM EST
    John Mann - What you consider acceptable may not be to others. You do understand that others also have rights? HK - You are too kind. I am currenty booked in coach to LV in about a month? Can I count on you to upgrade my ticket to first? Traveling with the T-Shirt crowd is just so....boring. No? Well, I'll just have to do it myself. Sigh. Life can be sooooo difficult. I do hope we don't have someone there wanting to say: "Look at me! I'm making a political statement!" sailor - Can't win the argument, eh? So we get your typical attacks, etc... Really, you have become sooooooo transparent. RePack - Well, at least one actual logical question. I never said they have the "right." I said they may well do it because of the times we live in... I also never said the T-Shirt guy had the right to.... Common sense, folks. Dark Avenger writes:
    A slogan on a t-shirt isn't like crying fire in a crowded theater, unless you propose
    I propose nothing, and you have absolutely no way of knowing what a statement on a T-shirt might trigger. I also see that you have now become sensitive. Were you one of the two youngs? Did that warp your views on this subject? Inquiring minds want to know. But 29 years ago? Wow. SD - The Constitution and BOR were written to defend the rights of the minority? Are you serious? That's a dumb statement, SD. Dumb. Ta Ta

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#73)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 06:14:59 AM EST
    The Constitution and BOR were written to defend the rights of the minority?
    The Constitution defines the structure of the government. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the minority. Better? Let's try this one again:
    In the gate area, the question becomes, does the minority have the right to take an "action" that offends the majority, and how does that play into the security issue.
    I am saying that the tiny minority of loonies who object to t-shirts does NOT have the right to disrupt the boarding process. Do you agree or disagree? What "rights" would you confer on people who have displayed their immaturity, anti-Americanism and loonieness by objecting to a t-shirt displaying a phrase coined by the brave Germans who resisted Hitler's rise to power? Whom would you rather share a plane with, loonies who get hysterical over a t-shirt, or responsible citizens?

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 07:31:42 AM EST
    RePack - Better? So you are telling me that the majority doesn't need the Fourth Amendment? The First? If you want to say the BOR was written to protect individuals in certain situations, I would agree. But not "minorities" because that speaks to special group rights. And the BOR was not even exclusively for individuals. Read the Ninth and Tenth. "Tiny" minorities have disrupted many civil functions throughout our history, in many cases to the betterment of the country. I cite the Civil Rights struggles in particular. The question becomes, the two relative rights of two minorities. One's "right" to make a statement that can be misunderstood, and what that misunderstanding can cause. You see, that is what you won't admit to, and I will and have. Yes. In a perfect world free speech is unfettered. But, the world is not perfect, and the Constitution, as you know, speaks only to prior restraint.
    Congress shall make no law...or abridging the freedom of speech
    Link So what you and I would consider misguided actions by some individuals, others may see as their right to not be offended. At what point "offensive words" turns into "fighting words" I do not know, but at some point they sometimes do. The security agent was correct in his actions. No particular harm was done to his "rights" to free speech, and some harm may have been avoided. Let the individual take his rights to the streets, to the newspapers, to the Internet and I would support him and his T-Shirt. But not into an airport boarding gate. That's playing in traffic. Again to his credit I think he recognized that and did the best thing.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#77)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 08:38:05 AM EST
    RePack - Better? So you are telling me that the majority doesn't need the Fourth Amendment? The First?
    I read my post again, and no such statement appears there. Do you hear disembodied voices as well as seeing words that do not appear?
    If you want to say the BOR was written to protect individuals in certain situations, I would agree. But not "minorities" because that speaks to special group rights. And the BOR was not even exclusively for individuals. Read the Ninth and Tenth.
    Why would the protection of an individual, i.e. a "minority of one," indicate that this person had any rights different from others? The majority has the same protections conferred upon the minority, although the majority is generally less in need of protection from the minority.
    "Tiny" minorities have disrupted many civil functions throughout our history, in many cases to the betterment of the country. I cite the Civil Rights struggles in particular.
    You mean like our t-shirt wearer standing up against the loonies?
    The question becomes, the two relative rights of two minorities.
    One's "right" to make a statement that can be misunderstood, and what that misunderstanding can cause.
    I have two words for you: Strunk and White. A noun phrase without a following verb is not a sentence. Please complete this incoherent "thought."
    You see, that is what you won't admit to, and I will and have.
    In the previous sentence, the word "that" is a vague reference that makes it impossible for me to understand what you are trying to say. Please clarify.
    Yes. In a perfect world free speech is unfettered. But, the world is not perfect, and the Constitution, as you know, speaks only to prior restraint.
    This is not a constitutional issue because no governmental entities were involved. This is a common sense issue that asks the question, "If you have to choose between allowing loonies who become hysterical at the sight of a t-shirt or a normal guy wearing the t-shirt to board a plane, do you let the loonies on or do you let the normal person on?" In addition, it asks whether, in the absence of a company policy, is a security guard entitled to make one up that treats one passenger differently from the others?
    Congress shall make no law...or abridging the freedom of speech
    I wasn't aware of any congressional interference at the airport, so this digression is pointless.
    So what you and I would consider misguided actions by some individuals, others may see as their right to not be offended.
    Where is the "right not to be offended" codified? Can you cite a prededent that refers to the "right not to be offended" by a legal and harmless activity? Do you consider this a Constitutional right?
    At what point "offensive words" turns into "fighting words" I do not know, but at some point they sometimes do.
    Immaterial, since the t-shirt was neither. Stick to the issue at hand.
    The security agent was correct in his actions. No particular harm was done to his "rights" to free speech, and some harm may have been avoided.
    Unless the airline has a written policy on the subject that says t-shirts with statements on them are not permitted, the man was certainly "harmed" if he was not allowed to board the plane he had purchased passage for. What "harm" "may have been avoided" by letting loonies onto a plane and keeping the normal guy off? Speculation about an undefined "harm" is not an argument, it is an admission that you don't have one.
    Let the individual take his rights to the streets, to the newspapers, to the Internet and I would support him and his T-Shirt. But not into an airport boarding gate. That's playing in traffic.
    Would it be too much to ask you to explain why you believe this?
    Again to his credit I think he recognized that and did the best thing.
    What options was he choosing from?

    PPJ, your attempt at logic is falling flat, and your attempt at humor based on a misreading of what I wrote is most telling.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#76)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 09:49:13 AM EST
    I tried to post a comment yeasterday, but it did not go through. I'll try again. After the last election I bought a bumper sticker and put it on the family car: Buck Fush. I was amused at first at the hostility I would face on the road. A car/truck would get on my tail and suddenly swerve around me honk and extend the universal finger telling me to Buck off. I'd laugh and keep on driving. BUt, over time, I started to get ticked off. I'd spped up and pull along side and motion the car to pull over. I was usually by myself. Sometimes, it would be a couple. SOmetimes a man in his fifties. Sometimes some young kids. Always, they would stare straight ahead with fright in their eyes (I'm a big scary looking guy, when I want to be.). A few times I tossed the nearest thing to me out the window at the car. (A half eaten peach, styrofoam coffee cup, plastic water bottle, etc.). Once, I calmed down, I always felt foolish at my seemingly uncontrolled rage of the moment. My wife occasionaly also uses my car. She would tell me stories after she drove it. I am amazed at the number of people who can react so hostile to a bumper sticker. It is my free speech and I have a right to express my thoughts. But, the bumper sticker is also intended to agitate. A month ago, my wife took the car to go shopping. On the way home, with my son strapped into his booster seat in the back seat, a middle aged man tried to run her off the road. I went out to the driveway and tore the bumper sticker off.

    Re: Iraqi Man Prevented From Wearing T-Shirt on Pl (none / 0) (#72)
    by HK on Thu Aug 31, 2006 at 11:12:33 AM EST
    If people making 'political statements' subtly and non-violently are suppressed, Jim, what makes you think you are living in a democracy? scarshapedstar is right to point out the fact that clearly the t-shirt and not the person wearing it was seen as a threat, because they let the guy on the plane once he had changed out of it. And that is a problem. There is no law that says we all have to dress in a way that makes others feel comfortable. A person is not defined by what they wear, whether others use that as a means by which to judge them or not.
    you have absolutely no way of knowing what a statement on a T-shirt might trigger
    People travelling on the underground in London are now wary of other passengers carrying rucksacks as that is what the bombers used to carry their explosives on 7/7. This is not a good reason to ban rucksacks. Those wily bombers will simply find another thing to carry their explosives in. The rucksack itself - like the t-shirt - is not dangerous. It is the job of security staff in any situation to look after the safety of people and not divert their attentions to something that merely has unsettling connotations for some.