andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-07-19 09:01 am
andrewducker) wrote2003-07-19 09:01 am
You and me. We're in this together.
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.
I'm glad that someone has the moral pigheadedness to stand up for themselves. Because I suspect that I wouldn't.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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....
part 2
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.
Re: part 2
... 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).