More on Gilmor's ejection from a BA flight
Aug. 4th, 2003 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerLawrence Lessig has a response from John Gilmore to the various email's on the subject of his removal from a plane for wearing a "Suspected Terrorist" badge.
There's more, and I pretty much agree with him all the way.
I flew to London on Virgin Atlantic two days after the BA incident. I am happy to report that I wore the button, and that neither their passengers, cabin stewards, nor pilots were hysterical. I wore the button in London. I crossed the Channel where the crew gave the shorted possible glance at my passport. I wore it yesterday in Paris.
The button is not a joke. It’s a serious statement which one may agree or disagree with. The point that people seem to be missing is that a “suspected terrorist” is not the same as a “terrorist”. Yet, that’s exactly the conflation that has occurred: treat every citizen like a suspect, and every suspect like a terrorist.
In London and Paris the newspapers are taking Guantanamo seriously — because their own citizens are imprisoned there without trials. The corrupt US government was careful to remove the one US citizen they found — but the citizens of other sovereign countries, even those of very close war allies, are in prison. Without trial and without lawyers, and with intent to try them in front of judges sworn to take orders from the President. I have no doubt that American citizens, such as myself, would be treated in the same way if the public and the courts would let our fascist leader get away with it.
On the BA flight, in my carry-on bag, I had brought the current issue of Reason magazine, which has a cover story with my picture and the label “Suspected Terrorist”. (It didn’t even occur to me to censor my reading material on the flight; I must need political retraining. I hadn’t read most of the issue, including Declan’s piece in it, plus I wanted to show it to Europeans I met on my vacation.) During the British Airways incident I never removed the magazine from my bag, but supposing I had done so, and merely sat in my seat and read it, would that have been grounds to remove me from the flight (button or no button)?
There's more, and I pretty much agree with him all the way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 03:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 03:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 03:35 am (UTC)"Sorry, we believe there may be people on board who would be offended or disturbed by your political statement. We don't want somone to start an argument with you mid-flight and cause a fuss."
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:01 am (UTC)Terrorism.
Plane.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:07 am (UTC)Oh, are we not just randomly saying words? In the plane/ terrorist incident I suspect you're thinking of, there was also a Muslim connection. Do you think it's right, therefore, not to allow people to wear Muslim symbols on planes?
And what does a badge saying "suspected terrorist" have to do with creating a fear of actual incidents of terrorism? It hasn't been a key feature of any terrorist incident I've ever heard of.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:42 am (UTC)That depends. You could also argue there was a 'male' element of the incident I'm thinking of, and therefore we should bar males from flying.
If you were to categorise it as "Extreme Muslim Fundamentalist Terrorists" then I'd say yeah, ban them from planes.
'Muslim' is too broad a definition. 'Terrorist' isn't.
People seem to be missing the point that his behaviour brought about additional suspicion, which is what exacerbated the incident. He could just have taken it off, and it would have been forgotten about.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:54 am (UTC)Are you arguing that there is necessarily a Muslim connection between terrorism on planes?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 07:54 am (UTC)There is not necessarily any connection between terrorism and planes. That connection is being assumed because of an incident. Other connections could be made; many of those connections would be stupid. Just because the terrorists claimed a motivation from Islam, that would not be a good reason to discriminate against non-terrorist Muslims. This utter hysteria which represents aeroplanes almost solely as a venue and means of terrorism is completely stupid.
I seriously can't believe you didn't understand my point the first time.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 08:01 am (UTC)I did. But I seriously couldn't believe you were asking me "What about if he'd been a Muslim woman asked to remove a headscarf?" The implications of your question, given that you should know me better than that, were so bizarrely improbable that I chose to give you a bizarrely improbable answer.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 09:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 09:11 am (UTC)Haven't you noticed that said person's language has deteriorated to the point that his head seems to be full of the word "dickhead" and nothing else? Read the previous comments on the first post ducker made. And you're surprised?
Never be surprised by playground suckups (Yes teach, I'll do ANYTHING you say. Blow you? Take off my panties?) or by human stupidity.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 09:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:49 am (UTC)Yes, of course there is. From a request for sex in the toilet to a request to remove a headscarf (whether or not the wearer is a Muslim).
As I said in my previous post on the topic, I thought he was a dickhead because what he was refusing to remove was a badge that said "suspected terrorist".
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 03:58 am (UTC)"I have to agree with the actions that Mr. Gilmore took, and I agree with his reasons, not to mention the statement he was making with the button. I am constantly amused by the reactions that can be provoked by such things. I still enjoy putting on my bright orange shirt (which looks just like a “ comments;chain-gang” prison shirt) with “Bellevue Psychiatric Ward” printed accross the back and seeing how many secruity guards will fallow me around a mall."
Because of course, creating a fuss in the middle of a busy mall is absolutely hilarious. As is, naturally, distracting security guards from their job. Or should we all just ignore escaped convicts or phsychiatric patients now? Is that the world we want to live in - where no one takes responsiblity, and everyone looks the other way?
Equally, Gilmore brings up the issue of reading on a plane. If I'm reading the latest Spidey comic, and it has scenes with a terrorist then I don't expect any action to be taken. (However, if asked to put it away, I would.) If I'm reading "How to Build A Bomb, by Di Namite", I would expect to get kicked of the plane, purely because of the possiblity of stupidity contamination for the other passengers.
This subject is tired. Yes, he was right to wear the button and make his statement. No, he wasn't right to comply with the airlines wishes. No, the comparisons with head-scarves or anything do not fit - he wasn't wearing the badge for religious reasons, rather purely to make a statement. As I've stated previously, everyone has the right to state their beliefs. No-one has the right to state them wherever or whenever they want.
No one thinks of the airlines motives - "Why isn't this customer taking off his badge? It's such a simple request, why isn't he complying? What is his motive here? What else is going on?" Those thoughts would have went through my head, if I was part of the crew.
If he wanted to make a statement, he should have written to the airline afterwards. As it is, being selfish and forcing other people to suffer so he could stand up for his personal viewpoint, just makes every word he says less likely to have any effect. How many passengers on that plane do you think are on his side?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 03:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:12 am (UTC)It's not your or my or anyone's business to tell people what compromises they might wish to make when their right to harmless freedom of expression is challenged. You or I might have made a different choice in response to the unreasonable request. That doesn't make the request reasonable.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:55 am (UTC)It's that point there, whether obvious (for you and me) or not, that is subjective.
A more extreme example, obviously, is a man walking into a rape victim support cliinc with an "I Rape Women" t-shirt on. This isn't a harmless freedom of expression, naturally.
I think, in most areas, the badge he wore WOULD be considered harmless. I think wearing it onto a plane is tasteless, but still harmless. I'm not sure within myself whether or not I think that the cabin crew even needed to pass judgement on it.
However, I understand the tension. I can appreciate that since 9/11, airline cabin crew members have slept a little less soundly, and felt a little less safe at work. It's only natural. I feel sorry for them. As such, I have enough intelligence, empathy and understanding to work out that although their reaction to the badge was extreme, it was grounded in a very serious matter. "Harmless" is subjective, and the cabin crew are only human. In hindsight, I'll bet they would admit they made a mistake, but I think they can be forgiven for it.
If it had been me, and I'd felt strongly about the badge, I'd have written a letter of complaint to the airline, and perhaps contacted a newspaper or two. But I would have removed it. The moment, the very moment, he refused to remove it, I have no issue with BA's handling of the situation. That would have made me suspicious too.
I think you and are going to have to agree to differ on this one - we're never going to see eye to eye!
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:55 am (UTC)I wouldn't be able to distract myself from work if my comment count didn't keep going up.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 04:57 am (UTC)In this, I think, you're being a little hypocritical. You are judging the airline as unreasonable, ut then saying I can't judge his reaction as that.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:16 am (UTC)"Little man stands up to Corporate bullies", is more or less what is being portrayed. And it's bull.
The cabin crew are human. As prone to making misjudgements, over-reactions and mistakes as any other human. Did John Gilmore ever stop to think about the person he was arguing with? Say he had accepted the matter calmly, and written to BA. Might the member of staff not have, on reflection, realised their over-reaction and written to John Gilmore to apologise? Or perhaps, even during the flight have done as much?
John Gilmore is certainly guilty of something we all are - dehumanising the people element of corporations. And I suspect, in this situation, he forgot he was dealing with a person, and immediately starting railing against the 'might of BA'.
There are a lot of what-ifs, maybes and might-have-beens regarding this. However, as soon as he chose to go beyond a certain point, he lost the chance to experience any of those.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 09:22 am (UTC)I'm sure he thought, "What a dumbass."
And knowing what kind of pathetic, mindless, demeaning crap I've been forced to do by corporations to put food on my table, I am in sympathy. However, I understand that people protesting the mindless shit I have to do is not a personal slam, and in the end is helpful to me.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 09:19 am (UTC)Obviously he was letting them know in advance that he was going to blow up the plane. Duh. Jesus, people, do you know the meaning of satire? Or all you all literal-minded plodders who have to be spoon-fed everything from people in power? Here honey, open up, I've got just the thing for you. It's smashed peas!
I know when I get an urge to shoot people, I run up and tell them first, and point to my handy-dandy button that proclaims what I am, so they can arrest me before we even get started.
If he wanted to make a statement, he should have written to the airline afterwards.
Yeah, and we all know how much good *that* does. Exactly none. Any protester knows that oppressors are all very impressed with letters. All the great dictators are, and so is the United States Army. It made a great difference in Vietnam.
As it is, being selfish and forcing other people to suffer so he could stand up for his personal viewpoint, just makes every word he says less likely to have any effect.
Oh my god, they had to wait for a few hours? What third-world horror to inflict on the good citizens!
How many passengers on that plane do you think are on his side?
Whereas, of course if he had mailed a letter to the airline, the airline would have fairly presented his views to everyone instead of never bringing it into the light of day.
If he had mailed a protesting letter to the airline, no one would have known what fascist pigs the airlines happen to be. He accomplished just what he wanted with this protest, I am thinking.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 11:25 am (UTC)Do I have a target on, saying "I'm looking for a fight, please pick one?"
I get satire. You get satire. The cabin crew didn't. They made a mistake. You have to recognise John Gilmore could have realised that, and let it go, instead of making things worse. As I stated elsewhere, you don't know exactly why the member of staff had the issue, or what their mindset at the time was. They are NOT the airline. They are an individual. They could possibly even (*shock* *horror*) regret and feel embarrassed by their mistake. Fact is, they weren't given a chance to rectify it.
"Yeah, and we all know how much good *that* does. Exactly none. Any protester knows that oppressors are all very impressed with letters. All the great dictators are, and so is the United States Army. It made a great difference in Vietnam."
Fair enough. It's a way of expressing your views. There may be others. I was just illustrating one different way in which he could have. I happen to think you're over-cooking the issue slightly (it's an airline, not a dictatorship), and I also happen to think that businesses are subject to consumer opinion. If enough people who fly with BA protest their policies, then BA will change them.
"Oh my god, they had to wait for a few hours? What third-world horror to inflict on the good citizens!"
It's all subjective, isn't it? If I'm trying to fly home to see my dying father, then yeah, I'll be put out by someone who causes the flight to be delayed when it could have been avoided. Doubtless, it didn't happen, but he had no way of knowing that.
It could equally be stated, in as mature a manner, "Oh God, he had to take his badge off? What third-world horror to inflict on the good citizen." Can I ask, why are the rights of everyone else on board not as important as the rights of this one individual?
I agree, he accomplished highlighting a dumb incident, far more as he exacerbated the situation to it's maximum effect for that. However, it's not BA policy, it was a subjective incident in which the cabin crew (and not the company) over-reacted. So I'm not sure what change he'll effect, or what exactly he achieved. Beyond self-publicity, of course.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 11:30 am (UTC)What makes religious reasons "special"? Suppose there were someone on the flight who would have an equally bad reaction to the headscarf as this hypothesized reaction to the button -- why should the hypothetical headscarf-wearer have the right to state her beliefs despite the possible consequences, but not the button-wearer?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 11:59 am (UTC)However, the point I was trying to make was that John Gilmore didn't have anything *stopping* him removing the badge. His religion didn't ask him to wear the badge. No harm would have belfallen him if he had removed the badge.
The same cannot be argued for women who have to wear head-scarves for religious purposes. Their (in my opinion) sexist religion would permit their husbands/fathers to beat them for removing the head-scarve. Therefore, I don't see how the two correlate.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 12:05 pm (UTC)Now, you may argue that political/moral beliefs don't count as much as religious ones, but that's up to you.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 12:11 pm (UTC)I quite clearly stated he would suffer no harm. There's a distinct possibility a woman wearing a head-scarve for religious reasons would. Bearing in mind there have murders/scarrings in the UK, perpetuated by males on their daughters/sisters for very similar things.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 12:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-08 12:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-08 01:46 pm (UTC)And you're right - this is old. What were we talking about again? ;+)
Actually, what I meant was (and I'm notorious for not explaining myself well - I should be banned from debate) that Religion, Religious reasons and Religious people should not be above scrutiny.
Al Queda could definitely be described as 'Religious Fanatics' (amongst other things). If a member of Al Queda was to try and board a plane, then I think their religious beliefs would be justification enough for refusing to let them. However, this is a particular subset of a religion that is at a direct conflict with the Western way of life.
On the other hand, we should respect and be tolerant of the religious beliefs of others, where that particular religion means us no harm. In those cases, I think it would only be fair to respect their right to wear a head-scarve.
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is, religious tolerance shouldn't mean we ignore the real threat of an attack from a religious fanatic. It's a difficult balancing act, I guess. Common sense, as with most things, should apply. Common sense should also have told the airline crew that the badge (button) was harmless. However, common sense should also have told (I can't remember his name) the man to let it go, and raise it with the airline later. Bearing in mind that word 'fanatic', as soon as someone got antsy about remo
no subject
Date: 2003-08-08 01:57 pm (UTC)I said something like:
"as soon as someone got antsy about removing a badge with me, I'd start to ask myself what their problem was, and worry about why they were making such a big fuss.
For the record, I equate 'religious beliefs' with 'physical harm' for this particular example. It's their religion that promotes the idea that it's OK for males to beat females if they don't comply with the strict dress code laid down by the religion. It's one and the same thing. I wasn't trying to change the argument, merely stating that it's more than mere 'principals' that stops women from removing their head-scarves.
So why did you take so long to reply? Been busy?
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:03 am (UTC)John Gilmore's strategy appears to be calculated to distract people from talking about the real issue of anti-war activists not being allowed to fly, and on to talking about why he wasn't allowed to fly on one BA flight because he refused to take off a badge. It looks to me very like an "it's all about John Gilmore" campaign.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:18 am (UTC)Two BA flights.
Just to nitpick :->
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 06:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 08:14 am (UTC)If the flight staff were to claim that a badge, containing as it does a sharp pin, could be used as a weapon and hence was a safety / security issue, then I think that is fair (it's not exactly sane, but it's consistent with the no nail scissors / files rulings).
But I think he'd have made his point better by recieving a copy of BA's conditions of carriage and taking them on in his hand luggage to show to the crew :)
no subject
Date: 2003-08-04 09:57 am (UTC)Yes.