Arabic / English t-shirt wearer made to change shirts at JFK

No, the guy wasn' dangerous himself, but I think the point the others were trying to make is that his t-shirt might have offended someone on the plane to the point that a fight could've started. Flight attendants are equipped to deal with all sorts of situations but chances are they're not capable of stopping a fight. So I suppose his civil rights were trampled for the safety of everyone else on board.

but what about 4 white women wearing the same shirt? if the t-shirt was going to offend someone (possibly to the point of a fight on board) then they should have stopped the women, too.

take it the other direction: a person wearing a "jesus saves" t-shirt or something touting the 'one, true savior' could be offensive or inflamatory to someone who believes in multiple dieties, or none at all, or -gasp- a muslim, who believes in allah. or someone wearing a confederate flag on their shirt or hat ... but people are expected to be more reasonable about such things. Right - those people don't have a history of blowing up airplanes ... but like I said before ... someone really planning to do something evil isn't going to advertise it on their shirt.

[Meenah]

My husband wears anti-Bush t-shirts everywhere, especially the airport. It makes me crazy. I agree with what the shirts say, but don't wear them to the airport. He is always harrassed but he does it on purpose. My husband the wanker!! You should see the bumper stickers on his car, they are wonderful.

[Vishenka69]

As soon as people wearing Jesus t-shirts start blowing up planes, they'll be pulled out of line too. Same for white women. I don't agree with profiling based on skin color but more based on the passport being carried. I understand that not everyone in Saudi Arabia is a terrorist but most of them did come from there, so I'd be extra suspicious. How dark or light they happen to be shouldn't be of importance.

As for the guy in the original story, he wore the shirt to draw attention but then wasn't happy with the attention he ended up drawing. That's kind of his problem.

well, except that people wearing t-shirts w/arabic language on them aren't the ones blowing up planes, and the guy is an american citizen -- just with a very foreign sounding name (much like my dh's).

[pstone]

He has the right to wear the t-shirt, but Jet Blue is a private company and they have the right to say he can't wear it, especially if "other" customers are offended.

Really, can't yell 'fire' in a theatre and if people are scared or nervous about it in a plane, in a age where planes are weapons, why should jet blue not be able to say, "wear the shirt all day, it is your right, but not on our plane."

[Gwendolyn]

Personally, I would have much more sympathy for the guy if he didn't set the whole thing up. I hate the tone he has....he damned well knew what was going to happen.

That is the point. He has every right to set it up. It doesn't matter if you like him or not. What he did was not entrapment, it was free speech.

Other customers do not have the right to dictate what I wear on an airplane. We would probably could settle this decency situation in a court, but a private company can't deny services because other's are offended...Jim Crow, "exclusive" country clubs, or on the flipside, the guy who wore a cunnilingus t-shirt to the Wisconsin state fair and insisted on smoking in my child's direction....(I couldn't get him thrown out or his t-shirt changed with out a posted dress code).


As for racial profiling...yikes!!! It never renders an accurate and useful data set...just an easy one...and racist one...

[KCwife]

Personally, I would have much more sympathy for the guy if he didn't set the whole thing up. I hate the tone he has....he damned well knew what was going to happen.

That is the point. He has every right to set it up. It doesn't matter if you like him or not. What he did was not entrapment, it was free speech.

Yes, I get that. It is so very Michael Moore of him. On the flip side of this IF the guy would have been a terroist and actually blew up the plane or something...then we would be all hearing what a joke the TSA and Bush is because after all that has happened we let a man of middle eastern decent on a plane with a clearly shit-startin shirt. I GUARANTEE we would be hearing it! Furthermore, they STILL LET HIM FLY, he just had to cover it up!

I further agree with the private industry analysis. If you walk into a restaurant with an offensive shirt they can ask you to leave. Why not the airline industry?

What about my second amendment right? Should I claim my civil liberties are being violated on airlines?

For the record...he is NOT an American...
"Jarrar, 28, is half-Iraqi and half-Palestinian and moved to the United States last year from Jordan, where he was studying. The slogan "We Will Not Be Silent" has been adopted by opponents of the war in Iraq"

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articl ... 30-ON.html

I stand corrected on the citizenship.

What about one's civil liberties could have been violated by another person wearing that t-shirt? Going down that road would allow Heidi to say that someone wearing a "God is Great" t-shirt violates her civil liberties, or someone wearing a "Long Live the Old South" violates my civil liberties. Who gets to decide what is offensive?

Bush and the TSA ARE pretty much a joke -- but the guys on 9/11 were dressed like everyday average 'white' guys.

[KCwife]

What about one's civil liberties could have been violated by another person wearing that t-shirt? Going down that road would allow Heidi to say that someone wearing a "God is Great" t-shirt violates her civil liberties, or someone wearing a "Long Live the Old South" violates my civil liberties. Who gets to decide what is offensive?

I fail to see how that how that would violate her/your civil liberties...
I don't think that the other passengers civil liberties were violated...

The person who gets to decide is the person who owns the business. It is private industry.

This happened before on a southwest flight.

[pstone]

I don't get the problem here. He was not at the park, he was trying to ride on an airplane, and a private one at that. People are scared, jittery, and rightfully nervous about flying in today's atmosphere.

I never understood the right to free speech being the 1st, most important, or all godly right that so many think it is. His speech is not threathed, he can go yell on the corner about anything he wants.

He can wear whatever t-shrit he wants all day every day, but why do we think free speech means you can do whatever, whereever, and whenever you want? Never can I imagine that is what is/was intended by the 1st ammendment. Where is congress making laws limiting this mans speech?

This

What about one's civil liberties could have been violated by another person wearing that t-shirt? Going down that road would allow Heidi to say that someone wearing a "God is Great" t-shirt violates her civil liberties, or someone wearing a "Long Live the Old South" violates my civil liberties.

Was an example in response to this

What about my second amendment right? Should I claim my civil liberties are being violated on airlines?

I don't honestly believe that either example IS a violation of anyone's civil liberties.

If JetBlue is an entirely private enterprise - receives no federal funds, etc. - and therefore wants to make a dress code, then it should be posted as it is in restaurants where certain dress codes apply. AND - I go back to the point where if the shirt was really at issue, then the same standard should have been applied to the 4 white women wearing the same shirt (on JetBlue). Holding a brown person to a different standard is not acceptable, it's discrimination.

[KCwife]

I go back to the point where if the shirt was really at issue, then the same standard should have been applied to the 4 white women wearing the same shirt (on JetBlue). Holding a brown person to a different standard is not acceptable, it's discrimination.

Only other passengers were not complaining to JetBlue about them. As a business they have a right to choose the business of many complaining passengers over the business of this one passenger, REGARDLESS of race....not because of it.

"This

Quote:
What about one's civil liberties could have been violated by another person wearing that t-shirt? Going down that road would allow Heidi to say that someone wearing a "God is Great" t-shirt violates her civil liberties, or someone wearing a "Long Live the Old South" violates my civil liberties.


Was an example in response to this

Quote:
What about my second amendment right? Should I claim my civil liberties are being violated on airlines?


I don't honestly believe that either example IS a violation of anyone's civil liberties.
"

?????????I don't see the correlation???????????

I also want to add my fourth amendment right along with my second....see a pattern?

Only other passengers were not complaining to JetBlue about them. As a business they have a right to choose the business of many complaining passengers over the business of this one passenger, REGARDLESS of race....not because of it.

If I were to complain b/c I thought the t-shirt indicated a dangerous person / possible dangerous behavior, then I'd be plenty pissed if the airline still let him on with only a costume change. I'm sure there are plenty of alarmists who would complain if someone was waiting to board wearing traditional Middle Eastern garb as well. If the airline felt he might be a threat, but he'd passed security, they still had his luggage that they were able to go through completely legally. It is the responsibilty of a business to root out alarmist, inflamatory complaints and not infringe on others to coddle those people.

I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Vishenka69]

Holding a brown person to a different standard is not acceptable, it's discrimination.

The point was not that his skin is brown but that he's an Arab and a muslim and from Middle East. If he was a Hindu from India, this incident would never blow up to such a degree and wouldn't be a big deal/issue that it become. Like I said before I (and many others) don't have a problem with skin color per se. But there's no way I'm going to trust a Palestinian Arab just because he said he's harmless.

I get that - and I'm not accusing peeps here of being racist (truly sorry if it came across that way). The thing is: you can't always 'identify' a Palestinian Arab on site, can you? So the complaining people, etc. could just as easily have been complaining about a lighter-skinned Indian, an Egyptian, or a person of mixed decent.

Yes, once the JetBlue staff started questioning him, they would have identified his name/his passport - but that goes back to - if he is dangerous, then what the hell would changing his t-shirt accomplish?

I gotta let it go. I said I'm going to agree to disagree before ... I must just tell my fingers that. :chat: