This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← David Jones and the Muslim security guard

David Jones and the Muslim security guard - Comments

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 1 by AtheistEgbert

Right, here is the problem:

What is racism?

It's an interesting subject, and seems to cover all sorts of broad and narrow definitions. But what ought we to do about racism?

The state's solution, and the wider solution in Europe, is the introduction of hate speech laws. Thus criminalizing language which is apparently offensive. Offensiveness now seems to define you as a criminal.

Few people seemed to consider the ramifications of hate speech laws, until those laws were updated to religion in 2006.

Now we have a huge growing problem here in England and Europe, in trying to determine the difference between valid criticism of Islam, immigration, multi-culturalism, and being labelled a racist, criminalized and then censored.

In my opinion, this is a mad and insane way of dealing with racism, homophobia or sexism, or any other forms of social persecution, because it is so obviously open to abuse of power.

Any law that limits speech, with the exception of that speech effecting your liberty, is in my view not only illiberal but dangerous and will lead to tyranny.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:11:43 UTC | #924093

mjr's Avatar Comment 2 by mjr

I think he was unwise to make contentious remarks while going through security. The security staff are there to check for items that are dangerous to other passengers. They are not there to establish the identity of the passengers so it does not matter if passengers' faces are covered. I hate passengers who don't know the rules and delay the rest of us. The response was excessive but the security staff will always err on the side of caution.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:16:19 UTC | #924094

Byrneo's Avatar Comment 3 by Byrneo

You ask: Do we now live in a country where a person who holds a particular world view is able to enforce it through their professional authority?

The answer to this is yes, but it's nothing new. Can you think of a time when this hasn't been the case?

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:17:44 UTC | #924095

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 4 by Alan4discussion

Many security guards, and for that matter, some police, are not the brightest or best informed on legal matters.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:35:55 UTC | #924098

The Jersey Devil's Avatar Comment 5 by The Jersey Devil

I'm glad I live in Joisey where rude and offensive speech is considered an art form.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:50:18 UTC | #924101

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 6 by xmaseveeve

Surely the point is that face-covering should be banned in public, especially when a person is going through airport security!

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 18:22:52 UTC | #924104

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 7 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 2 by mjr

I think he was unwise to make contentious remarks while going through security. The security staff are there to check for items that are dangerous to other passengers. They are not there to establish the identity of the passengers so it does not matter if passengers' faces are covered. I hate passengers who don't know the rules and delay the rest of us.

While what you say is true, the point is that there is a double standard...if one can hide stuff in a scarf round ones neck, then they can hide stuff in a scarf round ones head. I'm a search trained ex-Royal Engineer, I know what can be hid and where.

The response was excessive but the security staff will always err on the side of caution.

The security staff were being tits.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:20:53 UTC | #924120

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 8 by Schrodinger's Cat

I've decided never to have a friend called Jack........as the consequences of shouting 'hi' to him at an airport don't bear thinking about.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:20:10 UTC | #924132

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 9 by Alan4discussion

Comment 8 by Schrodinger's Cat

I've decided never to have a friend called Jack........as the consequences of shouting 'hi' to him at an airport don't bear thinking about.

They're probably going to have a hell of a time with the connections to the new Bombardier trains! - http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:49:37 UTC | #924141

zengardener's Avatar Comment 10 by zengardener

Please don't laugh at the American asking, "Isn't there a law against holding someone without charge?"

Here, when you a fed up with talking to the police, you can just say, "I'm leaving." at which point they will have to decide weather to arrest or not.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:01:27 UTC | #924156

Functional Atheist's Avatar Comment 11 by Functional Atheist

A queue for airport security check-in is the wrong time and place for practicing one's smart-ass routine. The consequence of one pissed off smart-ass passenger is nil compared to the headache and reprimands they'd receive if they chose to wave through a person who is being belligerent, threatening, or rude, so of course it should be expected that security personnel will err on the side of caution. Remarks that imply bigotry based on race, color, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation are of course going to be a red flag that a passenger is a possible threat.

It should also be noted that mistreating low paid, low status service workers like airport security personnel is vulgar and unkind. The same can be said of any public expression of bigotry--we're all entitled to our prejudices, but that does not mean that we should voice those prejudices, or act on those prejudices, whenever and wherever it happens to strike our fancy.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:18:25 UTC | #924161

RomeStu's Avatar Comment 12 by RomeStu

Any hate speech laws should only be applicable to things a person can't control .... ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and not to something that one chooses to believe.

If religion gets this sort of protection, why shouldn't it also be an offense to criticise, for example, a political viewpoint, or even a strongly held musical preference (although abuse of Justin Bieber could be exempted)?

The 2006 extension of the already difficult to police hate laws to encompass religion needs to be revoked.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:28:53 UTC | #924165

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 13 by Alan4discussion

Comment 10 by zengardener

Please don't laugh at the American asking, "Isn't there a law against holding someone without charge?"

I'm not sure about the position on an airport which is private property and may have special rules on security. People are probably not going to get much satisfaction making complaints afterwards.

Security guards and police can certainly cause a lot of inconvenience to someone with a busy schedule.

I recall an instance when my ancient aunt, had her shared access driveway blocked by a nutty neighbour building a rock garden across it - piling earth against my aunt's wooden shed on the boundary in the process.

Requests to move this were ignored, so my brother and I started to move the obstructing rocks and soil out of the way. Being considerate we asked where the neighbour's material should be put. The nutty neighbour called the local police and told them her garden was being vandalised. PC Plod duly turned up.

He clearly had no idea about legal matters. We told him that we were on a communal private driveway, with each property having a right of access written in the deeds of the property, so we were on private land and had a written legal right of access to be there, with an additional legal right to vehicular access to our aunt's property, which had been obstructed.

He said he might have to make arrests if there was likely to be a "breach of the peace", which I took to mean he might arrest us if we were attacked for continuing to clear the obstruction.

So! giving him no pretext to intervene, we just stood there for 15 minutes until he was called on the radio and told to go and do some real work. After he departed we continued to clear the rocks and soil, and stacked the material along the hedge bottom, where it was out of the way - restoring the driveway to its original use.

Police can be very ignorant of the law, and security guards often have very little legal or other training. (As was revealed to great cost in the Lockerbie Pan-Am crash investigation.)

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:49:35 UTC | #924175

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 14 by xmaseveeve

Comment 11, Functional Atheist,

''if they chose to wave through a person who is being belligerent, threatening, or rude''

Do you think that anyone intent on blowing up a plane would be any of these things? Can't you smile and be a villain?

''Remarks that imply bigotry based on race, color, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation are of course going to be a red flag that a passenger is a possible threat.''

Spot the odd one out!

Also, I think that one's identity IS relevant when one boards a plane. Call me old fashioned.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:34:42 UTC | #924188

Dr. monster's Avatar Comment 15 by Dr. monster

everyone knows that you don't make jokes with police officers and security gaurds. its just silly. anywhere else would be ok but not near them. its like talking about bombs on an airplane you just dont do it.

they could have just taken him aside and told him off, im sure hes a reasonable man, but they over-reacted. maybe they were board and it was fun to them? stupidity shown on both sides.

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 23:41:24 UTC | #924191

Jumped Up Chimpanzee's Avatar Comment 16 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

It's one of life's unwritten rules that you don't make any jokes or smart-arse comments when going through customs or airport security.

The police/security officers made a mistake on this occasion, but that's always going to happen. I'm concerned if these officers are all expected to know how to deal with hate speech in on the spot situations. It's not realistic to expect them all to be able to make these sort of judgements.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:08:51 UTC | #924199

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 17 by Schrodinger's Cat

Comment 10 by zengardener

Please don't laugh at the American asking, "Isn't there a law against holding someone without charge?"

Not sure about airports. I know that people like store detectives etc, who are not actually police officers, have no actual legal right to detain. There's no law stating anyone has a right to detain anyone else merely because they have a badge that says 'Security'.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:46:39 UTC | #924212

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 18 by xmaseveeve

I don't think this was just a joke. It made a valid point.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:22:16 UTC | #924223

mmurray's Avatar Comment 19 by mmurray

Comment 11 by Functional Atheist :

A queue for airport security check-in is the wrong time and place for practicing one's smart-ass routine. The consequence of one pissed off smart-ass passenger is nil compared to the headache and reprimands they'd receive if they chose to wave through a person who is being belligerent, threatening, or rude, so of course it should be expected that security personnel will err on the side of caution.

What ? When did it become the job of airport security to check if passengers are belligerent, threatening or rude ?

Remarks that imply bigotry based on race, color, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation are of course going to be a red flag that a passenger is a possible threat.

Threat to what ? If this is the new policy how are Australian football, rugby and cricket players ever going to go on overseas trips again ?

It should also be noted that mistreating low paid, low status service workers like airport security personnel is vulgar and unkind.
The same can be said of any public expression of bigotry--we're all entitled to our prejudices, but that does not mean that we should voice those prejudices, or act on those prejudices, whenever and wherever it happens to strike our fancy.

How did he mistreat the security personnel. Did you read the article ? In any case when did being vulgar and unkind become criminal offences which enabled you to be detained ? Because if they are I've got a long list I'd like to give to the police.

I think airport security went way beyond their brief and I'd be suing them for wrongful detention.

Michael

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:44:43 UTC | #924228

mmurray's Avatar Comment 20 by mmurray

Comment 10 by zengardener :

Please don't laugh at the American asking, "Isn't there a law against holding someone without charge?"

Here, when you a fed up with talking to the police, you can just say, "I'm leaving." at which point they will have to decide weather to arrest or not.

The problem I think he had was he wanted to get to his flight. They would have had a problem if he just said he was going to leave the airport. But he requires their co-operation to move through to his flight.

Michael

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:51:24 UTC | #924231

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 21 by xmaseveeve

(Shrody, they can hold you until the police arrive. Anyone can make a citizen's arrest.)

Mike, that's why this is so shocking. It was the man who insisted the police be called. The guy should sue. The cops, I mean. No one should be coerced by the state into a confession of something they are not guilty of, just in order to go on his or her way. That's scary.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 02:42:20 UTC | #924243

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 22 by Carl Sai Baba

Even if we accept this thug's absurd suggestion that islam is a "race", Jones' offense actually appears to be not being racist, since he was implying that the same behavior should not get different treatment based on whether or not someone is a muslim (or perhaps a woman).

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:24:48 UTC | #924245

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 23 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 03:44:31 UTC | #924246

zengardener's Avatar Comment 24 by zengardener

Comment 20 by mmurray The problem I think he had was he wanted to get to his flight. They would have had a problem if he just said he was going to leave the airport. But he requires their co-operation to move through to his flight.

Very true, but doesn't even a private company have to refrain from bullying and intimidating people, even customers?

They held this guy in a very difficult position. They tried to force an apology, in a way they succeeded. What if instead, they overheard him say that security in general was pathetic, pointless, and just a big inconvenience? Could they make him apologize for that?

"Say you're sorry or we will make you miss your flight, have to buy a new ticket, waste untold hours and miss your connecting flight too? You had better have money for a hotel."

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 08:39:00 UTC | #924260

mmurray's Avatar Comment 25 by mmurray

Comment 24 by zengardener :

Comment 20 by mmurray The problem I think he had was he wanted to get to his flight. They would have had a problem if he just said he was going to leave the airport. But he requires their co-operation to move through to his flight.

Very true, but doesn't even a private company have to refrain from bullying and intimidating people, even customers?

They held this guy in a very difficult position. They tried to force an apology, in a way they succeeded. What if instead, they overheard him say that security in general was pathetic, pointless, and just a big inconvenience? Could they make him apologize for that?

"Say you're sorry or we will make you miss your flight, have to buy a new ticket, waste untold hours and miss your connecting flight too? You had better have money for a hotel."

Yes I agree completely. It's totally outrageous. They should be done for false imprisonment. I thought the Magna Carta sorted this out

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

Michael

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 08:48:31 UTC | #924264

Serdan's Avatar Comment 26 by Serdan

I don't know about Britain, but in Denmark it is very much illegal for a civilian to detain another civilian in order to force an apology.
It is also the case that the police must be contacted as soon as possible. The detained person should not have to request this.
The security guards and even the police officer acted in a very unprofessional manner.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:05:41 UTC | #924288

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 27 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 22 by Carl Sai Baba

Even if we accept this thug's absurd suggestion that islam is a "race", Jones' offense actually appears to be not being racist, since he was implying that the same behavior should not get different treatment based on whether or not someone is a muslim (or perhaps a woman).

Exactly.......it's back to the one rule for all. The issue isn't whether Jones was being an arsehole for passing a flippant remark, I think he has every right to point out the double standard, but that is just me. Perhaps he should have went about it differently.

Of course security staff have a right to detain an individual they suspect of criminal activity, anyone saying otherwise is being daft. How else could they carry out their job?

Security officers are not required to make arrests, but have the authority to make a citizen's arrest, or otherwise act as an agent of law enforcement, for example, at the request of a police officer or sheriff.

They do run the risk of legal action being taken if they get it wrong, but so do the Peeler's, what judge will find in favour of the plaintiff in a scenario such as this? I worked as a security officer at Belfast harbour for a while after leaving the military, so I've an idea of the situation we are discussing.

On a side note, I remember coming through airport security at Orlando and my nephew having a 4" plastic M16 rifle confiscated as a replica...4 piggin' inches...WTF....a 100mm piece of black plastic shaped like a rifle, what a retard that security officer was.....there is doing your job and there is being a jobs worth. Napoleon complex or what?

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:08:35 UTC | #924299

Serdan's Avatar Comment 28 by Serdan

Comment 27 by Ignorant Amos :

Of course security staff have a right to detain an individual they suspect of criminal activity, anyone saying otherwise is being daft. How else could they carry out their job?

That is not the case in Denmark. Security staff must only detain someone they catch red-handed. They absolutely must not act on suspicion.
Security people do not have any special authority. They are civilians.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:52:31 UTC | #924307

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 29 by xmaseveeve

Sorry that I can't remember his name, but an infamous imam (sounds like a superhero but is a big beardy doughball) was leading a rally in Luton, to protest the questioning of the widow of the Stockholm bomber. He was jabbing his sausage finger in the air and shouting and bawling that the police had 'violated' this Muslim sister, and they had 'tortured' her. How dare they arrest a Muslim sister? (She was an untouchable envoy.)

Why should Muslim women be treated any differently from other women? The rule of law must not make exceptions because of religion. The implication is that we dogs are not fit to look upon devout Muslim women's superiority. (I'm sure that some are hiding beards, and some also have willies, when they are men in disguise.)

It's ludicrous. Women must be empowered. Help them down from their blood-spattered pedestals to join the world. The Auntie Thomasinas in Luton who shout hate at other women: eg, 'You look naked. Who are you trying to seduce?' are, if anything, worse than the excuses for men.

One law for all. Simples. Is there a petition to ban face coverings? Excellent start.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:04:51 UTC | #924357

danconquer's Avatar Comment 30 by danconquer

It's unfortunate that there is - as yet - no independent verification of whether events took place quite as described: Thus far we only have the story from the angle of the aggrieved party. Whenever we perceive ourselves as the recipient of an injustice and then relate our tale-of-woe to others we always do so in such a way to maximise sympathy for ourselves, 'tis human nature afterall. Events may very well have taken place exactly as described, but a healthy degree of scepticism is warranted when - as is the case here - we are only hearing the story from one side.

The Telegraph itself has certainly shown itself adept at distorting the actualité with their headline which says "a veiled woman was not checked by security". That much is just plain incorrect. I read nothing in the story to suggest that the veiled woman avoided the security check: Well her face may well have been covered, but confirming identity is the responsibility of borders and check-in personnel, not the security screening operatives, so it's irrelevant as well as misleading.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 22:44:55 UTC | #924451