You and me. We're in this together.

[andrewducker]

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button.

I'm glad that someone has the moral pigheadedness to stand up for themselves. Because I suspect that I wouldn't.

Comments

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Link doesn't seem to be working....

[andrewducker]

fixed.

[derumi.livejournal.com]

I don't suppose John plans to sit in a few movie theatres, practicing his free spe(a)ch by shouting "Fire!" on occasion. >_>

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

Wow what alot of moaning! And 'they called it a "badge"', well damn, and on a British plane too, it was a badge, and presumably airlines are entitled to as much if not more right to refuse admission as a pub.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I posted a longer response in my livejournal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/119490.html), but the short version is:

What a dickhead.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

If you read the article, he discusses how the meaning of the "Suspected Terrorist" button is that in a culture where all citizens are being treated as criminals, everyone is a suspected terrorist. This is a valid political statement to make and as such, the airline was no more justified in using it to prevent him from flying than it would have been in using a "peace" button.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I did read the article.

Try reading my response to it, and you'll see why I think he was being a dickhead.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did read your response. I really don't see any difference between denying someone the right to use a plane ticket they've paid for because of a button they're wearing, or because they appear to be Middle Eastern. In either case, their presence might make someone on the plane uncomfortable.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Hah! Caught you. You haven't read the article yourself, have you? Because if you had, you would have spotted a number of things that made this dickhead's situation decidedly different from a pilot refusing to fly a passenger who looks Middle Eastern.

1. The dickhead was asked by a flight attendent, to remove the badge he was wearing. (Despite use of emotive words like "loomed" and "demanded", in fact I suspect the Cabin Service Director asked the dickhead perfectly politely: you don't normally get to be a senior flight attendent with BA if you're in the habit of being rude to dickheads.) The dickhead refused.

In case you've missed something, this is already different from a member of the cabin staff complaining about someone who "looks Middle Eastern": being asked to take off a badge is rather different from being told the colour of your skin is scary.

2. The dickhead was then asked by the Captain to remove the badge. It doesn't sound like the Captain was particularly polite, but then the captain of a plane is not trained to be polite, but to fly the plane.

Please note, this is again different from being told that the Captain is made uncomfortable by someone of your ethnic origin. There's nothing anyone can do about their ethnic origin, nor should they wish to: but anyone can decide to wear, or not to wear, a badge.

3. Since the dickhead had refused, twice, to remove a badge that the Captain felt might cause alarm/despondency among the other passengers (of course, this is just my guess (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/119490.html#cutid1) why the dickhead was asked to remove his badge in the first place, but I've flown wearing political badges in the past and never had any trouble), the dickhead was asked to leave the plane.

This is the only point where there was any resemblance to your scenario about someone who looks as if they're from the Middle East being asked to leave the plane. It's an absolute rule that the captain of a plane has the right to refuse to fly if he thinks that the weather, the plane itself, or one of the passengers, may constitute a risk to the flight. And while this rule may sometimes be exercised arbitrarily (though I think not in this dickhead's instance) I like flying, I like feeling safe in the air, and I'm quite happy with the rule that says an experienced pilot who is flying the plane, not the airline company, not any individual passenger, gets to decide whether or not it's safe to fly.

4. After the dickhead (and his poor girlfriend) left the plane, the airline company offered to let them fly on the next available flight, if he checked his badge into his hold luggage. The badge wasn't confiscated, he was just told he couldn't wear it aboard the plane, and because he'd been a dickhead (see points 1 and 2) his handluggage would be searched to make sure he didn't just end up causing another 300-passenger plane to be delayed.

Again, this is rather different from being told "because of your ethnic origin, we're not letting you fly". It's a badge. If it was supposed to be a political statement, so what? If he'd been reading from the Green Party manifesto in a loud clear voice all the while the plane was preparing to take off, and had refused to stop because it was a "political statement" and he thought he had a right to free speech regardless of how it might be disturbing the other passengers, and I was in the seat behind him, I would have asked to have him kicked off! Or gagged.

So, next time: when you want to comment on something, read it first. Read it carefully. Pay attention. [Removed gratuitous insult, with apologies and regrets.] Please.

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Well, now that I've caught up with all this, I have to say that although yonmei expresses himself rather strongly, I agree with his sentiment.

What this guy did wasn't big, and wasn't clever. Free speech doesn't, never has, and never will give people the right to say whatever they want whenever they want. I can't stand in the street at midnight, and shout insults at my neighbours at the top of my voice. Free speech isn't about being able to act like a moron. It's about being able to express your uncensored views in an approriate forum. A serial rapist has the right to discuss his belief that all women are there for him to sexually pleasure himself - he doesn't have the right to do this in a room full of rape victims. I realise, as usual, I'm being extreme here - but see the point. There's a time and a place.

If this guy has a grievance with the U.S. government's policy, then he should take it up with them. He should decorate his home, his car, and his person, with whatever political statements he'd like to make - that's his right. However, BA did nothing wrong. Effectively, they said "we have a duty to protect our crew and our passengers, and to save any confusion, if you wish to travel with us, we request that you don't wear an inflammatory badge." Because, and let's be honest here, that's what it is.

He had plenty of choices - remove it, don't travel with BA, don't travel at all. Fact is, nobody has the right to do whatever they want wherever they want. He can do what he likes in his own house. BA reserve the right, and I fully support them, to enforce their own rules on thier planes. Just as pubs in the UK ban football shirts for fear of violence, I think BA were right to take precautionary steps. What if there had been a hard-line nutcase on the plane, who thought this guy was dangerous? Or worse, a relative of a victim of 9/11, who wouldn't see the funny side of what is, let's face it, a rather serious issue. This guy showed zero concern, and rather a lot of contempt, for his fellow passengers. Even if it had just started an argument between passengers with strong feelings, that could have been very serious on a passenger flight.

Bottom line - if he wants to make a policital statement, he should choose a more appropriate venue. Personally, I think he's using BA for personal exposure, and exacerbated events to get as much effect out of them as he can. Which, if it's the best he can do, doesn't make him worth anything more than the government's own spin.

Re:

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Er, my general sexist outlook?

Actually, in honesty, I think it was just the user icon. Looks like a bloke to me. Didn't mean nothin' by it....

And I'm not looking to argue (honest!), but why do you disagree? Just curious.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the user icon is... a woman with short hair. A lesbian, to be slightly more precise (Mo from Dykes To Watch Out For). So, it is pretty much sexism, yeah.

I disagree because I don't think what the guy did was extreme enough to justify a breach of his right to wear what he wants. It wasn't offensive, and it didn't give reasonable fear that he was going to harm other people (what terrorist have you ever heard of who wore an "I'm a terrorist" badge?).

Yes, it could have been seen by a relative of a 9/11 victim, but that was no more likely on the plane that walking along the street. And, really, a lot of things offend and upset a lot of people. People are allowed to be offensive and insensitive.

As for "what if it had started a fight?", I have absolutely zero patience with the argument that there are excuses for people to start physical fights (not to defend themselves, but to start physical fights). There are people who don't think they should have to share plane space with, say, Muslims. Should the Muslim passengers remove outward insignia of their religion, in case they're blamed for starting a fight? Either we have social boundaries (e.g. "physical violence is wrong"), or we don't.

Yes, the guy (who sounds like an arrogant and rather racist arsehole) didn't show a great deal of concern for his fellow passengers. But, that's not a condition of carriage. If it was, then the wanker who shot his seat back into my face last week, or the person who spent an hour regaling me with reasons why young women such as myself shouldn't travel alone when I was on a train once, would get booted. But if we're going to start having "being a nice, sensitive person" be a condition of service provision, then that should be debated and made public and subjected to appropriate scrutiny.

It means that about 60% of the population will never fly again...

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

It means that about 60% of the population will never fly again...

And wouldn't that be great? :-) Both ecologically and socially...

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Er, my general sexist outlook?

Damn, brandnewgun jumped the gun: I was wondering whether to correct you in your mistaken apprehension, leave it be for the time being for the genderfuckedness of it all, point out to you that if you don't know the gender of the person you are referring to, you ought to avoid using a gender-specific pronoun, or surrealistically post about fish and giraffes and laugh maniacally. Hadn't made up my mind.

I'd also point out that plenty of people use icons on livejournal that do not relate to their gender, so even if you'd thought my Mo icon was a bloke, that still doesn't mean I am.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

I wrote a long post. But I think, given the biting unpleasantness of some of these comments I won't post it.

We don't live in a free society.

It's foolish to think that we do, or act as if we do.

And the person who was right was the captain. Kicking someone off a flight for being in an ethnic group you're worried about -is- wrong.

The air crew weren't wrong in this situation.

And the writer contradicts himself within the article. That says a lot.

on the other hand ...

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

How is this meaningfully different from yelling "Fire!" (OK, "Suspected fire!") in a crowded theater, the archetypical example of disallowed speech?

And in any case, isn't that plane the private property of the airline? (Yes, I know that airlines are heavily-regulated, bailed out by tax dollars, etc.) If a restaurant, theater or pub can eject a patron for disturbing other customers with their "free speech", why can't an airplane?

Re: on the other hand ...

[andrewducker]

How is this meaningfully different from yelling "Fire!"

It's more the equivalent of wearing a T-shirt that said "Fire".

i.e. not at all likely to actually cause a problem with anyone whatsoever.

He says he never considered that it would cause a problem with the people on the plane, and that aftr the problem was raised he checked with the people around him and they all said that there wasn't a problem.

If he'd stood up halfway through the flight and said "I have a bomb in my shoes!" or attempted to carry on something which resembled a bomb, I'd understand it. But I really can't understand how a badge with the words "suspected terrorist" on it could be in any way directly linked to actual terrorism or cause anyone to think that the person was a terrorist.

Re: on the other hand ...

[allorin.livejournal.com]

See my comment, for how the badge could possibly have caused trouble, or have been misconstrued.

As for what he says regarding the people around him, I'm not sure how much I believe of that. His entire piece sounds like he was trying to exact maximum effect out of what would have been a minor affair, had he complied with their wishes.

"It's more the equivalent of wearing a T-shirt that said "Fire"."

Hardly.

Re: on the other hand ...

[andrewducker]

I think it's exactly an analog of that.

Your argument about there being a hard-line nutcase on the plane seems odd. If you have nutcases on the plane you have problems anyway. You might as well say that people shouldn't wear Red on planes because some psychopaths are set off by vibrant colours.

Re: on the other hand ...

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

It's more the equivalent of wearing a T-shirt that said "Fire".

Actually, it's more the equivalent of wearing a t-shirt that says "Arsonist".

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Oh, I would. I am good at morally pigheaded (comes of lots of practice at pigheaded!)

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Well, you would say that, you're a flying fish.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

ah, see - some people can see through my icon to my true self :-)

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

There's just something ineluctably exocoetidae about you.