Polish court's ruling: A sikh vs. airport security checks

Started by Martinus, December 21, 2011, 11:51:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17
User actions

grumbler

#90
December 25, 2011, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 25, 2011, 02:57:08 PM
If there's no compelling reason why Sikhs should have to take off their headgear, then there's no compelling reason why anyone should.
True.  I don't know of a compelling reason why anyone should remove headgear.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Razgovory

#91
December 25, 2011, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 25, 2011, 02:27:06 PM
I have to agree with Marty on this one. Personal freedom of religion is fine, but it doesn't mean religion should get special rights under laws that apply to everybody. Liberalism doesn't mean everybody gets to do whatever the fuck they want.

Except you have the benefit of being in the majority and having the laws reflect your own cultural bias.  If one article of clothing has to removed why not another?  Why not say, pants?  I'm much more likely to be hiding something in my pants then in my hat.  Would you object to a law that required to you remove your pants in public every time you get on a plane?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Razgovory

#92
December 25, 2011, 04:04:27 PM
Goddamn it Grumbler!
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Razgovory

#93
December 25, 2011, 04:06:02 PM
It does amuse me that Marty is using the exact line of reasoning that people who want to prevent gay marriage use.  "Special Rights". :lol:
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Iormlund

#94
December 25, 2011, 04:06:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 02:37:40 PM
The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations." 

I'm all for reasonable accommodations as long as they fall within certain objective criteria: for example, if I have to fly and stay away for a couple weeks I have to take my medication with me. In order to be allowed to board the plane with it, I need to get a medical form signed by a registered specialist. I can't just go: 'hey, I've got magic underwear, let me in!'.

Razgovory

#95
December 25, 2011, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 04:06:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 02:37:40 PM
The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations." 

I'm all for reasonable accommodations as long as they fall within certain objective criteria: for example, if I have to fly and stay away for a couple weeks I have to take my medication with me. In order to be allowed to board the plane with it, I need to get a medical form signed by a registered specialist. I can't just go: 'hey, I've got magic underwear, let me in!'.

Except it's not objective criteria.  It's criteria rooted in your culture.  What one culture considers decent another may not.  These guys don't want to take off their hats.  It's indecent.  You may not want to stand in line naked. Everyone riding naked would maximize safety wouldn't it?  Yet I imagine people would complain if we made everyone stand naked.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Iormlund

#96
December 25, 2011, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2011, 04:10:42 PM
These guys don't want to take off their hats.  It's indecent.  You may not want to stand in line naked. Everyone riding naked would maximize safety wouldn't it?  Yet I imagine people would complain if we made everyone stand naked.

We already make people stand naked. Look up backscatter X-ray imaging.

DGuller

#97
December 25, 2011, 04:41:10 PM
If we don't make people stand naked, the terrorists would win.

alfred russel

#98
December 25, 2011, 04:55:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 25, 2011, 04:41:10 PM
If we don't make people stand naked, the terrorists would win.

It is all about achieving the right number of security screens. Terrorists have demonstrated an ability to attack both passenger aircraft and subway systems. But security screens to subway systems would make rush hours even more hellish than they already are, so that can't be done. So stupid screens such as removing flip flops and standing naked need to be added to air travel, to make sure we don't have a security screen gap.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Brain

#99
December 25, 2011, 04:57:37 PM
A simple albedo test should suffice.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

dps

#100
December 25, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 04:06:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 25, 2011, 02:37:40 PM
The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations." 

I'm all for reasonable accommodations as long as they fall within certain objective criteria: for example, if I have to fly and stay away for a couple weeks I have to take my medication with me. In order to be allowed to board the plane with it, I need to get a medical form signed by a registered specialist. I can't just go: 'hey, I've got magic underwear, let me in!'.

You can't take medicine of an airliner without a note from your doctor?  That's retarded.  What, they think you're going to hide a Saturday Night Special in your Zocor?

Iormlund

#101
December 25, 2011, 05:14:43 PM
Quote from: dps on December 25, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
You can't take medicine of an airliner without a note from your doctor?  That's retarded.  What, they think you're going to hide a Saturday Night Special in your Zocor?

It's one of those big intramuscular injectors. I guess it falls under the liquids ban.

Admiral Yi

#102
December 25, 2011, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 05:14:43 PM
It's one of those big intramuscular injectors. I guess it falls under the liquids ban.

My guess is the ice pick in the pilot's brain ban.

Iormlund

#103
December 25, 2011, 05:22:34 PM
Maybe. It's not a especially good weapon though. It takes a good couple of seconds to get the stuff into you and you have to remain still. It's not easily concealable either.

alfred russel

#104
December 25, 2011, 05:33:01 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on December 25, 2011, 05:14:43 PM
Quote from: dps on December 25, 2011, 05:04:32 PM
You can't take medicine of an airliner without a note from your doctor?  That's retarded.  What, they think you're going to hide a Saturday Night Special in your Zocor?

It's one of those big intramuscular injectors. I guess it falls under the liquids ban.

Do they check the integrity of your doctor's note? How do they know an Al Qaeda operative didn't forge the note for you?

Also, even if you have a legitimate doctor's note, if a person with your medical condition has been recruited as a suicide bomber, what keeps them from replacing the medicine with explosives?

For safety purposes, perhaps we should keep people with muscular dystrophy from flying until the war on terror is won.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17
User actions