I would venture that you've never been discriminated against because of your ethnic background.
And I would bet that you've never been held hostage by a frivolous lawsuit.
(And I have been discriminated against because of my ethnic background, although not in any way that I would consider serious - as far as I know, at least.)
I would venture that you've never been discriminated against because of your ethnic background.
I have been discriminated against on the basis of my ethnic background. For example, when I checked out an employer's booth at a job fair years ago in university, I was told that this employer (a branch of my federal government) was no longer hiring white anglophone males as they had exceeded their quota. And when applying to professional school, I again faced strict racial and gender-based quotas which worked both against me as a male and in my favour as a Caucasian (we don't have a quota, we just admit 50% females and 15% Asians to every year's entering class, just by coincidence).
Both of these example are much more serious and potentially life-altering than being told to cover up an offensive tee-shirt.
I have been discriminated against on the basis of my ethnic background. For example, when I checked out an employer's booth at a job fair years ago in university, I was told that this employer (a branch of my federal government) was no longer hiring white anglophone males as they had exceeded their quota. And when applying to professional school, I again faced strict racial and gender-based quotas which worked both against me as a male and in my favour as a Caucasian (we don't have a quota, we just admit 50% females and 15% Asians to every year's entering class, just by coincidence).
Both of these example are much more serious and potentially life-altering than being told to cover up an offensive tee-shirt.
"We are not hiring white anglophone males", just non-English-speakers? Why don't I believe that.
In this t-shirt matter, being an anglophone male didn't work against him.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, CHI, ?
Programs: Lowly CO Silver, Hilton Gold somehow, AGR moocher via CO
Posts: 3,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap
Both of these example are much more serious and potentially life-altering than being told to cover up an offensive tee-shirt.
So what? The Holocaust was more serious than the internment of Japanese during WWII. Stealing $100 is worse than stealing $50. Does that make stealing $50 any less wrong?
It doesn't change the fact that the TSA thought that the exposure of an Arabic phrase made a person dangerous. It doesn't change the fact that those entrusted with our protection believed that a dangerous person could be made safe by forcing him to wear a different article of clothing.
It doesn't change the fact that the TSA thought that the exposure of an Arabic phrase made a person dangerous. It doesn't change the fact that those entrusted with our protection believed that a dangerous person could be made safe by forcing him to wear a different article of clothing.
Exactly. The sheer idiocy employed here is simply mind-boggling.
If the man were really a danger to his fellow passengers, would he be so stupid as to wear a t-shirt with Arabic script? Would covering up the Arabic script actually neutralise the danger?
Exactly. The sheer idiocy employed here is simply mind-boggling.
If the man were really a danger to his fellow passengers, would he be so stupid as to wear a t-shirt with Arabic script? Would covering up the Arabic script actually neutralise the danger?
And these people are supposed to protect us.
They protect no one - not even their own backsides.
So what? The Holocaust was more serious than the internment of Japanese during WWII. Stealing $100 is worse than stealing $50. Does that make stealing $50 any less wrong?
It doesn't change the fact that the TSA thought that the exposure of an Arabic phrase made a person dangerous. It doesn't change the fact that those entrusted with our protection believed that a dangerous person could be made safe by forcing him to wear a different article of clothing.
Ralf, agree with most of what you say. But even as a white, German, young, non-Jewish male I'd venture to say that the Holocaust was more serious than the internment of Japanese in the US during WWII. And if you think about it you'd certainly agree. Both were wrong in principle but while the internment of Japanese as well as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have the same basic unrightful principles as a concentration camp they are not devised for genocide per se.
Otherwise, I was also outraged by the story and find that $240k are probably not causing enough pain for the two entities. 2.4 mil plus rolling heads in the upper echelons would be nicer. The injury to the man was in form of insult. This can be severe. It is discrimination based on race, skin color and perhaps religion PLUS based on political opinion. This kind of stuff does hurt an individual. Knowing about the victims background he probably knew this might happen and might have been quite happy with it because it gives good publicity. Still, I think he should get enough money to have some custom tailored shirts by Charvet of Paris with hand-embroidered arab lettering in gold thread which he can wear while sitting in F, where Jetblue should have been forced to give him free priority seating plus one partner seat for the remainder of his life. Now, that would have been great!
