Sunday, January 17, 2010

Airport "Security" Has Its Head in the Clouds (And Up Its Butt)

I just flew in from the tropics and boy are my arms tired--from having to raise them so an airport "security" official could pat me down on the off chance that my knickers were rigged to explode. The frisking occurred both coming and going due to the fact that our flight wasn't direct but was routed through Charlotte, N.C. (Lovely airport, BTW, the only one I've been to that has a pianist performing on a grand piano in the concourse.) The you-must-be-freakin'-kidding-me aspect of my first frisking, in Toronto (apart from the fact that men and women were divided into two lines so that everyone could get up close and personal with a same-sex frisker) was the garb of the "security" official directing those of us in the chick line to the chick-frisker who would do the deed: she was wearing a heavy duty hijab.

Yes, that's right. Yours truly, anti-jihad warrior, was ordered to hop to it (apparently, I wasn't moving quickly enough for her taste) by a "security" official who displays her devotion to the sharia worldview for all to see; someone who, though she may not agree with Abdulmattalab's exploding gotchies modus operandi is in synch with its religio-ideological underpinnings. Hijab gal is supposed to keep us infidels safe from the likes of BombPants.

What's wrong with this picture?

34 comments:

Blazing Cat Fur said...

You should complain to the CHRC that you were profiled!

scaramouche said...

We both know that Hijab gal would be the one more likely to lodge a complaint--if and when she doesn't get a promotion. Me? I'm the one who's liklier to get complained about due to my "hateful" and "'Slamophobic" remarks.

Dave in Guelph said...

W.T.F.?

was from said...

Isn't that like putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

Ti-Guy said...

You think just because she's a Muslim/dressed in a hijab, she has no right to work at an airport? And no right to direct Her Royal Jewish Princess anywhere?

People like you need to be on no-fly lists.

kursk said...

No fly lists for some?

How about internment camps for jr. Marxists with big mouths.

How many Hajib, Niquab or Bhurka wearing screeners work in Israeli airports do you think?

Either they must be completely racist, or they know where the troubles lay, and act accordingly.

Flea said...

"Her Royal Jewish Princess"

Careful, Ti-Guy, you Klan mask is slipping.

Jacko said...

This is unthinkable! Candians will pay for it one day. Then again, under that BURKA was perhaps a MoSlum man? They have known to wear stuff like that. It could be a regular Canadian girl to keep the MoSlums quite when passing through that ultra-viewer Xrays scanner. I think Canadians are perhaps a little more clever than you imagine- then again I could be dead-wrong.

Marky Mark said...

We shouldn't be equating devout Muslims with terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. We can't exclude such people from any jobs, any more that we thought it was appropriate that our anscestors were excluded from jobs.

Of course by the same token it would be nice if critics of Israel didn't turn a blind eye to intolerance and jihadism by many supporters of the Palestinian position. It's not as if that phenomenen is rare. For example, what ever happened to the Liberal Party delegates behind the clear anti-Semitism which may have cost Bob Rae the leadership of the federal Liberal Party?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061207/bob_rae_061207/20061207/

Are we meant not to notice these things and stop being uppity?

Dave in Guelph said...

Really Marky Mark?

Your kidding about that right?

You don't think one devout Muslim would give her fellow devout muslim/islamist, terrorist a pass at the gate and hassel a Jew. Cause that's how they roll pretty much or haven't you been listening for the last 20 odd years?

Our country is founded on CHRISTIAN & JUDEO BELIEFS not on the KORAN! Do you want to live under Sharia? What's that?...I didn't think so.

We need to protect it from without and within.

Islam be damned.

6p00e009945be78833 said...

I'll be wearing a pig-skin suit.

And will announce the fact proudly.

:-)

scaramouche said...

"We shouldn't be equating devout Muslims with terrorists or terrorist sympathizers"--with all due respect, that's probably what they said at Fort Hood.

randian said...

Imagine her working in baggage handling. We all know stuff gets stolen from checked bags, and that TSA exerts little effort to stop it. The TSA's lock rule has only made it easier. The problem is that if it's easy to steal from bags without being caught, it's equally easy to put bombs or poisons into those bags without being caught. I don't understand why TSA puts no real effort into closing this monster hole in aircraft security.

Also, don't forget it's you, not the baggage handler, that's going to be thrown in jail should this contraband be found in your bags.

If anything, the more devout she is the more suspicious we should be of her.

scaramouche said...

Melanie Phillips writes:

"People in America are often shocked to discover the extent to which the authorities in Britain have been taken in by the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, to such an extent the UK government and police use them as advisers on combating Islamic extremism. Americans would be even more shocked to discover that exactly the same thing is going on in their own backyard.

Pajamas TV features two interviews with former US security people, one described merely as having been given some kind of intel-gathering assignment by the ‘joint chiefs’ and the other described as a ‘former FBI special agent’. The first describes how, when he discovered to his alarm that there was not only no evidence that Islamic radicals were wrong in Islamic law but that there were no counter-arguments to them in that law, the US intel/law enforcement community that had instructed him just didn’t want to know.

The second, the ex-FBI man, is even more alarming. He states that the American counter-terrorist establishment has allowed itself to be infiltrated by radical Islamists -- to whom counter-terrorism officials are going for advice and training in countering Islamic radicalism. Every major Muslim representative organisation in the US, he says, is a Muslim Brotherhood front. Hamas fronts such as CAIR are used by the US authorities for outreach to the Muslim community in America. They are invited to sit in on brainstorming sessions about investigative techniques, and are actually training the FBI. ‘The Muslim Brotherhood are telling us how to fight them’, he says..."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5706956/the-suborning-of-american-intelligence.thtml

Jerome Bastien said...

What people (i.e. ti-guy) need to realize is that discrimination is only bad in the absence of a rational reason for discrimination.

Example: Ti-Guy himself would be outraged if a conservative christian was hired as counselor for gay students at a university, because the very fact that he is a conservative christian makes him ill-suited for the job. So, it is proper, when hiring for such a position, to discriminate against conservative christians.

And in this case, the very fact that this woman is a fanatical muslim makes her ill-suited for a job in airport security. Sorry, that's life. If she should complaint to anyone it should be a certain few of her coreligionists.

This type of discrimination is entirely proper and in fact should be seen as an obligation, in that efforts should be made to provide the highest level of security. Right now, the morons in charge are trying to achieve the highest level of political correctness.

That doesnt change anything to the fact that discriminating just for the sake of discriminating is wrong.

Marky Mark said...

It's not rational. Being devout isn't the same as being a jihadi. Actually, if someone were intent on becoming an insider in the system, they'd probably hide their piety.

Jerome Bastien said...

It doesnt matter that being devout is not the same as being jihadi. We shouldnt be trying to achieve perfection in political correctness, we should be trying to achieve perfection in security.

I'd much rather have a 99% chance that this muslim woman was not hired even though she would have been fine, than having a 0.001% chance that she use her position of power to enable a terrorist attack.

Marky Mark said...

That position is rational but unacceptable/incompatible with our values. Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.

Jerome Bastien said...

Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.

true. but that's not what's at issue here.

i'd say better than one or one hundred muslims cant find a job in airport security than 300 people dying a horrible death.

those are my values.

your so-called progressive values would rather put thousands of people at risk of death than to risk offending the sensibilities of the PC-police. i say you should re-assess your values.

Marky Mark said...

What you also can't address is how your way of thinking is any different than the way of thinking about Jews that was prevalent until a few decades ago, and that way of thinking was used to justify all sorts of discrmination. There is no difference.

Jerome Bastien said...

There is no difference

Try to attack my thinking substantially if you can. It's fine that you disagree with me, but saying that my thinking is the same as some allegedly old way of thinking about jews is not actually an argument.

And clearly, as i've said in my post of 12:52pm, discrimination for its own sake is wrong. But, while not all muslims are terrorists, most terrorists these days are muslims. And nobody has a right to a job in airport security - you should be denied a job in airport security if you have any security issues whatsoever as far as im concerned, like a criminal record or anything of the sort.

So what do you think of my previous example, would you discriminate against a conservative christian if you were hiring for a position of counselor to gay students (i dont know if such a position exists, but i bet it does)? If so, how is that thinking different from the muslim/airport security thing, and from "the way of thinking about jews" as you call it.

Marky Mark said...

"you should be denied a job in airport security if you have any security issues whatsoever as far as im concerned, like a criminal record or anything of the sort."

Exactly-that's fair. But religion alone-that is not fair.

You're gay counselor comparison isn't perfect, because not everyone of that description is homophobic, but let's go with it. The problem is someone wearing Muslim religious garb in the vast majority of cases isn't a terrorist, just like all other stereotypes demean individuals burned by them.

Either we support the liberal principles that are the foundation of our society or we don't.

Will said...

Hi.
Somehow i'm not surprised ,i've seen in thepast personally how muslim staff were extremely rude to non moslim passengers at Pearson.
I've been saying for months who's cheking the staff working at the airports?
That's the hole in the whole security system!
I'eve linked to Israel Matzav post and i'll post a linkto your blog also.
Thank you for sharing your story.
Have a great day.
http://www.themanyfacesofspaces.com/MFS-TheOtherNews-15.html
Will-MFS.

Jerome Bastien said...

You're gay counselor comparison isn't perfect, because not everyone of that description is homophobic, but let's go with it.

agreed, it's far from perfect. but would you hire a conservative christian based on his word that he is not homophobic? And how is it different than the other scenarios being discussed?

and I also agree that religion alone is not a fair basis for denying any kind of employment, but, clear signs that the religious fervor of a particular individual is strong enough that it may take precedence over its duties on the job is sufficient. Here, scaramouche talks aobut a "heavy-duty hijab". I'd guess I'd have to see it to know exactly what is meant by that.

Either we support the liberal principles that are the foundation of our society or we don't.

We dropped those long ago - freedom of speech being the main one. Leftists like to mention these when its convenient but whenever the topic goes to foundational principles which conservatives prefer, words like 'nuance' and 'balance' are thrown around with impressive regularity. And some of these calls for 'nuance' and 'balance' are not completely idiotic.

So I call for 'nuance' and 'balance' between the right to not being discriminated against, and the right to fly a plane without being dispersed in multiple gooey bits over the Atlantic.

Marky Mark said...

Jerome,

Here's the problem. Many on the left have turned a blind eye to the anti-Semitism among the pro-Palestinian side. Not just moderate anti-Semtism, but the real deal. They tune it out as if it didn't exist because it conflicts with the idea that Palestine=Good and Israel=Bad.

For many in this crowd, nothing can be characerized as anti-Semitism until it's an actual pogrom.

The way I see it, what made anti-Semitism and other forms of racism unacceptable were liberal principles-principls that I think conservatives share, as summarized by King's I Have a Dream Speech.

Surely the idea of profiling raises some alarm bells for you? You can make the arguments, but they should be accompanied by real doubt that you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.

My comparison to Jews and the 30's is meant to test whether the argument holds if you substitute an identifiabe; group other than Muslims.

I don't think it does.

Jerome Bastien said...

MM:

I agree with you 100% re: 'many on the left' and liberal principles.

And yes, profiling does raise major alarm bells. And I must admit that on my first reading I was picturing a lady in a full blown niqad, not a hijab. This might seem trivial but I think it speaks to whether an individual's religious convictions are strong enough that they may interfere in the performance of duties. I believe that there if it can be demonstrated that this is the case, employment should be denied. Otherwise not.

Looking the other way in extreme cases leads to Ft. Hood. On the other hand, discriminating only because someone is nominally a muslim leads to oppression.

RE: jews in the 30s, I think you make a fair point, but its not like jews or even a minority of jews were responsible for terrorist attacks or anything remotely comparable. That muslims are responsible for most of the major terrorist attacks in recent years should not be a debatable point. Extreme islam poses a threat today which has no parallel in the 1930s.

Marky Mark said...

Jerome,

Jews weren't known for terrorist acts but anti-Semites viewed them as a disloyal fifth column/the other who, if not kept down, would take over. They believed jews were a real danger. For that reason there was discrimination across the board.

I see much of what is being said about Muslims as being from the same family of ideas.

Yes, a jihadist can bring down a plane. So in that sense the fears relate to different things. But I'd argue only to a point. And remember that Richard Reid woudln't have been caught by what I think you're suggesting-you're trying to capture those who have IDEAS-not those who have certain DNA or believe in a certain religion.

Jerome Bastien said...

you're trying to capture those who have IDEAS

exactly. specifically im trying to exclude those with particular ideas. and until mind reading is feasible any such endeavor will inevitably create false positives.

and i dont doubt that jews were believed to be a real danger. the difference is that in that case, it was pure fantasy.

i dont actually believe that muslims pose a real danger in general, but some muslims absolutely and without a doubt pose a real danger, and this real danger stems directly from a very strict interpretation of their religion, not from a stereotypical view of muslims.

RE: Richard Reid, you're correct. There is no fool proof against terrorism but we should avoid foreseeable risks, such as having a very religious muslim in charge of airport security - which may or may not have been the case in the incident described by scaramouche - I was fooled by the use of the phrase "heavy duty hijab" and im not proud of it.

Jerome Bastien said...

MM:

I'd add that I would support denying sensitive jobs to any member of any religion whose religious fervor is demonstrably extreme.

A better example than the gay counselor might be head of security for an abortion clinic. If someone is a fundamentalist christian I would absolutely support discrimination in that case.

Marky Mark said...

OK, what about a Jewish American being President or part of the cabinet or otherwise involved in representing the USA in negotiations between Israel and her neighbours?

Jerome Bastien said...

well, the job of president is not a decision made by any individual, but i'd bet $ to donuts that if that were the case you would get outrage coming out the wazooo from the usual suspects.

and besides, I might be behind on the news here, but i think your example applies quite well to Rahm Emmanuel.

fact is, it's not a personal failing to have divided loyalties. I wouldnt blame Emmanuel if he has a pro-Israel bias, but it does call into question his fitness for such sensitive employment.

randian said...

It's not rational. Being devout isn't the same as being a jihadi.

Devout Muslims are more likely to believe in the literal truth of the Quran's worldview and commandments, and thus agree in principle with the goals of jihad even if they aren't suicide bombers themselves. There are more forms of jihad than mere bombing, you know. There is aiding with propaganda, money, surveillance, information leaks, and simply looking the other way.

Then there is the matter of recruiting: jihadists play on the "true Islam" meme, which an educated student of the Quran is more, not less, likely to believe.

Until you can give me a reliable test for which Muslim is safe now and can guaranteed to be safe in the future, we shouldn't have any Muslims in these positions.

The problem is someone wearing Muslim religious garb in the vast majority of cases isn't a terrorist, just like all other stereotypes demean individuals burned by them.

If you're Muslim, you hew to a religion that says its followers have the right and duty to conquer the world, using any means necessary. That's not a stereotype, that's a solid gold fact.

Muhammad said "I have been made victorious with terror". Bukhari Vol. 4, Bk 52, No. 220. More solid gold facts.

A devout Muslim is more likely to be an educated (in Quran and Hadith) Muslim, and hence know the hadith of Bukhari, as well of the Quran's commands to emulate Muhammad in all things, he being the Best of Men.

Marky Mark said...

Not all ideas are equal and liberal democracy is better than Islamism and saving innocent lives is better than terrorism and dancing in the streets to celebrate mass murder.

The question is whether whatever you want to call it (Islamism, etc.) is a perversion of Islam or an expression of Islam. What's being suggested is that true Islam has no place in the West and, by extension, true believers can't be trusted.

JB,

Yes, Rahm Emanuel has been accused both of dual loyalty (Israel Firster) and also of being a self-hating Jew. (Interesting-he can't be both!)

Jerry said...

How Did You not, Absolutely Freak Out on Her?
I am So Very Happy' I am too Poor to Fly.! ! !