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

This is from a blog called http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/ , and was also confirmed at http://www.democracynow.org .

The gentleman was wearing a shirt that says "We will not be silent" in Arabic & English.

As he went through security, he had to go through a more thourough search, but was allowed through. Then while waiting for boarding, he was
approached by two security people and asked to talk. This is an excerpt from his blog describing what happened.

• One of the two men who approached me first, Inspector Harris, asked for my id card and boarding pass. I gave him my boarding pass and driver'slicense. He said "people are feeling offended because of your t-shirt". I looked at my t-shirt: I was wearing my shirt which states in both
  Arabic and English "we will not be silent". You can take a look at it in
  this picture taken during our Jordan meetings with Iraqi MPs. I said "I
  am very sorry if I offended anyone, I didnt know that this t-shirt will
  be offensive". He asked me if I had any other T-shirts to put on, and I
  told him that I had checked in all of my bags and I asked him "why do
  you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn't it my constitutional right to
  express myself in this way?" The second man in a greenish suit
  interfered and said "people here in the US don't understand these things
  about constitutional rights". So I answered him "I live in the US, and I
  understand it is my right to wear this t-shirt". Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank". ..... Inspector Harris said: "We cant make sure that your t-shirt means we will not be silent, we don't have a translator. Maybe it means something else". I said: "But as you can see, the statement is in both Arabic and English". He said "maybe it is not the same message". So based on the fact that Jet Blue doesn't have a translator, anything in Arabic is suspicious because maybe it'll mean something bad! Meanwhile, a third man walked in our direction. He stood with us without introducing himself, and he looked at inspector Harris's notes and asks him: "is that his information?", inspector Harris answered "yes". The third man, Mr. Harmon, asks inspector Harris : "can I copy this information?", and inspector Harris says "yes, sure". inspector Harris said: "You don't have to take of your t-shirt, just put it on inside-out". I refused to put on my shirt inside-out. So the woman
  interfered and said "let's reach a compromise. I will buy you a new
  t-shirt and you can put it on on top of this one". I said "I want to
  keep this t-shirt on". Both inspector Harris and Mr. Harmon said "No, we
  can't let you get on that airplane with your t-shirt". I said "I am
  ready to put on another t-shirt if you tell me what is the law that
  requires such a thing. I want to talk to your supervisor". Inspector
  Harris said "You don't have to talk to anyone. Many people called and
  complained about your t-shirt. Jetblue customers were calling before you
  reached the checkpoint, and costumers called when you were waiting here
  in the boarding area".it ...... I asked the four people again to let me talk to any supervisor, and they refused.

I'm torn by this. Do I think the guy was entirely 'innocent' in wearing a shirt w/Arabic script to the airport? No. But he passed security, answered questions peacefully and should have been allowed to board IMO. My BIL is a dark skinned Indian with longish hair and a very shaggy beard (to cover acne scars). On several occasions both dh & I have commented that he's "trying to look like a terrorist" to start something at aiports. Do I think people should be instigators -- especially at something as sensitive as airports? No. But the security people are just taking the bait and feeding into the hate. [/quote]

[Auspicious]

His feigned innocence in the blog entry is annoying. He's obviously very political and involved in these issues, but suddenly he's so shocked that this T-shirt is a problem at JFK? Please.

If he wants to be a rabble-rouser that's fine--the world needs those, they keep the rest of us thinking and help with the circulation of new ideas (at least that's what I tell myself every time Jerry Falwell opens his mouth), and "you have to exercise freedoms in order to keep them" and all that, fine. But then just say that that's what you're doing and don't act like you just don't understand how you could have found your unassuming self in such a pickle.

And I think they must have made him change his shirt for his own safety, not everyone else's. If he's a terrorist, he's still just as dangerous in a differnt t-shirt, but what's being avoided is some panicky knuckledragger jumping the guy and giving him a beating when he was really just getting up to use the washroom. Security has an obligation to flight attendants to prevent the situation of having to break up a mile-high fistfight in a sardine can. That's why they don't let you board drunk.

I think it's unfortunate that the reason they had to make him change his shirt is because there might be someone else stupid on his flight, but basically I'm not sure anyone is wrong here. He had a right to wear the shirt, they had a right to question him about it, and I think they had a legitimate (if unfortunate) reason for not letting him board with it.

[Gwendolyn]

His civil rights were violated. Period. Jet Blue was enacting racist policy. It doesn't matter if he was making a statement or not...that is his right. It is terrifying to me the bigoted behavior people are getting away with in the name of anti-terrorism.

See? This is my conundrum! I read Julie's response and thought "yeah - she's right. it was probably for his own safety." Then I come back later and read Caitlein's response and though "yeah. she's right too!"

ITA Julie - his "gee, why would they be upset?" tone was silly. Sure - he was flame throwing, and he should just own up to it. But for Jet Blue to say he couldn't board with it just doesn't sit right with me. If there was such a knuckledragger on board, it's HE who should have been accosted by 3 security members, not the guy wearing a t-shirt.

[Laker]

His shirt was not offensive, and his rights were violated. Even if he wanted to raise attention, they were complete idiots for biting on it. People that are offended by the Arabic language are racist.

They allow the KKK to demonstrate and people to burn the flag, but now they have a problem with Arabic script t-shirt? It wasn't obscene so therefore, it should not be regulated. He needs to sue.

[Gwendolyn]

His shirt was not offensive, and his rights were violated. Even if he wanted to raise attention, they were complete idiots for biting on it. People that are offended by the Arabic language are racist.

They allow the KKK to demonstrate and people to burn the flag, but now they have a problem with Arabic script t-shirt? It wasn't obscene so therefore, it should not be regulated. He needs to sue.

YEP!!

Wow Laker! Right wing and everything!

I agree w/you.

Here's an update

On August 24th, four of us, all white women and US citizens, wore these t-shirts and fl ew JetBlue from New York City
to Washington DC and back the next day. At no point were we asked to take off or cover our t-shirts, although airport
security offi cials were observing us. We, Laurie Arbeiter, Susan Kingsland, Caroline Parker and Ann Shirazi, fl ew on
JetBlue Flight 1309 from New York/JFK (dep. 5:35pm) to Washington, DC/Dulles (arr. 7:10 pm). Caroline and Laurie
sat in seat 24A/B, Ann and Susan in seat 25A/B. We were highly visible at JFK airport as we made phone calls, got
food, and used restrooms. At no time were we approached by security or JetBlue employees. We proceeded through
the security check-points and metal detectors without incident. We remained in DC overnight and fl ew back on Jet
Blue the next day taking a fl ight at 5:15 pm from Dulles to JFK.
Upon returning to JFK, we distributed fl iers in the JetBlue gate area to inform the public about Raed Jarrar’s experience.
The fl ier read at the top IS IT TRUE BLUE? and told of the incident in Raed’s words. We handed out approximately
300 leafl ets, without incident.
The Critical Voice fi rst introduced the WE WILL NOT BE SILENT t-shirt campaign in March 2006 as a creative means
to encourage dissent against the war in Iraq and the curtailing of civil liberties in the US, including racial profi ling and
detention of Muslim and other Immigrants. The statement derives from the White Rose student resistance movement
which opposed Nazi rule in Germany. The t-shirts have been seen widely in the United States and abroad at many
events and have been worn by various groups.
We have learned from press reports that US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) offi cials are conducting
an inquiry into the incident involving Raed Jarrar after a complaint from the US Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Democracy Now! reported that Jarrar, who is Iraq project director for the US-based human rights group Global Exchange,
has fi led a complaint with the ACLU. In light of our experience, there should be a full investigation into this
and other cases of racial profi ling and censorship of free expression at the nation’s airports.

and the link: http://www.parkerstudio.com/AAW/JetBlue ... ntweb1.pdf

Jet Blue is cruising for a lawsuit.

duplicate.

[Laker]

I defend the constitution on a daily basis.

[fluffhead]

That may all be true, and perhaps his rights were violated, but he still sounds like a wanker.

[Vishenka69]

I agree that he has a right to wear whatever t-shirt he wants but with everything going on today, for him to wear this particular shirt on a flight is calling attention to the issue. I agree with Julie that he chose to wear this specific shirt for a reason and he must have suspected that it would create problems. Saying that his rights were violated is one thing and sitting next to him on a flight is another. If somebody's rights have to be mildly violated in order for me to have a safe flight, then so be it.

sure - the guy was wearing it to make a point - but that doesn't mean he was dangerous. in fact - someone plotting something evil on a plane isn't going to wear a t-shirt that would draw attention to themselves. plus - if the t-shirt was the cause of the problem, then why were 4 white women allowed to wear the same shirt on jetblue?

i understand the idea behind 'if someone's civil liberties need to be curtailed slightly to keep me safe, so be it." but what do we let 'them' get away with next time? the actions of security that day did nothing to keep anyone safe. my husband could just as easily be mistaken for middle eastern / muslim as taken correctly as an East Indian (especially by someone ignorant enough to lump all middle easterners into the 'access of evil'). he may not wear a t-shirt w/Arabic writing on it, but he's got plenty of obnoxious shirts that could be offensive to people.

yeah - the writer's 'i just don't know why they were upset!' act is bull ... but the fact remains that they had no right to pull that crap.

[MissCrabette]

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.

Now you can look at the flipside and say that you cannot possibly prepare for all situations in which some passenger could be offended by another. I mean who's to say that a passenger won't be offended by someone who's fat? What do we do then, not allow fat people to fly? So yes, they opened a can of worms with their decision to deny him to board the plane wearing the t-shirt.

[Vanquisher]

There is a 1st amendment for a reason. We don't get to pick and choose what is protected under the first amendement based on what is offensive to some or even most.

I have the right to say the president is an ass, and that guy had a right to wear that t-shirt. He knew that wearing that shirt would inspire contraversy. That was the point, wasn't it? His feigned innocence was silly, but so was the reaction of the airlines.

My MIL was touting the supreme idea of racial profiling the other day. That's what we need to go back to, she said. Yes, because eveyone who has brown skin is a terrorist, and if they aren't, well, it is their fault for being born brown.

It is stupid. We, as citizens of this country, have the right to protest this atrocious war in any peaceful way we want, even on airplanes.

[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.

Also, if he wasn't wearing the stupid shirt he wouldn't have gotten pulled out of line.

I am torn. Yes, he has a right to free speech. But really what was the freaking point. If I was suppossed to get on the plane with that guy, I would have complained to EVERYONE within the airline industry until he was pulled off the plane. We are told to watch for suspicious people now....that is obviously suspicious.