Slashdot Mirror
Overzealous AirTran Boots 9 Passengers Off
An anonymous readerwrites "On Friday the wonderfully customer centric AirTran decided to remove a family of 9 US born Muslims after a comment between two family members regarding how close to the Jet engine they had been seated. The wonderful part is that after the FBI cleared the family 2 hours later, AirTran refused to fly the family, and refused to rebook them on their way from Washington to Orlando, Florida. The family purchased additional tickets on US Airways later that day, after AirTran requested that the irate father be escorted from their booking podiums by security. This whole story highlights the pathetic customer service we are getting from the Airlines these days — they actually treat us like criminals first and ask questions later. Just don't get me started on Delta." It's nice to see that stupidity still knows no bounds.
I'm glad the summary specifies that they were born in the US. Because otherwise it would be okay to treat them like dirt, right?
The only reason not wanting to fly next to the engine is a "security issue" is BECAUSE they were Muslim. If anyone else brought it up, the attendant would have sold them earplugs for $5.
Laissez-faire types will hate me for suggesting this, but this is exactly the sort of thing that should lead to anti-discrimination lawsuits. We make a big deal out of prohibiting racial discrimination in employment and housing, so why not in transportation? It's because Muslims are all terrorists... innit?
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
..that the "real terrorists" didn't succeed in their plots to "terrorize" Americans.
Refund has nothing to do with it. It was racism and racial profiling that got them kicked off the plane, interviewed by the FBI, their trip delayed, etc. The financial loss of the original plane tickets is nothing compared to the trauma they have had to deal with mentally.
Let's be real honest with each other here. I mean everybody.
1) A white family of nine people get on a plane. They are dressed in contemporary clothing. Three of the young adults make a remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.
2) A brown family of nine people get on a plane. They are dressed in traditional clothing of Islamic people. Three of the young adults make a remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.
Hell why not:
3) A Chinese family of nine people get on the plane. They are dressed in clothing straight out of 1920's Shanghai. Three of the young adults in thick Chinese accents remark about where would be the safest place to sit on the plane in the event of an accident or explosion.
The reason why other people felt uncomfortable on the plane had everything to do with the appearance of this family. Those preconceptions and stereotypes led them to interpret those remarks differently then they would have with #1 or #3.
It was racism. Period.
The passengers were at fault for being racists and reporting a non-issue. The airline was not at fault for handing the matter over to the FBI when the issue was reported. The FBI did the right thing by clearing the family. However, the airline WAS at fault for refusing to let the family fly on any future flight even after they had been cleared by the FBI. There's no legitimate (non-discriminatory) reason to do that given the circumstances.
These people likely had their whole vacation planned, and this incident screwed up their plans. One article said they were going to a religious conference, and it's unlikely that conference was delayed while they tried to make other travel arrangements. On top of all of that, they were made to feel like second-class citizens simply because they were brown and Muslim.
They have good cause for a lawsuit against the airline, and I think they should file one. I'm not talking millions of dollars here, but the airline needs to get slapped in court to make them think twice next time a situation like this crops up.
The fact that incidents like this keep happening show that bin Laden and his cohorts succeeded beyond their wildest dreams on 9/11.
When was the last time a white anglo saxon christian tried to commandeer and/or blow up an airplane in America?
Great point. Those guys prefer to blow up government buildings.
These are law-abiding citizens.
Except that they enter private property in direct violation of the posted conditions for entry. IANAL, but I think that makes 'em trespassers.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Anyway, the airline has since apologized and offered to fly them back home for free, and frankly I think that the whole thing got blown out of proportion.
Though at the same time, if it was in fact blown out of proportion (which I don't quite believe), I suspect that the only reason they got their refund and apology was because it was blown out of proportion.
Our intervention in the middle east over the past 200 years has bread suicide bombers who want us the fuck out of their lives. Not the religion.
Got a reference, bub?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_violence
There are many terrorist organizations which are not religious.
In fact, one could argue that a majority of the religious terrorism in the middle east is actually nationalist terrorism disguised as religious extremism. If you look at the causes which drive people to the al-qaida bootcamps: oppression (by US forces or otherwise - AQ was not active in Iraq before we had a military presence there), lower standards of living, and so forth. People turn to religion when times get tough. Other people use that to twist the religion. They convince people at the end of their rope that the only thing that will make things better for them, their family, and their country is to go blow up the people fucking them over.
The fact that you ignorant asshats refuse to wake up from your delusional world of hate and bigotry, and perhaps read why people hate the US instead of believing the line "because we're not muslim" is why we've had muslim terrorist attacks on this country and its consulates. Look up the term blowback.
It was racism.
No, It was profiling. A technique that combines racial, religious, ethnic and political bigotry to increase the sense of security of the voters.
You are conflating prejudice based on race with prejudice based on culture. They're not the same thing, although there's a large amount of overlap. I think prejudice based on culture is slightly more reasonable, although still prone to much error. After all, culture affects behavior much more than race does.
Different cultures evidently produce terrorists at different rates. That seems factual. The unresolved question seems to be, to what extent is it reasonable and ethical to subject individuals from problematic cultures to greater scrutiny? Not at all? Is there a certain line that shouldn't be crossed? Is increased scrutiny ok, so long as rights aren't violated?
I think not. From TFA's, it appears that the FBI agents did everything right and didn't push ANYBODY around. They don't have legal authority to tell the airlines what to do. They seemed perfectly all right with the airline making an ass out of themselves. When you have that much power and authority, and you're in the spot light, that's exactly what you do. Put on your dark glasses and play it cool.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It happens about as frequently as Muslim's trying to blow up our airplanes.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Well, the Irish have been terrible terrorists in the UK over the last few decades. Still, the cahnces of a fellow being a murderer just because he's Irish are pretty low, so picking on a chap for that is a little harsh.
This is a US born family.
US Born Muslims have been terrorists less frequently than Michigan rednecks. They're a middle class immigrant group very similar to Indians and Koreans. The only thing they're fanatical about is sending Ali Jr. to an Ivy and getting a Benz.
And this is also, coincidentally, the solution to terrorism. If we lifted the sanctions on Palestine and ended the prison-like occupation of the state, it would take 15 years tops for them to start caring more about cars and TVs than God and Jews. Has anyone heard from the IRA since the Irish GDP shot up?
Terrorism is for bored poor third worlders. Fix the third world and we fix terrorism.
Or we could just keep killing people and maybe they'll get less desperate and angry.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
The crucial difference is between changing your own behaviour, and forcing someone else to change theirs. Stereotyping others in order to change your behaviour is fine. If those passengers had chosen to get off the planes themselves because they feared the Muslims were terrorists, then I doubt anyone would be criticising them. But no, because they expect other people to have their lives disrupted based on their prejudices, that's a very different thing, and it's fair game to criticise them.
This also isn't anything to do with any supposed race vs. culture distinction - it's still reasonable to stereotype in the way you describe based on race (or sex, come to that), but again crosses the line when you force others to do so.
I'm guessing you don't know what rational means. Rational implies a logical reasoned cause. The probability of any randomly selected Muslim being desperate to blow up a plane full of people is trivially similar to the probability of any randomly selected Hasidic Jew/Quaker/Pastafarian/Botanist/whatever being desperate to blow up a plane full of people.
The association of Muslims and acts of terrorism is a decidedly fear driven, emotional, and IRRATIONAL reaction based on perceived portrayals in media (e.g. news, fictional shows, blah blah blah). That Jack Bauer fought some Muslims who wanted Death to America last season (a couple seasons ago?) is not the basis for anything rational. Rational bias is backed up by objective evidence and reasoning, not cause FOXNEWS tells you to be scared.
The "pattern recognition" you refer to (I'm figuring you probably mean some sort of associative function of the human brain), is a this-implies-that behaviour of the mind. These associations aren't necessarily rational, only if they are formed based on rational reasoning. Simply believing that Muslims are more likely to be terrorists does not imply rationality.
Fuck, I wish I hadn't already contributed to this article or I'd mod you up. You hit the nail on the head. For the record, it's reasonable and logical to profile based on culture. Our society takes it to the extreme (and beyond) and that is a definite problem. But the underlying idea(l) behind it is sound and perfectly reasonable.
The trouble here is that these people were only dressed up like Muslims. As an overall "culture", they are perfectly reasonable, calm, rational people, that make up 20% of the global population. I've encountered thousands and never encountered an elevated level of problems or violence levels.
Bottom line, fearing "Muslim's" is irrational. Muslim's aren't a "problem culture". Your stereotype is wrong or at least so overly-broad as to be meaningless.
And THAT is the problem here. Your applying your stereotype too broadly because you don't know how to identify the actual 'problem culture'.
Suppose a few Chinese men came to the US and were violently accosted by neonazi skinheads... and then returned to China and told their tale, and from then on, every white person who goes to china gets treated with "extra prudence" because they've identified "white people" as a "problem culture".
Would that be warranted? Of course not!
What's the difference?
Sure, to you and I a Nazi Skinhead might stick out in a crowd... but perhaps to someone from another culture, we're all just homogeneous white guys. Or what if the skin heads were KKK instead -- and truly inconspicuous amongst us? Would that make it ok for every non-white to treat all whites as as problem culture, due to KKK violence?
A reasonable level of prudence is required
No a reasonable sense of perspective is required. The odds that the guy next to you adorned with nazi symbols and a shaved head is a nazi skinhead and is likely to be belligerent and racist and is from a 'problem culture' is reasonably high, and you are justified in being extra prudent. The odds that the person dressed in traditional muslim attire next to you is affiliated with terrorism are a million to one - the odds that the normal looking white guy on your other side is going to mug you are probably significantly higher.
Yet which one are you eying suspiciously?
Flawed? Really?
So we are going to base "proper police work" on statistics alone? Profiling is ethically and morally correct by law enforcement and government? Since it is "good enough for government" that means that corporations can do the same?
Let's take your apparent argument a little further. Based on statistics a Muslim person in traditional garb can be stopped and detained repeatedly throughout his life. We can tell them it's only statistics and "proper police work". After the 10th time and they get understandably upset and depressed we can console them with the statistics:
"Look Abu, it's not personal. We know you are probably a good person. A patriotic American to be sure. You paid your taxes the last 10 years. However, as you can see from all these charts, graphs, and police reports, people that look like you are the most common perpetrators of these sets of crimes. By cooperating with us and being a good sport you are being a good patriotic American and a service to your country. Don't you feel better now?"
Or how about a young black man named Jamal:
"Look Jamal, it's not personal. We know you are probably a good person. A patriotic American to be sure. You paid your taxes the last 10 years. However, as you can see from all these charts, graphs, and police reports, people that look like you are the most common perpetrators of these sets of crimes. Statistically, we find more crack rocks on young black men in urban areas than any other. By cooperating with us and being a good sport you are being a good patriotic American and a service to your country. Don't you feel better now?"
I am just curious to by the way. You seem to be well versed in the statistics. What are the statistics about Muslim families in traditional garb traveling with women and children blowing up plains, trains, and automobiles? That's right I forgot. It was take your child to work day when all those men crashed the planes on 9/11.
Racism, racial profiling, statistics.... blah blah blah. It's all basing your judgments on somebody based on their outward appearances. That might be fine for your own personal behavior when you keep it to yourself. Affecting someone else life with those same judgments is where you go to far and you hurt other people.
Police, authorities, companies, governments, basically SOCIETY in general should not be allowed to detrimentally affect somebody else based on their outward appearance. The only thing you have done is perpetuate the belief that there are times that is OK to do this. I'm sorry, but it is not.
Blowing up a crowded security checkpoint at an airport would have a nice irony to it, in addition to the overreaction as all other airports shut down causing massive travel problems.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Kaffiyeh. They're fairly fashionable at the moment round where I am (Manchester UK).
And I wore a shemagh (same thing) I got from an SAS guy for two years in Afghanistan as a soldier in the US Army. I also sported a full beard and mustache* while there. You can bet your ass I shaved, got a haircut, and put that head-rag in my bag before flying home on commercial airliners. Everyone has the right to practice whatever damn fool religion they want, but the rest of the world should be under no obligation to ignore your chosen flavor of irrational belief in a magic sky man. It ain't Buddhists or Methodists strapping dynamite to their waists and blowing up people in crowded markets. If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one. Granted, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane (rather than showing up in a button-up shirt and slacks) but steadfastly sticking to your dang fool religious costume in the face of known public perception is asking for trouble.
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion; that getting your lessons on morality and ethics from a 2000 year old book is as wise as getting your chemistry knowledge from writings of the same era; that the "bathwater" of religious dogma has long since drowned the "baby" of spiritual fulfillment. But whatever the reason, I think "tolerance" of religion is as silly a demand as tolerance of a belief that RED means GO and GREEN means STOP in traffic.
It'll be interesting to see how the mods go on this post. Most people here seem to agree that religion is bad when it says schoolbooks should contain christian fairy tales, but from the look of the mods so far here, it appears Islam is seen as some sort of underdog against the forces of ChimpyBUSHitler**.
* Locals don't take you seriously if you shave. Lack of facial hair symbolizes ignorance due to being young or female. Says a lot about their level of cultural sophistication, really. Most of those folks are the local equivalent of backwoods hillbillies.
** I won't pass on my full opinion of my former commander-in-chief, but I will say "not my favorite president"...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
cough cough ... Thirty Years' War... cough cough (and since it was the continuation of a conflict that started in 1546, its more like the 102 years war...but whatever).
The problem is not Islam, the problem is organized religion that encourages fundamentalist teachings and the abandonment of reason. Islam is not really more vulnerable to this than any other religion, it just seems that way because the fundamentalists' cause is buoyed by moderates who resent political persecution of 'the Islamic world' by 'the West'.
A perfect current events example of this is happening right now in Gaza. Before the 'truce' expired Hamas was largely considered a failed govt. by Gazans. A average terrorist group but a failure at running a state. If a new (and fair!) election had been held before the truce expired, Fatah would probably have won. But now, many Palestinians who despise hamas will still support them, because they hate the israelis far more and want to deny them a perceived victory.
I am not talking about morality or what the israelis should be doing, and I don't want this example to become fuel for a flamewar.
I'm just trying to point out a universal human characteristic: nothing brings disparate people together like a common enemy.
The perceived strength of fundamentalist muslims is not a religious phenomenon, it is a political one. This is a distinction that many people miss, IME.
I agree with most of your post in a pragmatic sense, but it does raise some issues in an idealistic sense.
If you want to avoid being seen as a threat, it might behoove you to not dress like one.
This sounds an awful lot like "if a woman doesn't want to be raped, it might behoove her not to dress provocatively". On the surface there is some logic to it: if a potential rapist happens across a woman dressed in particularly attractive or revealing attire he may decide to attack her. So from a purely pragmatic point of view, it does make some sense. On the other hand, there's a good reason why "but she looked really, really hot" has never been considered a valid excuse for rape, and "blame the victim" mentalities in general are considered very poor form.
As you said yourself, it's idiotic to think a real terrorist would dress the part to get on an airplane. Yet for some reason it's okay to expect people to dress differently purely because lots of people have some idiotic notions about "what terrorists look like"?
Perhaps it's just my firm belief that organized religion is a dangerous habit that by all logic should be treated with the same disdain as any other self-indulgent delusion
It probably is. To find out, try a thought experiment: what if this discrimination wasn't occurring against people wearing clothing that implied a particular religious faith, but instead that they supported a particular sports team? Would you then say, "well supporting the Chicago Bulls is a dangerous habit and if you don't want to get kicked off planes you should keep your interest in basketball to yourself"? Or would you say "that's fucking ludicrous and I feel kind of embarrassed to be part of a society that tolerates such ridiculous and obviously ineffectual 'security' measures"?
Also, I think your comment about the mods here being pro-Islam and anti-Christian is a strawman. People aren't being persecuted and treated like terrorists because they wear a cross necklace or are dressed like a nun. Islamists aren't trying to get their religion's creation myth taught alongside evolution in schools. Apples and oranges.