Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

gotta love a backbone!

technodoll
January 23rd, 2007, 03:41 PM
he he he! no shame there! :thumbs up :laughing: (way to GO!)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21096410-421,00.html

UK tourist banned from wearing 'Bush terrorist' shirt
By Mark Dunn
January 22, 2007 01:00am

A BRITISH resident on holiday in Australia is refusing to board a Qantas flight home unless he is allowed to wear a T-shirt depicting US President George W. Bush as the "world's number one terrorist".

Australian-born IT specialist Allen Jasson, 55, was refused permission to board the Qantas flight from Melbourne to Heathrow on Friday because he was wearing the T-shirt.

Qantas treats the T-shirt as a security risk or clothing that could upset passengers and had banned Mr Jasson from wearing it when he flew to Australia in December.

Mr Jasson, who says he is seeking legal advice today to take action against Qantas, wants to return to London but will only leave wearing the T-shirt.

He claims the airline is denying him freedom of speech and trying to suppress a political view.

Qantas offered him a Qantas T-shirt so he could board the flight and offered him a seat on the Saturday and Sunday flights.

Mr Jasson refused unless he was allowed to wear his chosen T-shirt.

mummummum
January 23rd, 2007, 04:10 PM
Isn't it amazing that corporations can file (and win) Charter challenges on the right to free speech so that they can advertise their erectile dysfunction drugs on television but you or I can't passively display a slogan which criticizes a politician ?

Prin
January 23rd, 2007, 09:18 PM
At least it wasn't a weed shirt or something super lame like that....:rolleyes:

technodoll
January 23rd, 2007, 09:23 PM
or a photo of bush smoking weed :D

Byrd
January 23rd, 2007, 09:28 PM
Tee tee I should borrow that for work. We were just talking about a similar thing today, I said the shrub is one of the biggest terrorists in the world and they all laughed at me and stood up for him. I was completely shocked really. I didn't think there could be Bush lovers out there, especially in Canada. Then it went on to talking about how the war is right and all that crap! I was the only one in disagreement. I told them about the dog video and they said "no way would our soldiers do something like that!" Ours?

Well, this is coming from people who wouldn't watch Fahrenheit 9/11 because Micheal Moore is only trying to demoralize Bush and not a word of what he says is true.... yada, yada, yada. :rolleyes:

Maya
January 24th, 2007, 01:17 AM
So it's almost like the airline is admitting that Bush supporters might get violent. Hmmm....

We were just talking about a similar thing today, I said the shrub is one of the biggest terrorists in the world and they all laughed at me and stood up for him.That was a clever thing to say and it's not like the dumbass hasn't demoralized himself, he doesn't need any help from Micheal Moore.

What I don't get is why all the serious political messages are always on big over sized t-shirts? I think they might have more effect if we wore them on nice shirts and slinky dresses.:shrug:

TeriM
January 24th, 2007, 01:31 AM
LOL, I saw the headline and assumed it was more raw feeding pics :D .

hazelrunpack
January 24th, 2007, 01:40 AM
OK...reality check here.

The airline does not set a high priority on freedom of speech or censorship of speech--it does set a high priority on passenger safety.

Picture yourself at 39,000 feet with the guy in the seat next to you duking it out with the guy next to him. It would be one time when the window seat might not be very attractive to you...

Doesn't matter what the shirt says. If you think everyone agreed with the shirt, it wouldn't make much of a statement if you wore it. If you figured it would make a bold statement, i.e., possibly provoke someone or maybe just make them uncomfortable, 39,000 feet in the air is not the appropriate place to make it.

There is such a thing as good manners and common sense...

Just my opinion, of course :shrug:

TeriM
January 24th, 2007, 02:04 AM
Hazel makes a very good point :) .

Maya
January 24th, 2007, 03:34 AM
OK...reality check here.
The airline does not set a high priority on freedom of speech or censorship of speech--it does set a high priority on passenger safety.

Picture yourself at 39,000 feet with the guy in the seat next to you duking it out with the guy next to him. It would be one time when the window seat might not be very attractive to you...

Doesn't matter what the shirt says. If you think everyone agreed with the shirt, it wouldn't make much of a statement if you wore it. If you figured it would make a bold statement, i.e., possibly provoke someone or maybe just make them uncomfortable, 39,000 feet in the air is not the appropriate place to make it.

There is such a thing as good manners and common sense...However, it's almost like saying you shouldn't let peoople that have dark skin on planes because white supremists might get uncomfortable. How is the t-shirt different from just talking about politics? Not the brightest idea but it must happen quite a bit. Should there also be signs up in every row saying do not express your views someone might get upset? I hope people will have more self control than to start a brawl over a an opinionated t-shirt. I think the point you are making is that we should be cautious of people that don't have good manners or common sense. I'm not arguing, just raising some points.

I wouldn't want to draw attention to myself period.

mummummum
January 24th, 2007, 03:55 AM
While I take your point as valid Hazel, where is the line in the sand ? What if the T-Shirt demanded the legalization of prostitution or proclaimed a woman's right to abortion or the decriminalization of drugs or stated that Bush is a homophobe? Certainly the slogan was meant to be offensive and provocative, but how many others have been permitted to board a plane because the T-shirts they wore had equally provocative slogans but were not Bush/terrorist related?

We either have freedom of speech or we don't.

technodoll
January 24th, 2007, 10:31 AM
We either have freedom of speech or we don't.

Exactemundo. i wouldn't be surprised to find Qantas being sued over this... and losing. :highfive:

hazelrunpack
January 24th, 2007, 11:23 AM
Exactemundo. i wouldn't be surprised to find Qantas being sued over this... and losing. :highfive:

They might be, but remember that once that plane is off the ground, it is an entity unto itself. There is no law enforcement up there other than the crew and any air marshall that might be aboard. I think governments allow the airlines a good deal of leeway in deciding who gets on and under what circumstances.

I forget the airline, but recently a family was denied access to the plane because they couldn't get their young child under control during a tantrum. Their ticket was refunded and they had to find another flight home. They were upset because "if they'd given us a little more time we could have calmed her down"... But the airline 1) was not required to delay its schedule to allow them to calm the child down and 2) did not think it was right to subject the other passengers to the child's tantrums. Again, good manners and common sense.

My point is not that you shouldn't be allowed to make a statement, but Freedom of Speech should always be predicated on what is right for the situation. As an extreme example, if someone boards a plane in Canada with a t-shirt on saying something like "Canadians are all liberal socialist wienies" (sorry...just an example...not necessarily the opinion of the poster :p don't throw peanuts across the aisle at me!) it's a deliberate provocation to others in the plane...unless the guy wearing the shirt believes everyone agrees, and then he wouldn't wear it in the first place. What does he gain by insulting other passengers? Is his voice making any converts? No, the @ssh*** is merely ticking off a bunch of people trapped in the same plane with him.

Same with the "Bush is the world's number one terrorist" T-shirt. There may be some people on the plane who agree with him, but despite what the media would have you believe, most Americans don't take that extreme a viewpoint. So what's his point? He makes no converts by making fellow passengers stew the whole flight. If anything, his loses points because they feel uncomfortable with his statement. And there are always people to either extreme in any crowd who might lose control when provoked. And so the airline reserves the right to keep the T-shirt off the plane (note that they did not tell him he could not fly...just not in that shirt) out of concerns for the comfort and safety of their passengers.

Freedom of speech is a right in this neck of the woods and you can say whatever you want, but deliberate rudeness does not make anyone change their way of thinking or score any points for your side. Honest debate is one thing, but what kind of debate is name calling? My response to a deliberately rude conversation is to leave the room. How do you do that on a plane? Throw in a bunch of nervous grumpy people who feel trapped on a plane and disgruntled by all the waits and security checks and you might have a pretty volatile situation there. Back a dog into a corner and what happens? That's what the airline is worried about--maintaining calm on an airplane--no matter what the issue is (liberal, conservative, racial, religious, or disruptive behavior, like in that little girl).

Think how often threads like this one get heated, and we all get along pretty well. Throw politics into the mix and people get hot--same with religion. There is a time and a place for making a statement, and you have to use common sense and mature judgment in choosing that time and place. :shrug:

technodoll
January 24th, 2007, 11:46 AM
what's next... airlines prohibiting a passenger from boarding unless they change their t-shirt that says:

http://www.commeuncamion.com/img/teenagemillionaire_jesus.jpg

just in case some christian might be offended and start punching out the offender in mid-flight?... i mean come ON. it's a free world, we are allowed free speech, and if you don't agree you can always look away. most people do just that, every day... Also as was mentioned before, how can anyone know what might break out in mid-flight anyways? what if a peaceful baby starts having a fit and screams for 8 hours? what if a couple starts fighting? what if a passenger gets drunk and abusive after take-off? what if that persone wearing the "special t-shirt" actually helps calm the crazy passengers down? what if he's a doctor? you know?

there are so many variables and unknowns, it is unfair IMO to descriminate a passenger based on a t-shirt holding his political beliefs. he's not dancing on stage in the spotlight screaming that bush is a terrorist (a view that i agree with, btw), he wants a seat on a flight to get from a to b. something he paid for, btw.

Qantas descriminated against this guy, and they're gonna pay for it... :rolleyes:

hazelrunpack
January 24th, 2007, 11:53 AM
Maybe I'm just not in-your-face enough to want to force my beliefs on an unwilling and uncomfortable audience. :shrug:

technodoll
January 24th, 2007, 12:13 PM
well... that's what happens when you choose to be in public... you accept that there will be things and people that you don't agree with and bother you, so you learn to look the other way to keep it civil. take breastfeeding for example. i personally find it offensive but if a lady on a bus is doing it next to me, what can i do? she's not breaking any laws, it's my choice to look the other way. same thing if a person next to me is wearing a perfume i hate, or a t-shirt that is offensive to my beliefs, or is talking too loudly, or is has BO... if i don't like it i can choose to stay home. :o

when we start regulating society based on our fears and moral values, political beliefs, etc... it's one giant step towards a very dangerous State of Control. Isn't the beauty of democracy "letting people just be", as long as they're not breaking any laws? somebody has got to step up to the bat and fight for our freedoms.

I'll bet a million bucks... if a young sweet girl toting a baby had been wearing the same anti-bush t-shirt, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

After this incident... people will wear sweatshirts to cover their logo t-shirts, and once the plane is off the ground what can anyone do when the sweatshirts come off? Will passengers be required to strip at the checkpoint so their clothing can be examined for a possible offensive social comment, and who gets to decide what is deemed "OK" or not? you know? :eek:

no, this is just ridiculous and taken waaaay too far IMO. waaaay too far. :clown:

jessi76
January 24th, 2007, 12:17 PM
well said hazelrunpack. my thoughts, exactly.

technodoll
January 24th, 2007, 12:24 PM
i'm totally not "in your face" either and am always very careful not to offend anyone... sometimes too careful! :o BUT i wouldn't go around shutting other people down just because i don't agree with them, either...

mummummum
January 24th, 2007, 01:05 PM
Hazel ~ I happen to agree with your assertion that the wearing of such a tee is a display of poor taste and was worn deliberately, to be provocative and offensive. All of that aside, unless he is displaying a message which condones or promotes hate-mongering ~ his right to freedom of speech allow him to be as offensive, ill-mannered and infantile as he likes in his clothing slogan choices.

And dollars to doughnuts he will sue or settle out of court because that is likely why he put the tee on in the first place.

hazelrunpack
January 24th, 2007, 01:30 PM
i'm totally not "in your face" either and am always very careful not to offend anyone... sometimes too careful! :o BUT i wouldn't go around shutting other people down just because i don't agree with them, either...

No, TD, you misunderstand. My comments about being 'in-your-face were not directed toward you. (I'm sorry if it sounded like an attack on you...the dogs were barking and I had to go out and see what mischief they were in to... :o I probably should have elaborated, but didn't have the time... I was not trying to 'shut you down'.) My point was that I would never board a plane and then force an unrelenting statement of my beliefs on the rest of the passengers. I would hope that I would receive the same courtesy from them.

But, back on topic, you can not leave a plane. I, like you, will leave a room, change the subject, or stay home if something offends me. You can't do that when you're on a plane, even if it's sitting at the terminal.

The Jesus shirt in your post is a light-hearted expression of someone's spiritual belief. Sure, someone might be offended--but it's not mean-spirited or especially confrontational. A shirt that espoused the extermination of some ethnic group or slurred some facet of society would be. Do you think that a plane is the proper venue for such a statement? I don't. I don't think the airline would, either.

Mean-spirited name-calling is stressful to a lot of people. Especially in a venue that doesn't allow escape. It's only purpose is to provoke. It certainly will not win anyone over to the other side. Is the plane the proper venue? Not in my opinion. :shrug:

Are there proper venues for statements like those? Absolutely--even for the most 'offensive' of views. But passengers on a plane are already stressed just by being on a plane. Should even more stress be added? Not in my opinion. Evidently, not in the airline's opinion, either.

It's true that passengers may now cover up their t-shirts with sweatshirts and then remove the sweatshirts once on the plane. At that point, however, if there is trouble, the captain is the ultimate authority. His word becomes absolute law, simply because of the venue. If someone is offended and complains, at the very least, the sweatshirt would go back on. If it doesn't, and moods escalate, there would be an arrest. Is this censorship? Perhaps. But in that particular venue, it's proper. The safety of passengers and crew depend upon everyone remaining well-behaved and calm. It's much easier to prevent trouble than to stop it once it starts. No, you can't guarantee that it won't start, but you can help minimize the chances.

Remember now--this is not the government doing the censorship. This is an airline responsible for the safety of dozens of human beings suspended 39,000 feet in the air in a metal craft. Where does their responsibility lie? In guaranteeing freedom of speech? Or in guaranteeing the well-being of their customers?

I'll bet a million bucks... if a young sweet girl toting a baby had been wearing the same anti-bush t-shirt, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

I'll guarantee you a million that someone would object--hopefully before boarding. I doubt that the decision to bar the t-shirt was made on the basis of sex, and if it was, then the airline deserves to be sued. The decision to bar the family with the disruptive child was certainly not a sexist decision.

hazelrunpack
January 24th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Hazel ~ I happen to agree with your assertion that the wearing of such a tee is a display of poor taste and was worn deliberately, to be provocative and offensive. All of that aside, unless he is displaying a message which condones or promotes hate-mongering ~ his right to freedom of speech allow him to be as offensive, ill-mannered and infantile as he likes in his clothing slogan choices. .

On the ground, I happen to agree. In the air, I don't agree. Captive audiences are always unpredictable. It's one of the reasons that I don't like airplanes. It's why the airlines try to impose a little etiquette. The airlines don't give a hill of beans about freedom of speech where they think it might result in an inflammatory or even explosive situation.

And dollars to doughnuts he will sue or settle out of court because that is likely why he put the tee on in the first place.

I agree...I think you've hit on a possible motive. In which case, I hope the airline fights it to the end and wins. Otherwise, it sets a very bad precedent.

technodoll
January 24th, 2007, 01:50 PM
No, TD, you misunderstand. My comments about being 'in-your-face were not directed toward you

oh no, i didn't take it personally at all :p i meant to say, that's how i behave in public... carefully (you never know who is having a bad day and carrying a gun, LOL!). i don't feel like you shut down people for having opinions, on the contrary :grouphug:

we can agree to disagree, that's what Free Speech is all about :highfive:

hazelrunpack
January 24th, 2007, 01:55 PM
I agree! :thumbs up (Let's just not agree to disagree on a plane! :eek: ) he he he

Gotta go check out some more mayhem in the backyard! :eek: I think they're pulling the Sheriff's ears again... :crazy: sigh

Inisfad
January 24th, 2007, 02:09 PM
Regrettably, however, please keep in mind that the people who have done the worst things on airplanes, ie, 9/11. etc, keep a very low profile, don't wear provocative t-shirts, and are totally ingratiating until they are in the air. This fellow is suing Qantas, and hopefully will win. Of course, freedom of speech is not a black and white situation, as in the old example, that you cannot yell Fire in a crowded theatre...the law does not protect you when your freedom of speech negligently precipitates harm with forethought. The question here is that the statement on the t-shirt is passive; people have the choice not to react, as opposed to the theatre situation. The world has become a crazy place, where everyone is afraid of everyone else (frankly, thanks to Bush and other politicians who stay in power through a platform of fear). But civil liberties and freedom of speech are in a very tenuous situation. Last month a British airways employee was suspended as she was wearing a cross around her neck - a backlash against a teacher who chose to wear a muslim veil (sorry, forgot the name of it) and was suspended from teaching in school because of it. Where does this end? Do we all just have to wear black and white, say nothing, look straight ahead, etc. I'll bet that before 9/11 this fellow on Qantas would have been allowed to board the plane with a provocative Bush t-shirt.

technodoll
January 24th, 2007, 03:10 PM
thank you inisfad... your post was waaaaay better than mine for expressing exactly what i think! :highfive: :thumbs up

Maya
January 24th, 2007, 03:44 PM
Isn't the beauty of democracy "letting people just be", as long as they're not breaking any laws? Exactly and not hurting anyone else.

Tip toeing around fanatics is not the way to promote tolerance and safety in our society.

hazelrunpack
January 24th, 2007, 04:05 PM
But, Inisfad, we're not talking about a terrorist wearing the shirt to some nefarious purpose on the plane. We're talking about whether or not such a statement is proper when made by a citizen on the plane. It's much easier for the airline to minimize the chances of an argument on the plane by saying "no" right up front.

The airline is under no constraint to guarantee your freedom of speech. It has no constitution that it must uphold. It makes business and safety decisions, not political ones. Is Qantas a huge Bush supporter? :shrug: This is not the government stepping in to impose a dress code.

What about that family that was denied passage? Was that a denial of the child's freedom of speech? She was, after all, simply making a point...whatever it might have been. :)

As you imply, Inisfad--perception of the world has changed. If 9/11 had not occurred, probably this whole discussion would not be taking place. My point is simply that there is a time and a place for everything. Making a statement in front of a captive audience merely to be annoying isn't much of a statement at all--and could be potentially dangerous is some situations. Even before 9/11, I suspect there might have been some objections to a shirt espousing genocide or with a sexually explicit theme. The media would not have picked up on such an objection, though, since it wouldn't be politically controversial enough...

I am not espousing government control of clothing or free speech. I am a firm believer in minimalist government, putting its fingers in only where it is necessary for equal treatment and protection of all, across the board. But the airline is not the government and can set policy as it sees prudent.

he he he :D Oh...nor do I believe I voted the way I did because of any 'platform of fear', btw--I just agree more with the conservative agenda overall (and there are more issues at stake than just the Afghanistan/Iraq situation) than the liberal one. Do I agree totally with either viewpoint? No...nor do most people I've talked to. It would likely surprise you how middle-of-the-road I am overall--but if you're offered two choices, neither of which is palatable, you take the one that tastes least bitter in your mouth... :D

technodoll
January 24th, 2007, 04:08 PM
it will be interesting to track this "story" (if it can be called that :D ) to see what happens. could open a gate to hell if it goes the wrong way... :eek: :footinmouth:

Prin
January 24th, 2007, 11:56 PM
I think if the shirt said "Bush sucks", he would have been allowed on the plane.

Just for the sake of making a point, if he had been wearing a shirt that said "Muslims are terrorists", would you feel the same way? I wouldn't. I'd be disgusted if I saw a shirt like that, and I'm pretty sure the public wouldn't let it slide. I just don't think terrorism is something to joke about, especially not on a plane. :shrug: I think freedom of speech is one thing, but I also think that the anti-bush movement is developing a sort of mob mentality too. :shrug:

In the end, wearing a shirt isn't going to change anything in US politics, is it? So Mr Wannabe-Proactive might want to find a real way to change what he doesn't like.:shrug:

JMO

technodoll
January 25th, 2007, 12:08 AM
i want this t-shirt! :D :thumbs up

http://www.dandelionarts.com/blog/bush_shirt.jpg

Maya
January 25th, 2007, 01:40 AM
:thumbs up Might cause some trouble in the produce section though.

x.l.r.8
January 25th, 2007, 09:26 AM
oops, I but most of my t-shirts from tshirthell.com, glad i don't fly to often.

Schwinn
January 25th, 2007, 01:59 PM
Actually, if he wins it's total BS. Quantas is a private company (albeit publicly traded), it can choose who flies and who doesn't. Whether I agree or disagree with the shirt is a moot point. As far as I'm concerned, if they demanded I pledge allegiance to cabbage to fly, then I have two choices--pledge allegiance, or fly with someone else. This is no difference than if someone walked in my house with that shirt on. It's my house, I have the choice of asking him to leave. Any company should have the freedom to decide what they find to be offensive, unless it comes under the human rights act (race, religion, etc. which freedom of speech doesn't).

You can stand on the corner and say anything you want. But you can't walk into a store and do it. The store is private property (that the general public is allowed onto), and if the management determines that you are disruptive, than they have every right to ask you to leave.

technodoll
January 25th, 2007, 02:08 PM
but it does make for very interesting media fodder :clown: