Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Muslim woman barred from flight after refusing body scan 
Author Message
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/trave ... -scan.html

Quote:
A Muslim woman is thought to have become the first passenger to be stopped from boarding a flight for refusing to go through a full body scanner because of religious reasons.

Since when did the Koran ban women going through body scanners.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:27 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7358967/Muslim-woman-barred-from-flight-after-refusing-body-scan.html

Quote:
A Muslim woman is thought to have become the first passenger to be stopped from boarding a flight for refusing to go through a full body scanner because of religious reasons.

Since when did the Koran ban women going through body scanners.


Muslims like to be martyrs - whether it’s blowing themselves up or just being banned from places by not conforming. It appears to be their way.

Nothing to see here. Business as usual. Move along.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:43 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am
Posts: 6954
Location: Peebo
Reply with quote
I suspect that the relgious grounds come down the modesty and public decency guidance or (sharia) law in some interpretations of the Koran and subsequent judgemetns of Muslim scholars.

As the scanner essentially shows a semi-naked image of the person being scanned to an unkown person then the woman presumably felt it was incompatible with the varriation of Islam she follows.

She declined on medical (some sort of infection) and religious grounds. Quite what sort of infection would be a problem for the scanner is a little curious but I suspect some sort of rash. Whether such a thing would show up I'm not sure.

As far as I can tell from the article the women refused to be scanned and so was not permitted to fly and left the airport peacefully. It's not even clear whether the article has been written as a result of a complaint by one of the woman or if the story came from the airport.

I don't think it's fair to say she was being a martyr. If she'd kicked up a huge fuss about religious persecution then that would be different. I doubt she'll be the last person to refuse to be scanned and I doubt it'll just be muslim woman who refused to be scanned either.

_________________
When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum.
-Billy Connolly (to a heckler)


Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:02 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5836
Reply with quote
The first woman declined on religious grounds i.e. that to be viewed would be immodest.

It was a second woman, companion of the first, that refused on medical grounds

Good for them I say. The scanners are a by-proxy stripsearch and, without reasonable cause, arguably a breach of ECHR Art. 5,6,8,9 & 10.

_________________
Jim

Image


Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:41 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
I have my concerns about the scanners as well, but am happy enough to be padded down. If someone is not well then they should not have checked in. They should have contacted their doctor first. So that eliminates the medical grounds. The scanners really should be a last measure for those that fit the profile or are going to or from certain destinations.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:18 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
Given that a frequent flyer may be required to have a number of scans a year I wonder how much x-ray dose you are getting given that there is a recommended annual maximum

Also can I get “Airport Scanner pants” to either
- Protect the vital parts thaI do not want irradiated
Or
- Ones impregnated with something that will show a “bigger shadow” a sort of x-ray scanner wonder bra (pants) for men

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:07 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
What happened to the option of being patted down/frisked instead?
I thought that was an alternative given for people who had privacy fears when the scanners were first brought in.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:02 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
What happened to the option of being patted down/frisked instead?
I thought that was an alternative given for people who had privacy fears when the scanners were first brought in.


That conveniently went out the window after the attempted bombing in the USA. Once the government realised it had enough political capital to push these through it threw privacy concerns and all previous concessions to the wind and implemented the scanners anyway.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:08 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:30 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Reply with quote
As women are being targetted by miscreants for terrorism duties (apparently), this is potentially a near miss for the other passengers.

The airlines are welcome to use any rules they like to keep their multi-million dollar planes (and by extension, their passengers) safe. If it doesn't fit in with organised religion of any sort, all the better. If you can't be at least padded down on medical grounds, you probably shouldn't be flying anyway.

You could argue that it is all a bit 1984-ish, but when it comes to being a few thousand feet up, travelling 500mph in an aluminium can, it just isn't worth taking chances!

_________________
G.


Last edited by gavomatic57 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:13 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
Linux_User wrote:
That conveniently went out the window after the attempted bombing in the USA. Once the government realised it had enough political capital to push these through it threw privacy concerns and all previous concessions to the wind and implemented the scanners anyway.

Great [/sarcasm] So that means next time I pass through EMA someone's going to be laughing at how big my stomach is and how small my penis is. :shock: ...... ;) :lol: [/joking]

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:13 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
Given that a frequent flyer may be required to have a number of scans a year I wonder how much x-ray dose you are getting given that there is a recommended annual maximum

It doesn't use X-rays, but saying that, it isn't known what side effects this process has, the manufacturers claim that it is harmless... :roll:

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:20 pm
Profile ICQ
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
I think that the process uses what it calls T Rays. They are much weaker than X rays so you could undergo thousand of scanners per year. I am more concerned about the privacy aspect of the scanners. I am sure that they must have a print out option for court proceedings.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:47 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am
Posts: 6954
Location: Peebo
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
I think that the process uses what it calls T Rays. They are much weaker than X rays so you could undergo thousand of scanners per year. I am more concerned about the privacy aspect of the scanners. I am sure that they must have a print out option for court proceedings.


AFAIK the T stands for terahertz as that's the region of the electromagnetic spectrum it's from.
T-rays sit between the far infra-red and the microwave band of the electromagnetic spectrum so are pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum from x-rays.

_________________
When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum.
-Billy Connolly (to a heckler)


Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:59 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:35 pm
Posts: 1657
Location: Ipswich
Reply with quote
paulzolo wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7358967/Muslim-woman-barred-from-flight-after-refusing-body-scan.html

Quote:
A Muslim woman is thought to have become the first passenger to be stopped from boarding a flight for refusing to go through a full body scanner because of religious reasons.

Since when did the Koran ban women going through body scanners.


Muslims like to be martyrs - whether it’s blowing themselves up or just being banned from places by not conforming. It appears to be their way.

Nothing to see here. Business as usual. Move along.


:lol: Totally agree (+1)

_________________
www.youtube.com/hyperviper34


Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:30 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:45 pm
Posts: 994
Reply with quote
gavomatic57 wrote:
You could argue that it is all a bit 1984-ish, but when it comes to being a few thousand feet up, travelling 500mph in an aluminium can, it just isn't worth taking chances!

I take it you don't fly with Ryanair either then :)


Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.