Iraqi says had to change t-shirt before US flight

Yahoo ^

[sonsofliberty2000]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - An Iraqi architect on Tuesday said he was forced to change his t-shirt before boarding a flight in New York because the shirt had "We will not be silent" written on it in Arabic and English. ADVERTISEMENT

Raed Jarrar wrote on his Internet blog (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com) that he was required to change out of the shirt prior to boarding a JetBlue flight from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport to California this month because officials told him people were offended by the shirt.

In an interview with New York Public Radio on Tuesday, Jarrar said, "I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes and I know that these things happen. But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the U.S."

Jarrar could not immediately be reached for comment.

JetBlue said it was investigating the August 12 incident.

"We're not clear exactly what happened," JetBlue spokeswoman Jenny Dervin said.

The American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee said the U.S. Transportation Department and the Transportation Security Administration were also investigating the incident after the committee lodged complaints on behalf of Jarrar.

[Theo]

Then they re-issued me a small boarding pass for seat 24a, instead of seat 3a.

That happens to me all the time, and I'm a regular white guy.

[daybreakcoming]

Only an idiot lib would believe that Lebanese refugees were parroting the Dem talking points from their refugee camp in Syria!! LOL!!

LOL - you picked up on that too! Especially " unless you want us to make a scene"....yup, I can see these refugees using just those words.

[fortunecookie]

"why do you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn't it my constitutional right to express myself in this way?" The second man in a greenish suit interfered and said "people here in the US don't understand these things about constitutional rights". So I answered him "I live in the US, and I understand it is my right to wear this t-shirt". Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank". I said "but the message on my t-shirt is not offensive, it just says "we will not be silent". I got this t-shirt from Washington DC. There are more than a 1000 t-shirts printed with the same slogan, you can google them or email them at wewillnotbesilent@gmail.com .

Gee, curious choice for his flight. Sounds like he came ready for a fight, hoping to provoke, knowing he'd likely raise eyebrows with the Tshirt (much like the guy on my last flight with the f**k slightly blurry on his shirt) and ready to make a scene. He seems to think he's some kind of Rosa Parks (no offense to Rosa), ready to take a stand against injustice. The injustice Rosa stood against was real. His? Blech.

[MNJohnnie]

You do not have a Constitutional Right to fly on someone else's airplane. They can set the terms and conditions of your using their airline. IF you do not like the terms you can fly with someone else.

You do NOT have a Constitutional Right to be a pushy arrogant twit where ever and when ever you want. This is NO different then a dance club or a bar having a dress code.

[Matchett-PI]

It would be interesting to know, but I highly doubt if it was a set-up. More and more people are refusing to board planes or forcing planes to turn back if they become suspicious of other passengers. I hope this "profiling" continues in an even bigger way. It will FORCE the airlines to do more (profile) or face lots more bad PR and loss of revenue.

[ASOC]

WOnder what the story would be if the JetBlue folks had said "Please turn your shirt in-side out"

Jerk replies - "No, it is my right to wear this!"

JetBlue - "Fine sir, here is your refund. And we have entered your name on our database, you are no longer welcome to fly with us. Have a nice day."

Jerk "But, but, but"

Security guy "Move along there fella, you got no business here"

[Protagoras]

That is what should happen.

[monday]

"Sad case. They should have arrested him if there was a reason, else released him."

It would have been if he had been walking down the street in a public place. Obviously freedom of expression would have protected his t-shirt under those circumstances.

He wasn't though. He was preparing to fly on a plane owned by a private company. They can require their passengers to all dress in pink if they want. Their policy against shirts with Arabic script was akin to signs in restaurants stating "no shoes, no shirt, no service".

They don't have to justify why they require a certain type of dress code, but in this case it actually makes sense. Shirts like his make other passengers nervous. For the peace and well being of everyone, it's better it isn't allowed.

PS. If this guy is so disappointed in the US because he can't wear his anti US shirt on a plane, why doesn't he go back to the totalitarian government he came from instead of trying to turn the US into the type of totalitarian government he came from.

I am sure his old government would allow him to wear his anti US t-shirt anywhere he likes.

[monday]

"There is NO WAY the federales told Raed "people here in the US don't understand these things about constitutional rights".

Actually, I can believe that. I have gotten to post 21 and still no one has pointed out that no ones freedom of expression overrides a private business's right to require a dress code for it's customers.

He is free to fly with someone else if he dislikes JetBlue's dress code.

[monday]

"Indeed it is. And it is the constitutional right of Jet Blue to refuse you service if you do not meet their standards of appropriate attire.

You're not the only person in the US with rights, assclown."

Finally someone else who gets it. Onerat, this guy deserved to be pissed on, and from a great height too. He doesn't have a clue what is protected freedom of expression and what isn't.

His protected freedom of expression ends when he walks into a private place of business. As I stated in another post, JetBlue could have required him to wear all pink in order to comply with it's dress code.

[Just A Nobody]

My bet is that he staged the whole thing as civil disobedience to play the victim

Exactly!

You can go here to read all about his trip and traveling companions

[Just A Nobody]

I highly doubt if it was a set-up.

Oh, okay. While I agree that more Americans are taking their security into their own hands and profiling, it is not all there is to it, IMHO.

Please see my post #71. You can also go here to read all about his trip and traveling companions

There is FAR more to this than meets the eye.

[Bigg Red]

This guy is a Hiz'bullah mole in the US.

&&
You are probably right.

[Elsie]

...it is apparent that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

And a soul even worse!

[Elsie]

Only JESUS can save you!

[Matchett-PI]

OK - I see what you're saying. But there's nothing they can do if the passengers refuse to fly with him and his friends - or the pilots refuse to board because they don't feel comfortable.

[sonsofliberty2000]

And I agree with you to the chagrin of all else here I am sure. I doubt a terrorist advertises his intent.

[Fred Nerks]

from your link.

Looks like the Code Pink 'uniform' - hey, you could be obnoxious too, if you had as much time on your hands as they have...obviously, the pinko's and the islamists don't need to go to work. (And they travel a lot!)

Who pays the bills?

[Syberyenta]

Thanks! On the other hand, I've come to agree too with some posters here that a private business has a right to set a dress code, and with an antagonstic passenger like this, the other customers' comfort can't be ignored.

So the carrier would/might/should be within their rights to deny him passage-- even at their whim.

I am not a lawyer but here's a citation: "Subject to regulations of the Administrator, an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier may refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety" 49 U.S.C.§ 44902(b)

In this instance, it's the 'or might be' that makes it a judgment call, and wins it for the airline, IM(revised)HO.

[Just A Nobody]

Oh I absolutely agree.