Fireman Sam creator held at Airport

Where is this "so-called" war on terror? This man made a very valid non-racist comment & this is how he's treated!

Several points are raised here..police attended, refused to arrest him but forced him to apologise? Really? do we want another 9/11 or 7/7? Whenever a citizen calls police regarding an incident, they tend to wait hours & that is if they feel the incident is worth attending, otherwise they do not. amazing that they attend racist incidents PDQ!

Islam is supposed to be all about peace. In all aspects of islamic life, I agree with their culture, but after 9/11 & 7/7, surely Islam should realise that for their own as well as others protection, security matters....or is it that they only care about themselves & stuff all kuffars?

---

P.C gone mad for sure

Islam is supposed to be all about peace. In all aspects of islamic life

Well, it is supposed to be like this as you say. But when Clerics realised
that through religion they had great power and control over people they went on to
abuse this power. Went on to use this for their own self interests. I think
Christianity did this too at one time eons ago....many a perceived witch suffered
at the discretion of the local clergy....."duck anyone", whoops! wrong thread??

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

P.C gone mad for sure

Seems the person mistakenly believed that he had a right to free speech, to the best of my knowledge no such right exists in the UK. Rather bizarrely, even though the European Convention on Human Rights does have such a right, the UK's implementation of the Convention has several exceptions to it, including incitement to religious hatred. I would hope that, had this individual been arrested and charged under that Act, a judge would have thrown it out of court as a frivolous waste of his/her time and charged the prosecution with contempt.

To my mind, the issue is not about being "PC", it's about the powers of airport security folks.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And just what does making a racist comment have to do with airport security? Unless it would be clearly threatening.
Neither of which were his comments.
I feel so much safer now.

Such an amazing display of stupidity on the part of those charged with protecting us from 'terror'.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

P.C gone mad for sure

Seems the person mistakenly believed that he had a right to free speech, to the best of my knowledge no such right exists in the UK. Rather bizarrely, even though the European Convention on Human Rights does have such a right, the UK's implementation of the Convention has several exceptions to it, including incitement to religious hatred. I would hope that, had this individual been arrested and charged under that Act, a judge would have thrown it out of court as a frivolous waste of his/her time and charged the prosecution with contempt.

To my mind, the issue is not about being "PC", it's about the powers of airport security folks.

I beg your pardon? The man was making a clear comment on the hyprocisy of the PC Brigade - we have to endure all those security measures while they walk through?

Just where on the report is it stated he was inciting hatred? With many like you in the USA, it looks like 9/11 could happen again!

---

And what if his religion is new and all men must keep their faces covered with plaid colorings. Perhaps he should investigate how to start his own religion

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

And what if his religion is new and all men must keep their faces covered with plaid colorings. Perhaps he should investigate how to start his own religion

...then he'll have to wait a 1000 years until the politicians off the day create new laws to protect that religion..at the expense of others as today!

---

P.C gone mad for sure

Seems the person mistakenly believed that he had a right to free speech, to the best of my knowledge no such right exists in the UK. Rather bizarrely, even though the European Convention on Human Rights does have such a right, the UK's implementation of the Convention has several exceptions to it, including incitement to religious hatred. I would hope that, had this individual been arrested and charged under that Act, a judge would have thrown it out of court as a frivolous waste of his/her time and charged the prosecution with contempt.

To my mind, the issue is not about being "PC", it's about the powers of airport security folks.

I beg your pardon? The man was making a clear comment on the hyprocisy of the PC Brigade - we have to endure all those security measures while they walk through?

Just where on the report is it stated he was inciting hatred? With many like you in the USA, it looks like 9/11 could happen again!

Where do I say that this was a case of inciting hatred? By calling a hypothetical charge under the associated act "frivolous"?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Seems the person mistakenly believed that he had a right to free speech, to the best of my knowledge no such right exists in the UK. Rather bizarrely, even though the European Convention on Human Rights does have such a right, the UK's implementation of the Convention has several exceptions to it, including incitement to religious hatred. I would hope that, had this individual been arrested and charged under that Act, a judge would have thrown it out of court as a frivolous waste of his/her time and charged the prosecution with contempt.

Where do I say that this was a case of inciting hatred? By calling a hypothetical charge under the associated act "frivolous"?

So why mention it in the 1st place when you clearly state that you hope a judge would throw it out if it came to court, thereby agreeing with the thread title?

Condescending maybe?

---

Seems the person mistakenly believed that he had a right to free speech, to the best of my knowledge no such right exists in the UK. Rather bizarrely, even though the European Convention on Human Rights does have such a right, the UK's implementation of the Convention has several exceptions to it, including incitement to religious hatred. I would hope that, had this individual been arrested and charged under that Act, a judge would have thrown it out of court as a frivolous waste of his/her time and charged the prosecution with contempt.

Where do I say that this was a case of inciting hatred? By calling a hypothetical charge under the associated act "frivolous"?

So why mention it in the 1st place when you clearly state that you hope a judge would throw it out if it came to court, thereby agreeing with the thread title?

Condescending maybe?

Before typing a word, I researched the right to free speech in the UK, along the way I found a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, that, had it been implemented without exceptions in the UK, would have given the individual an unarguable right to make the comments he did. The exception I noted appeared to be one that might have a bearing on the subject in the newspaper article, though as I said, if an arrest had been made under that exception I would hope the judge would charge the prosecution for contempt of court for having brought before him/her such a frivolous case.

There seems to me to be no hypocrisy on allowing a veil wearing woman through security, I'm not aware of a rule that states head wear must be removed at all times in the airport security area. Indeed the article notes that there are procedures in place for confirming the identity of veiled women. It does strike me that the airport security staff abused their power, and such abuse is not unique to the UK, there was a thread recently that discussed an abuse of airport security power in the US (here).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

and who decided to bring in a muslim scanner to judge. He said it to a guy matter of factly, then suddenly the Islamic law scholar on duty decided she needed an apology even though she didn't hear what he said first hand and wasn't the person he was talking about.

Here's a clue if you are an overly sensitive arse. You expect apologies or give them when you were then one offended or offending. Mind your own damn business and move on.

hell its bad enough i have to take my sandals off at the airport screening as if an Xray is going to give you more detail into what that sandal is made.

Let alone if I had a blasting cap on me that could ignite a bomb, a cap that would easily be detected in a scan or say I left it in my shoe which is the quickest easiest way to blow ones own foot off just by walking on the cap.

I hate the false sense of security we've blanketed ourselves with. I'd rather drive my own car and complain about traffic than deal with the witch hunt for terrorist when the reality is the terrorist we are looking for look middle eastern. Why put on this charade scanning granny as if she were a knife wielding threat.

PUUUlleeasee. If anything I should be offended having to deal with 0.0000001% of a religions worshipers that find it necessary to fly planes into buildings. If they were looking for White Catholics from Texas I would certainly understand if I was put under a bit more scrutiny than the nice asian Buddhist guy from LA. I get tired of a system that worried about offending the very people that look like the Terrorist we are trying to prevent from getting on planes. IF anything they should be grateful that they are being watched so closely. They certainly won't be easily mugged will they.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

However, all passengers must show their faces to UK Borders officials when they pass through passport control. Muslim women who wear hijabs can request that their identity is checked by a female immigration officer and they can also ask that they be taken to a private room before they remove their head wear.

This statement was clearly issued by UK Boarders Control too to allay any public
fears that Muslim woman were permitted to pass through passport control without
facial recognition being carried out against their passport photograph.
Passing through a scanner is nothing to do with passing through immigration control.
So there was no need for any airport staff having to challenge the Muslim
woman and request she remove her hijab. David Jones should have realised this
and, in this situation, the comment he passed was careless. Being that it
would be a Muslim woman wearing this hijab, and not a woman of any other faith,
Mr Jones should then have refrained from making an indirect comment to an adornment,
through implication, that could ultimately segregate her, by religion, from others. Segregation by
religion is one form of racism.

Further along in David Jones account of events we come across this statement:

We were then joined by a second female security guard who stated that she was Muslim and was deeply distressed by my comment.

This statement by this member of the airport staff can be viewed as antagonistic
in nature and as such her employers showed lack of due care to David Jones's well-being.
Her employers should be taken to task regarding this and the female
employee herself should be reprimanded.
It should also be noted, if David Jones's account of events is correct, that
at no time did he make a direct verbal reference to the term "Muslim". This
term was only ever referenced to by the respective company employees involved in
the incident. Is the company culpable here, were their respective employees here
reacting in-line with their own prejudices against though's they assume to be prejudiced against them.

Was David Jones actually being racist, only indirectly.
Anyone in for a Fatwah...or stoning?

Stones 10 cents
Bricks 50 cents
Rocks 75 cents
Boulders $1

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Islam is supposed to be all about peace. In all aspects of islamic life

Well, it is supposed to be like this as you say. But when Clerics realised
that through religion they had great power and control over people they went on to
abuse this power. Went on to use this for their own self interests. I think
Christianity did this too at one time eons ago....many a perceived witch suffered
at the discretion of the local clergy....."duck anyone", whoops! wrong thread??

Indeed Christianity has tried to inflict it's moral standards on those who have chosen other paths to God, but it wasn't eons ago. The Salem witch trials were approximately 320 years ago.And the Scopes monkey trial was less than 100 years ago.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Roe v Wade was only a few decades ago and Prohibition was only 80 or so years ago. It's a wonder we are here at all. We never learn from history

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

In the last 100 years alone all religions were only cause of most murders, abuses, rapes, robbings next to WWII stats.

So let's say why EU government be more common sensed and begin to largely limit religion all form of it. That way especially in current legal environment many forms of crimes might drop hence causing less economic resources wasting.

IF more sophisticated probablistic computing could be done on this then I wander in the last 500 years only religion likely was the pure source of most crime counts.

---

Mandtugai!

I wondered about Islam at one time and got hold of a copy of the Koran with an English translation. I wanted to find out what it said about beating women. It says, in my own translation, that if your woman offends you you must tell her off. If she offends you again then you must tell her off in front of the family. If she offends you yet again you must beat her at a game of tiddlywinks.

Of course I added the "at a game of tiddlywinks" in my translation, but Islamic Society has added it's own translation, not only on beating women, but on all aspects of how they can do whatever in the name of their religion.

Yes, it's absolute madness.

---

flaming balloons

They say that Christians will be the minority in th UK by 2030, so I'm wondering, will these be the majority there?

Wild Hogs

---

Nah, it is all those Catholics -- oh wait, they are Christian too...

So the next time I get asked about the weather & I reply "it's Brass Monkeys" I can expect to get arrested as a racist?

Famous 3 Monkeys

Another case of absolute madness & a total waste of money!

---