andrewducker | You and me. We're in this together.

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

What a dickhead.

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.

I did read the article.

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

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.

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.

Your excessive use of the word dickhead proves that you are not very imaginative with your insults. Otherwise all you've made clear is your very subjective opinion and your slavish need to satisfy someone in power.

And I read the article, every word, several times, before you decide to arbitrarily decide another person didn't read the article.

Your excessive use of the word dickhead proves that you are not very imaginative with your insults.

Oh, I can be more imaginative. I just didn't think John Gilmore deserved any exercise of my imagination.

Otherwise all you've made clear is your very subjective opinion

Er, yes. My subjective opinion is that John Gilmore was wrong. John Gilmore's subjective opinion is that he was right.

and your slavish need to satisfy someone in power.

*grins* I can't think of any appropriate response to this comment. *grins some more*

And I read the article, every word, several times, before you decide to arbitrarily decide another person didn't read the article.

No, no, wouldn't dream of it, unless you try to make an argument that demonstrates that you haven't read the article...

With all due respect, your use of the word "dickhead" adds nothing to your argument and leads me to think that your position is based on emotion. I don't care to continue this discussion -- adieu.

Isn't it fascinating how some phrases are used to mean precisely the opposite? "With all due respect" is one of them. :-)

I take it that you can't think of any rebuttal to my argument, since your only means of defense was to (1) complain that I'd called John Gilmore a dickhead throughout (2) suggest that my position was based on emotion (yes, and so was Gilmore's) and (3) say goodbye.

'Bye.

If I cared to, I could think of plenty of rebuttals to your argument. However, I've had my share of LiveJournal arguments with people who think that infantile name-calling is a good mode of argument, and I've rarely if ever gotten anything out of them.

*laughs* Any port in a storm...

What about long hair? That's easy enough to change -- unlike skin color.

Or what about a turban? That's trivial to remove.

It's my view that people ought not to be denied service because of their political statements. It's true that someone might be scared by a button that says "suspected terrorist", but that's true on a bus too -- there's nothing sacrosanct about an airplane. Anyway, he asked people around him (after the furor started) if they minded him wearing the button. They didn't.

What about long hair? That's easy enough to change -- unlike skin color. Or what about a turban? That's trivial to remove.

Now you're just being silly. I made a specific point about a specific badge that specifically said "Suspected Terrorist". I explained (in my own livejournal, which I provided a link to) that I didn't intend this to apply to all badges. If you really think removing a badge with a threatening message on it is the equivalent in difficulty of getting a haircut, you must superglue your badges to your skin: and if you think that removing a religiously-required item of clothing is equivalent to removing a badge, then you must be a religious bigot. I don't, and I'm not, and I suspect you're not either: you're just being silly.

It's my view that people ought not to be denied service because of their political statements.

He wasn't denied service because of his political statement in wearing a badge that said "Suspected terrorist" all the way through check-in. He was denied service because, on board the plane, he refused a polite request from a member of staff and then from the captain.

It's true that someone might be scared by a button that says "suspected terrorist", but that's true on a bus too -- there's nothing sacrosanct about an airplane.

A bus is not travelling nonstop a mile high in the air for 8 hours. (At least, no bus I ever travelled on was doing so.) That was the particular distinction I was making about a transAtlantic plane flight: and the other one was that far more people are nervous about flying already than are nervous about travelling by bus.

Anyway, he asked people around him (after the furor started) if they minded him wearing the button. They didn't.

Or so he reported. I didn't read him as being particularly reliable or being sensitive to nuance. Not really the point anyway.

I made a specific point about a specific badge that specifically said "Suspected Terrorist".

And I think your specific point is wrong, and tried to determine what lines you were drawing by reading your post. Than I asked questions designed to show how those lines were not actually lines you wanted to draw.

I explained (in my own livejournal, which I provided a link to) that I didn't intend this to apply to all badges.

I read it, and that's how I found this post. I still disagree.

If you really think removing a badge with a threatening message on it is the equivalent in difficulty of getting a haircut, you must superglue your badges to your skin

The message was not threatening. First, nobody was actually threatened by it. Second, it didn't specify any action which Gilmore would take -- instead, it discussed what Gilmore thought other people thought about him.

and if you think that removing a religiously-required item of clothing is equivalent to removing a badge, then you must be a religious bigot.

I think that one's religious beliefs are as fundamental as one's political beliefs. Also, I never said the turban was religiously required -- imagine someone wearing a turban and a button saying "I'm not a Sikh or anything -- turbans are just sexy."

He wasn't denied service because of his political statement in wearing a badge that said "Suspected terrorist" all the way through check-in. He was denied service because, on board the plane, he refused a polite request from a member of staff and then from the captain.

They obviously weren't "requests", if he was kicked off for wearing them, and if he was threatened with federal law enforcement action. And again, this is not the line you actually believe in, because if the member of staff had politely requested that he remove a turban, you would be outraged.

It's true that someone might be scared by a button that says "suspected terrorist", but that's true on a bus too -- there's nothing sacrosanct about an airplane.

A bus is not travelling nonstop a mile high in the air for 8 hours. (At least, no bus I ever travelled on was doing so.) That was the particular distinction I was making about a transAtlantic plane flight

No, but getting off a bus mid-way through can be a major hassle. And it could easily be hours into a bus ride when the button wearer gets up to go to the restroom, and someone further back notices said button.

and the other one was that far more people are nervous about flying already than are nervous about travelling by bus.

However, one does not have a responsibility to make people less nervous -- especially where such nervousness is truly misplaced, as it is in this case.

I wrote:Anyway, he asked people around him (after the furor started) if they minded him wearing the button. They didn't.

Yonmei replied: Or so he reported. I didn't read him as being particularly reliable or being sensitive to nuance.

One of those people could easily have come forward by now if they disagreed. And he is almost certainly reliable, because it would be too easy and too politically expensive for him to be proven wrong.

Not really the point anyway.

So, you admit that it doesn't matter if people are nervous or not -- that the issue is whether airlines have the right to choose what messages people wear on their planes.

Than I asked questions designed to show how those lines were not actually lines you wanted to draw.

Indeed. This is a common tactic among debaters: I made a statement about A: you offered situations B and C that you claimed were the same as A, though in fact they were not, and the standard follow-up is: "Well, you don't agree with B and C, so how can you agree with A, because A B and C are the same." To which the only possible response is: the lines you drew are a completely different shape from the lines I was drawing.

They obviously weren't "requests", if he was kicked off for wearing them, and if he was threatened with federal law enforcement action.

This is where being an American is a disadvantage to you. The BA staff were all British. The BA staff asked him politely (twice) to put the badge in his pocket. When he refused the Captain's request, he was asked to leave the plane. That is the sole limit of the Captain's authority. The BA staff had no power to threaten him with federal law enforcement action: that must have been American airport staff. God knows why they bothered.

And again, this is not the line you actually believe in, because if the member of staff had politely requested that he remove a turban, you would be outraged.

Except that I disagreed that a turban is identical with a badge. You see where drawing the wrong lines can lead you?

No, but getting off a bus mid-way through can be a major hassle. And it could easily be hours into a bus ride when the button wearer gets up to go to the restroom, and someone further back notices said button.

True - I was thinking of British buses, rather than American buses. There is less distance between towns/cities in the UK than in the US, and getting off a bus midway in a journey might be a hassle but wouldn't be a disaster.

I made a statement about A: you offered situations B and C that you claimed were the same as A, though in fact they were not, and the standard follow-up is: "Well, you don't agree with B and C, so how can you agree with A, because A B and C are the same." To which the only possible response is: the lines you drew are a completely different shape from the lines I was drawing.

I tried to read the lines from your words -- you said
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.

This said to me that the issue was whether or not it was a "choice" (certainly a line I've heard before...)

The BA staff had no power to threaten him with federal law enforcement action: that must have been American airport staff. God knows why they bothered.

Gilmore said that the Captain did this. I see no reason to disbelieve him -- it must have sounded as absurd to him as it does to you.

I said: And again, this is not the line you actually believe in, because if the member of staff had politely requested that he remove a turban, you would be outraged.

yonmei replied:Except that I disagreed that a turban is identical with a badge. You see where drawing the wrong lines can lead you?

I think you are changing your lines -- you said that the issue was not one of the content of Gilmore's action, but of his refusal to obey a polite request. I pointed out that you think the content is important, since you would think differently of a polite request to remove a turban.

True - I was thinking of British buses, rather than American buses. There is less distance between towns/cities in the UK than in the US, and getting off a bus midway in a journey might be a hassle but wouldn't be a disaster.

I can certainly think of many cases in which it might be a disaster -- if the person was being met, or was on the way to a wedding or to catch a plane, or to see a dying relative....

However, one does not have a responsibility to make people less nervous -- especially where such nervousness is truly misplaced, as it is in this case.

John Gilmore had no responsibility to make people less nervous. As he clearly felt. The BA staff did have a responsibility to make people less nervous, and carried this responsibility out.

One of those people could easily have come forward by now if they disagreed.

Well, that would depend on any of them having heard anything about this incident. I'd never heard of it till Andrew posted the link: I google-newsed on it and got nothing, and I googled on it and got few hits, and those mostly on libertarian websites or small US news sites. If it had made major headline news, you'd have a point. I doubt if any of the other people travelling on the plane even knew John Gilmore's name.

And he is almost certainly reliable, because it would be too easy and too politically expensive for him to be proven wrong.

That's a feeble argument. Sorry, but it is. To argue that so-and-so wouldn't lie because it would be "too politically expensive" when he was found out, would mean that George W. Bush would never have lied about uranium sales from Niger, for a topical example.

So, you admit that it doesn't matter if people are nervous or not -- that the issue is whether airlines have the right to choose what messages people wear on their planes.

No. The issue is whether or not cabin crew have a right to decide, before take-off, if one passenger is likely to make the rest nervous. If they make their judgement based on bigoted grounds of race or religion, I'd be the first to protest.

If they make their judgement on grounds that later look unreasonable, but not bigoted, they can then argue about whether or not it looked unreasonable in the few minutes they had to make that judgement. It's like umpires at sports matches: their decision is always final even if later proved wrong by frame-by-frame inspection of the visual record, because a game becomes unworkable if an umpire's decision can be appealled against the camera's while the game is being played. Similiarly, the staff on an aeroplane, especially the captain, get to make final decisions and are required to make them fast: delays mean they lose their take-off window and 400 passengers are further delayed, rather than just 1. (Or two.) I back an experienced flight attendant's judgement about what is likely to make other passengers nervous against an individual passenger who thinks he has the right to read out loud from the Anarchist Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879471646/ref=ase_bridgebooks/002-7622304-5304021?v=glance&s=books) because that's a political statement and therefore sacrosanct.

John Gilmore had no responsibility to make people less nervous. As he clearly felt. The BA staff did have a responsibility to make people less nervous, and carried this responsibility out.

... but not at the cost of freedom ...

I said:One of those people could easily have come forward by now if they disagreed.

Yonmei replied:Well, that would depend on any of them having heard anything about this incident. I'd never heard of it till Andrew posted the link: I google-newsed on it and got nothing, and I googled on it and got few hits, and those mostly on libertarian websites or small US news sites. If it had made major headline news, you'd have a point. I doubt if any of the other people travelling on the plane even knew John Gilmore's name.

It was on the daypop top 40, for what that's worth. Anyway, he didn't know how big a story it would be when he wrote the post to politechbot.

That's a feeble argument. Sorry, but it is. To argue that so-and-so wouldn't lie because it would be "too politically expensive" when he was found out, would mean that George W. Bush would never have lied about uranium sales from Niger, for a topical example.

It's a strong argument when there's no evidence that Gilmore lied other than your wishful thinking. If you want to doubt the whole article, fine -- maybe he made the whole thing up. Maybe Joey Skaggs made the whole thing up -- but you're trying to change the facts to suit your argument by selectively believing and disbelieving Gilmore.

No. The issue is whether or not cabin crew have a right to decide, before take-off, if one passenger is likely to make the rest nervous. If they make their judgement based on bigoted grounds of race or religion, I'd be the first to protest.

IMO, politics is right up there with race and religion. And this was clearly a political statement.

It's like umpires at sports matches

Except that sports are just a game -- air travel is a necessity for international business. If an umpire makes a bad call, oh well. If a captain makes a bad call, someone is potentially stuck miles from home (although in this case it happened that Gilmore wasn't, although I don't know about the person he was flying with).

their decision is always final even if later proved wrong by frame-by-frame inspection of the visual record, because a game becomes unworkable if an umpire's decision can be appealled against the camera's while the game is being played.

Do you think that air travel would be unworkable if people were allowed to wear whatever buttons they liked (excluding those constituting "true threats" (sorry for being American here, but I happen to think this standard is justifiable without reference to the rest of US law)).

Similiarly, the staff on an aeroplane, especially the captain, get to make final decisions and are required to make them fast: delays mean they lose their take-off window and 400 passengers are further delayed, rather than just 1. (Or two.)

In fact, by driving back to get Gilmore off, passengers *were* delayed.

I back an experienced flight attendant's judgement about what is likely to make other passengers nervous against an individual passenger who thinks he has the right to read out loud from the Anarchist Handbook because that's a political statement and therefore sacrosanct.

Reading aloud is clearly a different case -- you wouldn't let someone read aloud from the bible or Harry Potter or Dr. Seuss or anything else. I back an individual's decision to choose what political messages to display (modulo the usual libel/true threat/fighting words stuff).

You and me. We're in this together.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

part 2

Re: part 2