Here’s a disturbing little tale about a gent ejected from a plane for wearing a political button.
Of course, the button said, “Suspected Terrorist.”
The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested, and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a “badge”). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a political statement and declined to remove it.
They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.
The writer’s firmly-held opinion is that security measures like, oh, showing ID before getting on a domestic airline flight are both unnecessary and tyrannical requirements, and his button was designed to express his belief that we are all, in fact, suspected terrorists, guilty until we demonstrate we are innocent.
I dunno. It’s certainly political speech, and I’m loath to see anyone hassled for that, but on the other hand, there comes a point where tweaking someone’s nose in standing up for your rights becomes not just their problem, but yours as well. I’m feeling a bit conflicted over the whole story, and I’m not quite sure why.
(via BoingBoing)
I think that the crew of the plane overreacted. I doubt a real terrorist is going to wear a button claiming his intentions. (I dunno, perhaps they feared that he had some in-flight disturbance planned.) But I also think that the guy is an asshole who apparently thinks that other people are on earth simply to serve as his captive audience. Conflicted, me? Nah.
Heh. Maybe my conflict is that I want to be able to point to one side or the other as being in the wrong here.
It seems to me that someone ought to be able to wear a button that says whatever the hell they want, even if it said, “Osama was right!” or something asinine like that. Certainly the government should not be able to stand in the way of that (and nattering about “federal crime” seems like it should be nonsensical here).
On the other hand, British Airways is not the government. And if the pilot doesn’t think the button is funny, should it not be his/her prerogative to treat it the same as someone creating an analogous non-dangerous disturbance in the cabin? And if the pilot overreacts too much, let the airline fine him for ruining their on-time record, or not playing well with other children or something?
I dunno. Still pondering.
What if the same fellow wore a button reading “Suspected Paedophile” while visiting a school? I believe the school would be right to eject him from the property even if it were state-funded.
Could it be that the author was fishing for more “evidence” in his lawsuit? Either that or his idealism blinded him to the feelings of others (the crew in this case).
Well, the author clearly has a huge chip on his shoulder, which may be part of my discomfort. On the other hand, to what extent are the “feelings” of the flight crew germane. If the pilot were a racist, would he be entitled to expel a black passenger (or would we be sympathetic if he wanted to)?
As to the “Suspected Paedophile” button — yeah, interesting question. Of course, schools generally have the right to boot off anyone they take a whim toward so booting, but the analogy is a similar one (as is the argument the gent might raise — we are all “suspected paedophiles” these days, having to take positive, if oppressive, steps to avoid accusation).
I think the feelings of the other parties who are trapped in a tube with this individual are very relevant. Not only were the other passengers inconvenienced by the authors political statement, but wouldn’t safety become an issue if the plane were airborne when the offending button was noticed?
I’ve had conflicting thoughts about this as well. But in the end I come down that the flight crew overreacted, and it was they who inconvenienced the passengers by turning the plane around, not the guy wearing the button. I doubt very many, if any, of his fellow passengers even saw the button in the first place.
I do think British Airways can conduct itself any way it chooses, and I do think Gilmore was being a jerk. But he was making a point, and I think an important one. We should all be concerned about what’s going on in airports, and whether what they are doing (or not doing) is truly making us safer.
I agree, Adam J., that we definitely should be concerned about what’s going on in airports, and whether what they are doing (or not doing) is truly making us safer.
Adam B., how would safety become an issue if the plane were airborne when the offending button was noticed? I imagine if the pilots suddenly swerved the plane and executed an emergency landing, safety would have been an issue — but that begs the question as to whether the button ought to have garnered such a reaction in the first place.
All that being said, whenever this subject comes up, I am reminded of a Dave Berg strip from Mad in the 70s, at a time when plane hijacking was big news.
A man and woman are going through the airport, and he’s nagging her about not making any jokes or stupid comments about airport security or hijacking or anything that might be considered a threat.
She agrees, and mentions that she heard what movie they were going to be seeing on the flight: The Omega Man.
The guy shouts, “Not that bomb!” — and is immediately tackled by security guards.
Which, I suppose, goes to show that the more things change …
Shortly after 9/11, an email came out that supposedly quoted a pilots address to the passengers on board. The quoted speech listed out actions to take against individuals who may be terrorists. My concern for safety was for the author if one of the more paranoid passengers were to take action against a “suspected terrorist”.
As far as to who is the cause of the inconvenience, I still say it’s the author’s. The flight crew overreacted, yes, but if they are to err, isn’t it better to err on the side of caution?
Does anyone really think that this guy’s button would make anyone believe he was actually a terrorist? Is that the issue? It seems clear to me that Gilmore’s button branded him a troublemaker in the eyes of the crew who saw it, but in absence of actual troublemaking (i.e., any *behavior* beyond that of your ordinary passenger), I still think the blame falls squarely with the crew.
Haven’t you read the Darwin Awards or viewed any of “America’s Funniest Home Videos”? We live in a world of numbskulls overzealous paranoids who I wouldn’t put anything past.
So, Adam B., is it your thought that the gent should not have been allowed to wear the button because some overzealous paranoids might have thought he was a terrorist in-flight and caused a safety problem?
I hate to dumb down the world (or abridge freedoms) based on the lowest common denominator.
Perhaps we need to add to the in-flight safety lecture instruction on what, or what not, is terrorist activity that should be stopped by passengers.
When I hear of passengers defecating, urinating, and getting into fist fights while on the plane, it reafirms my belief that human beings are capable of very surprising and irrational behaviour.
As far as abriding freedoms, this was not the government censoring a citizens right to free speech. It is a corporation attempting to curtail a problem (in the eyes of the crew). I won’t fault them for that.