Is It Just Me.......

[john225]

http://www.parkerstudio.com/AAW/JFK_story.html

[cole75]

I understand the passenger completely and this situation is saddening. I wonder how many complaints they actually got about the man's t-shirt. Travellers today are so wary of flying and they instintively are profiling every single person that they see. I know that when I am in an airport or anywhere, I am a people watcher, doesn't mean that I don't trust or become leary of anyone. I have to wonder if he hadn't been wearing that t-shirt if he still would have had people passing wrongful judgement on him just because of his nationality and if his airport security screening would have been what it was. It's a very sad state of affairs!
Nicole

[jfrenaye]

Well......I remember a story recently about a woman who was denied boarding in a similar situation.

While I do not agree with it, JetBlue is a private enterprise and is allowed to sell to whomever it wants--or does not want. That is all part of being a business in America.

The story does not say if these men were TSA, JetBlue, or local police. Judging from the dialogue, I bet they were NYC cops. I doubt the feds would be that crass, and JetBlue does not have a security force.

[weblet]

I assume you are refering to jetBlue's response to a t-shirt written in Arabic and English? Yes, I think so. It wasn't profanity, and as Raed pointed out, there is no law against it. But I don't think Raed improved on the situation by claiming his constitutional rights. Since it was claimed that jetBlue was getting complaints about the shirt, they do have an obligation to respond, which of course was going to end up in this sort of confrontation. Everyone involved here needed to walk a very fine line. Raed could have avoided the whole issue had he thought before he put the shirt on in the morning - "what kind of reaction am I likely to get?" It's the whole 'just because I can (and I have the right to), does that mean I should?' And Mr Harris didn't have to be an ignorant American by telling Raed essentially that wearing a shirt with Arabic script automatically means he's telling everyone he's going to kill them.

So, in the end both parties lose. Raed loses his pre-assigned seat, most likely because jetBlue did not want to take the chance of having an incident involving a woman and child, and jetBlue has a no-win customer service situation with a passenger.

It sucks to be an Arab/Muslim living in the US these days. When you go to the middle east, you are a US tax-payer destroying people's houses with your money, and when you come back to the US, you are a suspected terrorist and plane hijacker.[/b]

Sorry. But it is the way it is. Think about if it was 1939 again.

[Ned]

This is an interesting situation. First let me say I abhor what Jet Blue did. I don't think something like that should happen in America. This is not what I was taught America is about, but it is what conservative America seems to be about today, "It's my way or the highway."

That being said, what's interesting is that while ground transportation such as busses, cabs, trolleys and subways are considered vehicles of "public accomodation" aircraft are not. Aircraft are specifically excempt. Therefore, apparently JetBlue could do what they did legally. Greyhound couldn't do it. It seems to me we need some changes in the law.

Hopefully will hear from one of our member attorneys about this.

[jfrenaye]

Cabs can pick and chose their fares. Subways, city busses, Amtrak, and I believe Greyhound all are publicly funded or publicly funded to a degree so they are truly public accomodation.

[deangreenhoe]

I think all of the above are public funded except Greyhound, John. Of course the latter doesn't really care who climbs on board as long as you have the fare so the subject is a non-issue. :P

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfrenaye @ Aug 24 2006, 11:01 PM) 35482</div>
Cabs can pick and chose their fares. Subways, city busses, Amtrak, and I believe Greyhound all are publicly funded or publicly funded to a degree so they are truly public accomodation.
[/b]
I don't know about Maryland, but cab drivers have been successfully prosecuted in Pennsylvania for refusing to pick up passengers in different areas of the city, and for refusing to pick up passengers because of the way they looked; race and dress. The rules and regulations of the licensing of cabs prohibit such discrimination. There are definite limits to the right of drivers to refuse to pick up a fare. The reasons for refusing to pick up a fare have to be reasonable, and they generally have to be related to safety.

[tdew]

While I agree that this situation was not handled by Jet Blue as it should have been, I also think the passenger has responsibility to THINK. If you know that all security is at an increased level, you should try to avoid anything that's going to make your travel more difficult than it needs to be.
Parts of my family left Copenhagen the other day. They were at the airport more than 2 hours ahead of the flight time. They had to go through 3 different security checks before they got to the gate. There was no time to buy anything in the terminal, as the security checks took up all the time. They just made the plane.

Terry - leaving Copenhagen today - heading to Berlin by train then driving to Paris with stops in Germany, Luxembourg and France - then home.

[bravestar]

When I flew home from Europe last summer, there was a man on my flight that gave me the creeps.

He could have been Native American, or Arab, or any tradtionally dark-skinned sect like that. It was the first time in my life that I felt I was being racist, and I felt absolutely horrible for it.

The creepiness worsened when he asked to move to an exit row seat after the doors were shut. Yet, I didn't say anything, and kept observing for something more definite to determine if my feelings were justified or not. Fortunately, they weren't.

Perhaps that's what occured with the passengers at the airport - they were afraid, and their first reaction/thought was their only reaction/thought. They really should have paid more attention and analyzed the situation a bit more before they told authorities. The authorities should have been smarter about the situation, and JetBlue, while a private company, could have handled it with a bit more tact.

[jfrenaye]

Terry Riley has ALWAYS professed that we are the only ones responsible for our own safety.

In years past, we became complacent--anyone could come and go in the US as they pleased, no one looked twice at the mid-eastern person on the plane, but we were not living with the threat of terrorism on our own soil.

Unfortunately, the rules have changed. We need to be vigilant--as vigilant as possible, and let the cards fall where they may. In this instance, I believe it went a bit far, but would we be saying "poor guy" had he been planning on taking down the aircraft?

I am inconvenienced to travel today for sure. But I am happy for it. If I am acting suspicious, please question me on it. If someone else is, question them. Make the best choices we can with the information available and hopefully we will not be caught with our pants down!

[marielmsheen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john225 @ Aug 24 2006, 04:44 PM) 35455</div>
http://www.parkerstudio.com/AAW/JFK_story.html
[/b]

This is a sad comentary on the state of affairs today. There was nothing offensive about the t-shirt. The only problem was it was in Arabic Script. And I wonder if the same man had on one with Hebrew Script would the insigator have know the difference. Every mid-easterner is not more a terrorist than is every white person a racist. Time for us to look at ourselves and our actions. We owe this man an apology.

[REDJIM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bravestar @ Aug 25 2006, 09:37 AM) 35526</div>
When I flew home from Europe last summer, there was a man on my flight that gave me the creeps.

He could have been Native American, or Arab, or any tradtionally dark-skinned sect like that. It was the first time in my life that I felt I was being racist, and I felt absolutely horrible for it.

The creepiness worsened when he asked to move to an exit row seat after the doors were shut. Yet, I didn't say anything, and kept observing for something more definite to determine if my feelings were justified or not. Fortunately, they weren't.

Perhaps that's what occured with the passengers at the airport - they were afraid, and their first reaction/thought was their only reaction/thought. They really should have paid more attention and analyzed the situation a bit more before they told authorities. The authorities should have been smarter about the situation, and JetBlue, while a private company, could have handled it with a bit more tact.
[/b]

I've always loved to travel, business or pleasure, it made no difference. Today I'm struck by the overwhelming sense of anxiety many of us feel beginning when the cabin door(s) is/are shut and latched. I'm remembering that one of the cornerstone principles of this democratic republic is that all citizens have a right to a sense of security as they go about their business. In my mind, a perception of a threat should be acted upon as vigorously as an actionable threat. The t-shirt wearer loses. :angry:

[REDJIM]

This is an interesting thread because it says something about our national conscience.

We allow freedom of religion to all, but draw the line at multi-lingualism. I understand a bit of spoken french; my wife, the same for spanish. I can't read, speak, or understand any chinese dialect; japanese, german, afrikaans, or hebrew or muslem language. But I don't have to either, because the english language is understood to be the accepted language in this country. Our national language. If I lived full-time or nearly full-time in a country that spoke any language not english, I'd have a responsibility to myself and my neighbors to learn their national language. Period end.

When the english began their efforts to colonize Ireland, the first move they made to destroy all of irish culture was to ban the use of Gaelic by the native irish.

Proponents of multi-lingualism in this country today are promoting a more dangerous, albeit insidious assault on the American conscience. I don't like this movement. I'd never support any effort for an educational effort to make citizens and residents fluent in another language to accomodate a neighbor who refuses to learn english.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(REDJIM @ Aug 27 2006, 11:23 AM) 35660</div>
...Proponents of multi-lingualism in this country today are promoting a more dangerous, albeit insidious assault on the American conscience. I don't like this movement. I'd never support any effort for an educational effort to make citizens and residents fluent in another language to accomodate a neighbor who refuses to learn english.
[/b]
RJ, your points are all well taken. I too am against multi-ligualism, at least to the point that I believe English should be considered our national language, and that it should be the language of business, commerce, education and government. At the same time, I wouldn't want to stamp out the language that is the heritage of any person. Maybe that sounds contridictory, but I don't think it is.

Our country is a nation made up of a myriad of cultures, heritages, religions and "native" languages. Each of these adds to the rich fabric which makes up the "United" States. I stress "united," because that's what English had done until recently. With each new ship, plane, and car load of immigrants, over the years, those coming to this country, with few exceptions, learned American English, as soon as possible, American English with its own customs, idioms, and slang. It was expected and necessary. It became, perhaps, the one common feature of America, which we all shared through all the differences, and all the varied backgrounds we bring to American society.

It maybe somewhat simplistic, and it may be a symptom, not a cause, but multi-ligualism, it seems to me, is part of the reason we are becoming a nation of groups, fighting among ourselves instead of "uniting" together as a nation. We are allowing language to become a barrier, instead of a uniting force.

We all need to hang on to our culture, and that means our "native" language, but as part of our culture, our heritage, and not to the detriment of our country. Over the years, my family has learned Hebrew, the "Greek" kids, and there have been many, on my soccer teams have always gone to "Greek School," and all of my "Hispanic" kids learned Spanish, but all these kids speak English now, as their first language. Today, however, this is not the case. Here in Philadelphia, for example, we have many Mexican, Chinese and Middle Eastern immigrants who don't learn English, and who stay separate from general society, purposefully. Their self imposed segregation hurts us all, and threatens to fracture our society into the same kind of splinters, which has, in part, caused and continues to cause serious problems of hate and discrimination in Europe.

English needs to be returned to top of the language heap for everyone, and needs to be the language of the nation, and can then, once again, be the commonality with which we can bring our cultures together to the benefit of each, and the benefit of them all.

[john225]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(REDJIM @ Aug 27 2006, 10:23 AM) 35660</div>
This is an interesting thread because it says something about our national conscience.

We allow freedom of religion to all, but draw the line at multi-lingualism. I understand a bit of spoken french; my wife, the same for spanish. I can't read, speak, or understand any chinese dialect; japanese, german, afrikaans, or hebrew or muslem language. But I don't have to either, because the english language is understood to be the accepted language in this country. Our national language. If I lived full-time or nearly full-time in a country that spoke any language not english, I'd have a responsibility to myself and my neighbors to learn their national language. Period end.

When the english began their efforts to colonize Ireland, the first move they made to destroy all of irish culture was to ban the use of Gaelic by the native irish.

Proponents of multi-lingualism in this country today are promoting a more dangerous, albeit insidious assault on the American conscience. I don't like this movement. I'd never support any effort for an educational effort to make citizens and residents fluent in another language to accomodate a neighbor who refuses to learn english.
[/b]


I tend to agree with the post above, however, there are exceptions to the rule. I live in a state where there are large areas where English is not the first language of people, even those that are born here. The first language is French.

I would also assume that the same applies in areas of TX, NM, AZ, and CA, where the first language in areas is Spanish.

If the culture of the area is something other than English, and someone who only speaks English moves into said area, shouldn't they then be the person that should have to learn the language of the area, and not demand that those who do not speak English learn to do so? I know that this is an issue here in Louisiana, that years ago when the oil and gas industry was booming, people from other areas of the country moved down here, and not understanding our culture insisted that they did not have to speak French, and that we all had to speak English. Personally, I think that this is wrong. Because of this, the French culture and language is now dieing in S. Louisiana.

Why, should I as an American citizen, born and raised. be made to speak a language that is not my native tongue, if I choose not to? I have many relatives that to this day do not speak English. Unfortunatly they have to live a very insular life, and that too is not fair.

[Kairho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(REDJIM @ Aug 27 2006, 10:50 AM) 35658</div>
...a perception of a threat should be acted upon as vigorously as an actionable threat.[/b]
Assuming we can define "perception of a threat" as someone being "offended" about something then we start infringing on too many other rights including speech, bearing of arms, and so on. If I perceive a threat by my Muslim neighbor reading the Koran on his front lawn and am "offended" by that does it give me any "actionable" rights?

No, perception is way too broad ... and we already have sufficient laws to cover when someone's actions become illegal.

[REDJIM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 27 2006, 01:43 PM) 35672</div>
Assuming we can define "perception of a threat" as someone being "offended" about something then we start infringing on too many other rights including speech, bearing of arms, and so on. If I perceive a threat by my Muslim neighbor reading the Koran on his front lawn and am "offended" by that does it give me any "actionable" rights?

No, perception is way too broad ... and we already have sufficient laws to cover when someone's actions become illegal.
[/b]
Good point, kairho.
But, my perception would be: my Muslim neighbor reading the Koran on my front lawn. :unsure:

[bodega]

I would also assume that the same applies in areas of TX, NM, AZ, and CA, where the first language in areas is Spanish.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Here in CA, prior to being annexed, various languages were spoken, depending on location. The bottom line, is that English is the language of our country. I am a firm believer in keeping a family's ancestry alive. Keeping a native language alive within the family is something I admire, but if you choose to live in a country, you need to assimilate and language is the first step.

We do have a large Mexican popluation here in the wine country and it amazes me to talk with immigrants who have been here 5, 10, 15, 20 years and still do not speak English. This is especially noticeable with the women. Immigrants a generation and two earlier, were better at assimilating. I thought it might be due to their immigration status, but several of my friend's fathers came here from Mexico illegally and they learned the language. IMHO, what is sad, is that generation never passed their language on, and it is mostly because they wanted to assimilate and expected their children to as well. Neither of my sister-in-laws, one Mexican, one Filipino, speak anything but english.

Regarding the t-shirt message. Had it not had the english translation, I doubt it would have been an issue. However, since safety is paramount for passengers and crew on a plane, free speech is a nonissue. Disney has a policy about offensive clothing and it is their definition and their parks, so you either change or you leave.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 27 2006, 01:43 PM) 35672</div>
Assuming we can define "perception of a threat" as someone being "offended" about something then we start infringing on too many other rights including speech, bearing of arms, and so on. If I perceive a threat by my Muslim neighbor reading the Koran on his front lawn and am "offended" by that does it give me any "actionable" rights?

No, perception is way too broad ... and we already have sufficient laws to cover when someone's actions become illegal.
[/b]
You've zeroed right on to it, and you're right. It's a good thing we're a nation of laws. It's a shame when we and the government forget that. Unfortunately, I think that we're in one of those times right now.

[john225]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bodega @ Aug 27 2006, 02:08 PM) 35675</div>
I would also assume that the same applies in areas of TX, NM, AZ, and CA, where the first language in areas is Spanish.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Here in CA, prior to being annexed, various languages were spoken, depending on location. The bottom line, is that English is the language of our country. I am a firm believer in keeping a family's ancestry alive. Keeping a native language alive within the family is something I admire, but if you choose to live in a country, you need to assimilate and language is the first step.

[/b]

But there is no law in this country stating that English is the official language. It is just the understanding that it is.

What I am talking about is people who are born in this country, in areas where English is not the first language, and never has been. Maybe south Louisiana is unique in this, but you visit many areas south of Interstate 10 and you're going to run into people from 1-100 that were born in this country, and French is their mother tongue.

[bodega]

John, I thought these were interesting:


French (in its Cajun variant) is the second official language in the state of Louisiana
__________________________________________________ ___________________

According to U.S. English, the following states have existing official language laws on their books: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming. A small handful date back more than a few decades, such as Louisiana (1811) and Nebraska (1920), but most official language statutes were passed since the 1970's.
__________________________________________________ ______
Although the United States currently has no official language, it is largely monolingual with English being the de facto national language. English is spoken by about 82% of the population as a native language and nearly everyone in the United States uses it as a daily language. On May 18, 2006 the Senate voted on an amendment to an immigration reform bill that would declare English the national language of the United States.[1] The immigration reform bill itself, S. 2611, was passed in the Senate on May 25, 2006, and now has to go back to the House of Representatives in conference to make sure amendments are agreed upon.


As I mentioned earlier, had the t-shirt not had the translation in English, it probably would not have been an issue as no one would have understood what was on the shirt. One of my sons, in the summer, gets very brown. He also has a shaved head. He has been pulled over going through airport security, and he knows now, that he needs to pay attention to his dress and behavior do to the extra scrutiny he gets. The young man in the t-shirt was making a statement in an airport and we are all under that 3rd eye. I believe he is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I only wish they would also make vacationers from Mexico, Hawaii and the Caribbean replace some of their t-shirts as well. If I see One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor one more time, I will rip it off myself :P