Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
did anyone else see this?
is that t-shirt a security threat?
I hate airports these days
'security threat' my arse
when I read he was 55, and not a 14 year old Green Day fan.
now all I need to do is get on a qantas flight and complain about someone in a razorlight t-shirt. Or someone with a really annoying haircut. Or face.
or smelly feet
or bad breath
that is the best bit.
a security issue nor an issue of freedom of speech, surely?
A tub-thumping PR exercise for Qantas?
it's just two morons clashing over sod all ...
so you consider that the guy in the T-shirt was a moron? You don't think he has the right to be a moron?
I mean seriously jj - do you think that one gives up all of one's rights on entering marshalled airspace?
and i do think the actions of the airline are ridiculous. i just think it's a little extreme to pretend it's an assault on freedom of speech.
to refuse to provide said service on whatever grounds they choose.
Companies are not allowed to refuse to serve on whatever grounds they like, that is just sooooooo wrong, proof of what those grounds are is another thing.
It would be an area of contention whether or not his freedom of speech had been curtailed.
It would then be another matter as to whether airlines private company were then meant to allow freedom of speech.
The thing is the t shirt is not verbally abusive, nor does it directly attack any of the passengers likely to be on the flight........his political stance, as indicated by the shirt might be objected to by the passengers.
Quantas might argue that one of the passengers might have had a relative killed by a more 'conventional terrorist' and might have been upset, but that is a silly argument as much media piped onto airlines media systems contains stuf that could offend people in a similar way (how about comedians using cancer in some joke, what about people bereaved by such a thing?)
Maybe the real issue is would the airline have banned a tshirt saying something. 'I back the US', or 'Bush is great'.
Then that would be illegal.
If someone refused to serve someone because of their gender, then under most circumstances that would be illegal.
If someone refused to serve someone because of their religeon then under most circumstances that would be illegal.
If someone refused to serve someone because they were ginger, then that SHOULD be illegal, but I am not sure if in the absence of a clearly defined law that the 'sheep like' judiciary would have the initiative to prosecute.
In some circumstances it may be illegal or may not be illegal not to serve a very overweight person
"If a company refused to serve someone because of their race. Then that would be illegal. "
But that is because it is strictly prohibited by law. The action by Quantas is really no different to a nightclub having a dress code...
but although it might be considered dress code I submit it is not, I am sure I would not be stopped if I had an 'Anarchy in the UK' or 'God save the queen', Tee shirt. (and they might offend some people) I am sure that the crux of the matter might be that they, were objecting because of the professed political view, as I have said if they would also stop someone from wearing an equivalent 'pro war' tshirt then I think they would be more justified.......I guess the issue here is, were they stopping one form of political expression only......that is what is at the heart of the 'hoo ha'....of course this cannot be proved.
I am not sure if a company that is a national airline should be stopping only one side of political expression, or not, you may argue that it is a private company......well yes and no, national airlines are granted special rights and permissions that are government granted.
I would have thought that it would be up to Australian public and government to have an argument/discussion about this
of a moron than Quantas personell.
I would not forfit my money for that.
I would simply agree put buttoned shirt over the t shirt then as soon as possible remove the outer shirt again.
Getting forcably evicted from the plane for wearing a t shirt would be far better headlines.
I suppose the vague argument the airline might vaunt would be that other passengers might be affeared that he was an anti westernist who might therefore be a terrorist.......however it is interesting that Quantas seem to know what their passengers are offended by,
I would bet that most Australians would be against the war in iraq and would criticise bush, so Quantas do seem bizarre.
Still many corporations would rather deal with polite facists than angry rude activists, it allows consumerism to procede smoothly
were the quantas personnel not being jobsworth cunts rather than 'polite fascists'?
i dunno if most people in australia would be against the war in iraq, mind.
the american bit of this is quite interesting...
but that was 2003 - this is 2007
Another 75 people dead and 160 injured in a Baghdad market bomb today so it goes...
i just thought it was interesting that there wasn't a majority of people who supported war in the US, even as the war was beginning.
interesting in the sense that the mainstream media gave us absolutely no idea of this
perhaps this guy should have been more subtle in his attire - maybe a t-shirt with Bush and the slogan "Our Imperial majesty and his court bring eternal salvation and blessings of grace upon the right-thinking consumers of American products.... and damn all the nonbelievers to the fiery depths of hell'
When I said polite facists, I didnt mean the quantas staff I meant that companies will often deal with people no matter what their motives (unless they risk financial loss from bad publicity) rather than rude but worthy, moralistic people.
The Quantas people were almost certainly jobsworth but carrying it too far
"Security threat", yeah coz every genuine terrorist would wear a t-shirt declaring Bush to be a terrorist. "Ooh yeah that'll throw them off the track".
trying to throw me off the track?
railtrack track wearing a t shirt saying
'Dearing ruined our railways'
I am, I meant 'Beeching' of course.....not 'Dearing'
do you think the mainstream media would report heavily if, let's say Iran brought in legislation that effectively outlawed Jews and led to their citizenship's being revoked?
because I haven't heard anything about this in the mainstream media;
I am not particularly suprised.
This is surely a breech of international laws.
what I don't get though is how this law can be passed and workable if the Attorney General is against it
and surely it should have been reported in the mainstream media - as it undoubtedly would if it was an Iran/Jew situation
does it violate?
though I would have thought (I hope at least) that the Israeli Attorney General is
says it MIGHT violate international law ... you wouldn't assume the Attorney General in the UK was apolitical, so why make that assumption about Israel?
'The Israeli Attorney General called the law, "a drastic and extreme move that harms civil liberties." He also stated that the new law violates international law.'
I wasn't assuming he is apolitical - I was assuming he know ssomething about international law
I dont see why the presumption of what the law should be (just because an instance of it hasnt yet been tested) cant be made.
In this case this should have to be illegal for instances that I mention below\/ this can of course happen in every other country as well as UK and US. For citizenship to be taken away there must be a good reason (religeon/culture is not regarded as one) I am pretty certain that given a library I would soon dig out some past legislation that would cover this some way or another.
you can offer citizenship to whoever you want, surely?
supposing a muslim israeli in th uk goes to the israeli embassy, hands over his passport and asks is it still valid, the israeli embassy then says no you are no longer a citizen and confiscates his passport, so he can no longer leave the UK on a flight back to israel, yet he only has a brief visa for the UK.
Where does that leave the UK (similarly for the US) that would be bizarre, I would have thought for this sort of reason, if nothing else, the UK/US would have objected.
though something else has just occurred to me
this law might not be about revoking the citizenship of Arabs at all - it might be more directly a threat of legal action against Israeli journalists for publishing anything against the Israeli President regarding the rape allegations or even the Knesset regarding their conduct against Lebanon, Hamas, etc.
It's very McCarthyist
Is he ok do you think?
with a ludicrous number of example of things like this. people who left the occupied territories and came to the UK on temporary visas and now neither the PA or Israel will have them back...
I mean if they went there with a passport and rhe passport was then removed for no good reason.
Does the UK have to support them, do we invoice Israel for costs we incur?
really incur any costs. I know a man who has no status in this country but no other country is willing to take him. He has been living here without any income at all for about 7 months. Dreadful situation.
What is worth nothing is that the country he lived in before he came to this one (UAE) are resolute that they won't have him back either. It staggers me how much every country in the middle east seems to loathe the palestinians...
these peoples status then? Is their status 'indeterminable'? and doesnt the UN therefore, get really angry with the countries that do this to their 'citizens' because of the problems this causes?
Which still would take us back to Anschuls point that surely the UN should object in the strongest terms to this sort of behaviour.
What I also find wierd is that if you know of loads of examples of this happeneing, then surely their country of origin is culpable in deception towards the 'recieving' country, by granting them a visa/right to leave in the first place?
'yesss' YESSS YESSssss oh yes'
RATM type day.