The Friendly Skies
When I read that someone had been prevented from boarding a plane because he was wearing a t-shirt with Arabic writing, I assumed it was a minor incident at small local airport involving a confused baggage screener.
I was wrong.
Raed Jarrar was waiting to board a plane at New York’s Kennedy Airport with a shirt that read “We will not be silent” in both English and Arabic. He was approached by both airline staff and government officials as he was having breakfast after he had cleared security. Jarrar was told that some passengers had complained about his shirt and that he would not be permitted on the flight while he was wearing it.
“We will not be silent” is apparently the slogan of an organization who opposes some of the Bush administration’s policies targeting Americans of Middle Eastern descent. I don’t know anything about this guy or his organization, but that’s not the point. This is pretty basic freedom of speech here.
Now, in a society that understands freedom of speech, those confused by the writing might have asked him what it means. Sure, there will always be nut-jobs who are freaked out by anything different, but when these people complain to the cops they should be told “It’s a free country” or perhaps the cop could ask the t-shirt wearer about the meaning and then reassure the nervous passenger who was frightened by the shirt.
Unfortunately, none of this happened. He was trying to make a statement that people did not want to hear, so was not permitted to travel.
I’ve always felt that freedom of speech, religion and association are profoundly unnatural concepts. They go against so much of human psychology. That is why such freedoms need to be not only indoctrinated into us at an early age, but encoded into clear, strictly enforced laws to prevent get-reactions like this.
An MSNBC poll showing 60% of readers consider the airline’s actions approprate is not a good sign for American freedom.
The ultimate irony is that these kinds of arbitrary restrictions and ad-hoc rules are always justified as necessary steps to “protect our freedom.”
You can read the whole exchange here if you like. Kind of interesting how the detective assumed Jarrar hated New York.
September 1st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
I agree in general, except for the statement “I’ve always felt that freedom of speech, religion and association are profoundly unnatural concepts. They go against so much of human psychology. That is why such freedoms need to be not only indoctrinated into us at an early age, but encoded into clear, strictly enforced laws to prevent get-reactions like this.”
I think that is patently untrue – we can see this in Japanese society which without any strict indoctrination has a “what others do in the privacy of their home is none of my business” attitude. It is a patently European/Christian and especially American tendency to want to shut up others, control what they read, listen to and believe. Asia, and in particular Japan demonstrate that this is not the only way society can be organized.
September 1st, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Actually, I think Japanese society both historically, and to a lesser degree, currently is very restrictive about what is considered acceptable behavior. Until after WWII, behavior was codified to a much greater degree and violations were punished much more strongly than in European nations at the time. The actions of the Ministry of Education provides many modern examples, such as the installation of recording devices to ensure that the national anthem is sung at high school graduation ceremonies.
Studies of remote tribes throughout the world reveal very little tolerance of dissent and outsiders are often attacked on sight. Studies of other primates show much the same thing. By our very nature as social animals we feel the need to conform and to force others to do the same. Undoubtedly there are good evolutionary reasons for this.
Our modern notions of freedom or expression, association and conscience are really European concepts that appeared during the late Renaissance.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:56 am
There are many legal limitations on freedom of speech in the US. You cannot yell “bomb” on an airplane or “fire” in a crowded theatre. While I agree this specific incident is absurd (and worrisome), would you let someone board a plane with a shirt proclaiming “I have a bomb”? How about “I like to blow up westerners”? This sort of thing is not cut and dry from an ethical or legal standpoint.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:58 am
Good question.
I have to say “I would.” I think speech should be restricted in those cases where it clearly has the potential to put people in danger or cause panic, but not if someone is being an asshole or simply making people uncomfortable. So, while it should be illegal to yell “FIRE!” in a theater, it should be legal to wear a T-shirt that says “FIRE!” into a crowded theater.
While it should be illegal to announce “I have a bomb.” on an airplane it should be legal to wear a T-shirt that says “I have a bomb.” or “I am a terrorist.” onto an airplane. Likewise, a T-shit saying “I like to blow up westerners.” should be just as legal as one reading “First, kill all the lawyers.”
July 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
This is definitely over-reaching but the guy is clearly an idiot for wearing that shirt at the airport.
Also “a T-shirt that says “I have a bomb.” or “I am a terrorist.” onto an airplane. Likewise, a T-shit saying “I like to blow up westerners.” should be just as legal as one reading “First, kill all the lawyers.”” is not a good analogy since wackos aren’t actually going around trying to kill lawyers. That is just a saying.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
pretend to be terrorists
scare people on a plane
get thrown off cry racism
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
plan jihad for longest term
outbreed the infidels
one day vote in sharia
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
keep trying to kill FREE speech
someday will be illegal
to accuse of terrorism
.
July 29th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Personally, I don’t think the guy was an idiot. What rational person would ever believe that a t-shirt could be considered a security threat? I’m sure he knew it could make people uncomfortable or even upset, but there are many times that expressing political or social opinions will make people upset.
It’s a necessary and beneficial part of any democracy.