AC staff at SFO allegedly asked a 12yr old to remove her hijab before boarding
Aug 12, 2019, 9:50 am
#168
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC SE (*A Gold), Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,691
Aug 12, 2019, 10:21 am
#169
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,328
Aug 12, 2019, 1:07 pm
#170
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: YVR
Programs: E75K
Posts: 31
Wouldn't she have had her hijab on in her passport photo? So it would be pointless to ask her to remove it since she would be even less identifiable...
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...ts/photos.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...ts/photos.html
We accept photos with:
- glasses worn if:
- your eyes are clearly visible
- there is no glare on the lenses
- hair down or up
- hats and head coverings worn daily for religious beliefs or medical reasons if:
- your full face is clearly visible
- the head covering doesn’t cast shadows on your face
Aug 12, 2019, 1:17 pm
#171
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,568
Wouldn't she have had her hijab on in her passport photo? So it would be pointless to ask her to remove it since she would be even less identifiable...
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...ts/photos.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...ts/photos.html
Aug 13, 2019, 9:54 pm
#172
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,920
The post copied below had a significant amount of finger pointing and castigation. We see three items presented as fact, but they are nothing more that opinions presented in in a manner that misleads and misrepresents. This person states that Air Canada "broke the law". The claim is an outright falsehood. Air Canada has not been found guilty of any violation of regulation or law. All that there is to date, is an allegation. In the USA and Canada, we do not claim that a law has been broken in matters such as this until such time as there has been a final adjudication of fault or of wrong doing.
Next we have the claim that Air Canada "broke their policy". There was no policy per se, so it could not be broken. There were guidelines and recommended procedures. The airline has acknowledged that it failed to carry out its procedure as it is usually done. Nothing was broken. Rather, the procedure was not followed in its entirety. The third assertion that the airline failed to act in a manner consistent with human decency is just an excuse to lecture people. The claimant was neither assaulted nor insulted.
It is particularly irksome to have a hijab compared to actual religious garments. It has already been established that the hijab is not a required religious garment. It is a social and cultural preference. Especially annoying is the failure to acknowledge that there are indeed specific rules that apply for passengers wearing turbans. One can be assured that if the turban was modified to conceal the wearer's face, that a request to verify the identity of the wearer would occur. Best of all is that this person has no idea of how the passenger presented herself at the gate. Did the hijab cover the face? Was it worn in a manner that suggested fashion accessory rather than something else? The author doesn't know all the facts of the event, but quickly tosses out an allegation of "bigotry". Nice.
We are treated to a number LOL/ROTFL notations as the writer seeks to insult/berate/denigrate anyone who has commented using established facts. And then we come to the dismissive statement "Yeah, you absolutely have no clue." Coming from someone who claims that Air Canada "broke the law" and who offered a personal opinion as verified fact, it is obvious as to who has "no clue".
Next we have the claim that Air Canada "broke their policy". There was no policy per se, so it could not be broken. There were guidelines and recommended procedures. The airline has acknowledged that it failed to carry out its procedure as it is usually done. Nothing was broken. Rather, the procedure was not followed in its entirety. The third assertion that the airline failed to act in a manner consistent with human decency is just an excuse to lecture people. The claimant was neither assaulted nor insulted.
It is particularly irksome to have a hijab compared to actual religious garments. It has already been established that the hijab is not a required religious garment. It is a social and cultural preference. Especially annoying is the failure to acknowledge that there are indeed specific rules that apply for passengers wearing turbans. One can be assured that if the turban was modified to conceal the wearer's face, that a request to verify the identity of the wearer would occur. Best of all is that this person has no idea of how the passenger presented herself at the gate. Did the hijab cover the face? Was it worn in a manner that suggested fashion accessory rather than something else? The author doesn't know all the facts of the event, but quickly tosses out an allegation of "bigotry". Nice.
We are treated to a number LOL/ROTFL notations as the writer seeks to insult/berate/denigrate anyone who has commented using established facts. And then we come to the dismissive statement "Yeah, you absolutely have no clue." Coming from someone who claims that Air Canada "broke the law" and who offered a personal opinion as verified fact, it is obvious as to who has "no clue".
Well, talk about a gong show in this thread.
Air Canada did the following:
1) Broke the law.
2) Broke their policy.
3) Acted in a manner inconsistent with common decency.
Hats must be removed at YYZ. Maybe other Canadian airports. That's a relatively new thing. Maybe AC spread that across their network, for whatever dumb reason.
That is completely and totally irrelevant to someone wearing religious clothing. Sikh men don't have to remove their dastars before boarding, nor should they, and they definitely "cover part of their face" as all the apologists are trying to pretend this did. Imagine if AC tried to get tell Jagmeet Singh that he had to remove his dastar? LOLOLOLOL
Maybe you should have?
I'm a confirmed atheist. Part of that means defending the right of people who believe in fairy tales to do just that.
Of course they don't. It is the "not racist with a black Muslim friend" thing to do.
Oh come on. Don't absolutely murder the moral high ground with that.
ROTFLMAO. A baseball cap obscures less of a face than a Shtreimel, yet they make you take those off. A Dastar covers more of the face than many hijabs. I get that you LOVE to defend any and everything AC does, but this is blatant bigotry.
LOLOLOLOLOL. There is so much wrong there.
Guess what. At the AC gate at SFO, the laws of the State of California and the laws of the United States apply. As a common carrier, AC doesn't get to tell religious people to remove their religious clothing in a manner in contravention of their religious beliefs. AC broke their policy and broke the law.
Yeah, you absolutely have no clue.
Air Canada did the following:
1) Broke the law.
2) Broke their policy.
3) Acted in a manner inconsistent with common decency.
Hats must be removed at YYZ. Maybe other Canadian airports. That's a relatively new thing. Maybe AC spread that across their network, for whatever dumb reason.
That is completely and totally irrelevant to someone wearing religious clothing. Sikh men don't have to remove their dastars before boarding, nor should they, and they definitely "cover part of their face" as all the apologists are trying to pretend this did. Imagine if AC tried to get tell Jagmeet Singh that he had to remove his dastar? LOLOLOLOL
Maybe you should have?
I'm a confirmed atheist. Part of that means defending the right of people who believe in fairy tales to do just that.
Of course they don't. It is the "not racist with a black Muslim friend" thing to do.
Oh come on. Don't absolutely murder the moral high ground with that.
ROTFLMAO. A baseball cap obscures less of a face than a Shtreimel, yet they make you take those off. A Dastar covers more of the face than many hijabs. I get that you LOVE to defend any and everything AC does, but this is blatant bigotry.
LOLOLOLOLOL. There is so much wrong there.
Guess what. At the AC gate at SFO, the laws of the State of California and the laws of the United States apply. As a common carrier, AC doesn't get to tell religious people to remove their religious clothing in a manner in contravention of their religious beliefs. AC broke their policy and broke the law.
Yeah, you absolutely have no clue.
Last edited by tcook052; Aug 16, 2019 at 5:19 am Reason: edit quote
Aug 16, 2019, 2:50 am
#173
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, GHA Titanium, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,839
LOL - NOTHING is a "required religious garment." People aren't required to be religious. However, businesses that serve the public are required to accommodate their religious beliefs. Shaving a woman's head and then wearing a wig isn't "required" in Judaism, but some Hasidic women do view that as their required religious duty. So, should they be required to take their wig off? Or wear the wig from their passport photo? Come on dude.
It is clear that 1) a lot of folks here don't understand how the law works in this area and 2) are clearly harboring a certain bias.
It is clear that 1) a lot of folks here don't understand how the law works in this area and 2) are clearly harboring a certain bias.
Aug 17, 2019, 1:13 am
#174
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 276
LOL - NOTHING is a "required religious garment." People aren't required to be religious. However, businesses that serve the public are required to accommodate their religious beliefs. Shaving a woman's head and then wearing a wig isn't "required" in Judaism, but some Hasidic women do view that as their required religious duty. So, should they be required to take their wig off? Or wear the wig from their passport photo? Come on dude.
See the case of the pastafarians who want to have their colander recognised as a religious symbol, as a moderately successful attempt at showing how ridiculous religious exceptions really are.
And what ought an airline to do with a customer who’s religion forbids the wearing of clothes altogether?
Aug 26, 2019, 10:08 am
#175
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,328
At that point, Fatima said, a second Air Canada employee joined the gate agent, bringing a female agent who led Fatima to the corner of the jet bridge and again told her to remove her hijab.
Doesn't change my opinion on the matter, but that is the only possible area in any of those gates that anyone could ever call "private".
Aug 27, 2019, 6:41 am
#177
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: YYZ
Posts: 1,146
A quick search actually pointed me back at FT: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/29634675-post8.html
That's probably where I'm remembering this from.
However, if your headwear prevents the GA from matching your face to your ID, it may not explicitly say "pax must remove hats", but the result would be the same.
I don't know if that's right or wrong, but if they asked white people to remove baseball hats as well (which was the topic of at least two other threads on this forum), then it wasn't racism. Insensitive, maybe. But not racism.
That's probably where I'm remembering this from.
However, if your headwear prevents the GA from matching your face to your ID, it may not explicitly say "pax must remove hats", but the result would be the same.
I don't know if that's right or wrong, but if they asked white people to remove baseball hats as well (which was the topic of at least two other threads on this forum), then it wasn't racism. Insensitive, maybe. But not racism.
Sep 14, 2019, 9:41 am
#178
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 1
That's an awesome reply. Personally been there with cowboy hats and baseball caps and results are always the same, take it off or don't get on the plane ! The other day leaving Toronto on AC, following a woman or man couldn't tell cause there face was well concealed I was asked to remove my cap. After asking nicely why the person in front didn't have to I was told it was for facial recognition. I couldn't help but laugh and said it was quite easy to see who I am compared to who just past through. Well I was told in no uncertain terms to remove the cap and that naturally boiled my blood but kept my mouth shut, dropped my parcels and did what any white senior with a ball cap wanting to get home to Alberta has to do and took off the cap to show my bald head.
So all I want to know is simply this …...is this a security issue cause I have witnessed the same thing going through security. If it is for safety reasons something is major league wrong with a system that allows this blatant bypass of security to take place I don't give a rats about religion or otherwise it should and has to be about passenger safety.
If anyone knows the answer please let me know
So all I want to know is simply this …...is this a security issue cause I have witnessed the same thing going through security. If it is for safety reasons something is major league wrong with a system that allows this blatant bypass of security to take place I don't give a rats about religion or otherwise it should and has to be about passenger safety.
If anyone knows the answer please let me know