On their classic album London Calling, the old punk band The Clash had a song with some lyrics that always puzzled me:
What are we gonna do now?
Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
‘Cause they’re working for the clampdown (link)
I get the gist of the song — it’s a critique of the trend of rising fascism amongst British youth in the 1970s — but “turban”? Quoi?
Anyway, this past week I learned that Sikh travelers with turbans can expect not the clampdown, but the pat-down, as the TSA has changed its security policies yet again. The BBC has the details (thanks DJ Drrrty Punjabi):
US Sikh organisations have expressed anger over changes allowing airport security staff to “pat down” turbans.
Until now turbans have been searched or removed only to resolve an unexplained alarm from an airport metal detector.
But now security will have greater discretion to inspect turbans so that they can be manually checked for objects such as non-metallic weapons.
However Sikh groups have responded to the new measures by describing them as outrageous and discriminatory. (link)
Personally, I’m not so much outraged as annoyed and worried. I’m annoyed because I’m not sure how this is a rational or necessary change: metal detectors work pretty well. You couldn’t hide a gun, a knife, or explosives inside a turban without it being pretty obvious. But the TSA has a long history of arbitrary and sometimes irrational policies — like the nutty restrictions on baby formula, which have caused problems for me several times this past year. (Haven’t they heard? NEVER get between a hungry baby and his formula!) I’m also worried because I have a feeling the new policies may be deployed selectively and in a non-standardized way at different airports, and according to the whim of individual TSA agents, who may or may not understand what the Sikh turban represents. Some Sikhs will certainly be asked to remove turbans even if there’s no positive indication of anything concealed. (I’ve found that agents at smaller airports, like Manchester NH or Durham NC, are much more strict about enforcing policy than are the agents at bigger airports. At Philly, where the security lines are quite long and the agents are harried, they don’t look twice if you wear a turban — they know the deal. And they usually won’t bother to stop you even if you have fluids — no baby formula or bottled water hassles…)
The Sikh Coalition has been on this, and I got an email from them earlier this week with more specifics:
* A guidance to all TSA screeners nationwide on how to implement the new headwear procedure specifically lists the turban (in addition to cowboy hats and straw hats) as an item that can be subjected to secondary screening. Sikh travelers should therefore expect that turbans will be the subject of secondary screening, regardless of whether a metal detector indicates a metallic object is in the turban.
* The purpose of the secondary screening is to detect non-metallic objects. Therefore from the TSA’s perspective, it is irrelevant whether a Sikh’s turban sets off the metal detector or not.
* If requested, a private area will be provided for a pat-down search of a turban.
* A private area must be offered if a secondary search / pat-down leads to a request that a turban be removed.
* Despite the fact that the TSA guidance lists turbans as an example of headwear that can be the subject of secondary screening, a TSA screener is not required to conduct secondary screening of a turban. The screener can use his or her discretion to determine whether he/she believes the turban could conceal a non-metallic threat item.
People who have friends or family who wear turbans may want to pass the word along, so everyone knows what to expect when they next head to the airport. It might help to know that you’re due for secondary screening whether or not you set off the alarm. And it might also help to know that you have the right to request the additional screening be done in a private room.
Personally, I’m digging out my old Clash t-shirt the next time I fly.
Let me explain – some people went to the meeting with the TSA and came away that there was a defacto religious exemption for one form of headgear (used by both Muslims and Jews) although not others.
Ennis: I am not sure which meeting you are referring to but I was told that there is no exception for hijab and the only religious gear which is presumably exempt is the Jewish Yarmulke. In fact if you look at the list of co-sponsors, it has mostly Muslim organizations like CAIR, MAS, secular organizations like AALDEF, ADC and various Sikh organizations. No Jewish organization is a co-sponsor for the reason that Yarmulkes will be exempted.
“In fact if you look at the list of co-sponsors, it has mostly Muslim organizations like CAIR, MAS, secular organizations like AALDEF, ADC and various Sikh organizations. No Jewish organization is a co-sponsor for the reason that Yarmulkes will be exempted.”
Further dipshitness and evidence of the ways in which such rumors (thankyou original poster for clarification) become facts and fodder for ridiculous claims. That the absence of jewish groups as signatories on letter of protest means yarmulkes are excepted from the standards is a complete non-sequitur. The Association of Clowns neglected to sign the letter as well, as did the Cowboy Federation so I suppose big clown hats and ten gallons are also exempt, not to mention motorcycle helmets (otherwise hells angels would have signed).
The very fact that the new regulations remain unpublished make it less of “security theater” than any of the above posters claim. It isn’t (as so many things are) just a way to say, “look we’re giving the ‘towel heads’ a hard time, and that’s going to keep you safe so long as you vote for me again next year.” And adult sikh with a whole bunch of hair has a very large turban, much bigger than a sock, underwear or pants, even baggy, or a tight fitting headpiece.
— Richard Reid brings lighter –> nothing because tobacco lobby is too strong
Nothing? How about lighters being banned from flights?
That there was no actual trigger, that is, nobody actually tried to smuggle a weapon in his turban, is no reason not to scrutinize turbans in the future. It’s also illogical to say “Nobody would be stupid enough to hide a bomb in a turban” and therefore they shouldn’t be scrutinized. Clearly, if that was the case, then someone could say “nobody’s going to check my turban because they think it’s too stupid to put a bomb in my turban.”
There are grievances worth considering for sikhs in the midst of the hysteria over hairy brown men, but this is not such a case.
Noblekinsman. Here, from the San Jose Mercury:
The fact that skullcaps are not on the list of headgear singled out for extra scrutiny is confirmed by Transportation Security Administration spokesman Nico Melendez.
I’m not going to dignify accusations of antisemitism with a response. I’m just going to note that you were factually wrong, just like you’re wrong to make the accusation.
sizzle:
Um, there already is a random patdown policy at airports for people selected for secondary screening (you don’t even technically have to be set off the metal detector)–its something like 15-20% of all passangers recieve them. However, a couple years ago they did change the rules so that sensitive areas wouldn’t be subject to such a patdown unless a metal detector beeped over them (which in some ways defeats the purpose of the random secondary screening)—so that airport screeners don’t get to cop a feel of one’s naughty bits.
This new screening policy is still part of that random secondary screening policy http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1037.shtm .
I don’t know how the kippah has become an issue in this. Aside from the fact that its generally smaller than a turban, I haven’t read anything that says its exempted (and it shouldnt be).
The part that stinks about this is that the binding of a turban can take a lot longer then simply having to put a skullcap or something else back on.
ce blast – see above – the kippah is exempted. I brought it up because the policy is not consistent.
thanks for the skullcap update ennis.
that’s bogus.
I tend to agree with Camille then on the religious exemption angle. While the claim is made that the policy is not targeted at a particular religion, such an exemption is absurd considering a dangerous amount of a liquid or other synthetic explosive can be hid under a skull cap.
Their security arguments may float, but this exemption is incredibly hard to argue in favor of.
Responding to noblekinsman @ #52 : What’s with all the rudeness, dude ? You initially, without any effort to appreciate and acknowledge the circumspection of Ennis’s comment, insinuate that some commenters on this board are anti-Semitic. You then smoothly abandon the accuse-my-interloqutors-of-anti-Semitism rhetorical strategy and instead accuse a person or persons unknowm of dipshitness.
What is your precise point ? You feel that there is a lot of sense in the new patting-the-turbans procedure ? Then say so, and give reasons why you feel that way. If you want to quarrel with someone on this board then: A) at least explain the cause of your disquiet; B) try to avoid the lazy man’s cheapo tactic of accusing random people of anti-Semitism; and C) at least try to keep it entertaining.
As for this:
(Emphasis mine) Many, many of us have witnessed passengers being allowed to carry their lighters into the aircraft with them. Perhaps that has not been your experience. . . But before putting up statements like the one highlighted, I wish you would at least look up the TSA and the DOT press releases on cigarette-lighters vs other hazmat first.
Nobody pays attention to the regulations. They will, however, notice that the big brown turbanned guy is being made to take his turban off, and that will make them feel better.
A turban is not actually that large. It is made of a long but fairly thin material, and there’s no way to hide a bomb in it, which is what they’re worried about. T
hey’re concerned about plastic explosives being smuggled in. That will be more visible in a turban than in any of the garments on your body. For example, far easier to do on the inside of baggy pants or a long skirt. Their “logic” isn’t consistent.
We’ll see how bad things get in practice, but if it is really bad, then I might well stop flying domestically. I don’t like being at the mercy of a bigotted TSA employee.
More disagreement with Noblekinsman’s factual assertions – lighters are not banned on planes:
The lighter ban was officially lifted (in practice they had not been enforcing it well) at the same time that the turban search policy was enacted.
obviously you can’t account for a bigoted or (more likely) slightly dim airport screener going about this in a bad way in every case, but the argument that they can be hid more easily (an arguable claim in itself) in pants, etc don’t necessary preclude such a policy. Pants, etc are subject to their random secondary screenings. Extending it to headgear, regardless of why its worn is a logical extension of such a policy as long as its carried out consistently and with respect.
As for the public viewing of a such a patdown, all the more reason to inform people about this policy so if they do get randomly selected they ask for a private patdown.
is that what its called these days?
Ce blast – the problem is that turbans are now on a list of “suspicious head coverings”. It goes beyond whether they can be searched in a random search, the presumption with these head coverings is that they may be hiding something, although action is left to the discretion of the screener. Again, I’m piecing this together from comments from the TSA since we cannot see the policy itself, unlike before when the turban screening policy was a public document.
Furthermore, since it’s easier for me to hide something in baggy pants or a skirt, then shouldn’t screeners be encouraged to view those articles as suspicious too?
The impression that I also get from the new policy is that a turban is guilty until proven innocent (i.e. ostensibly every turban qualifies for a search), which is not really the case for other articles of clothing in screening. I just don’t see how this policy actually improves security in any tangible way, especially given all the other requirements, cross-checks, etc. It seems like a case of chasing the “symbolism” instead of the “substance” behind security checks. One thing this policy definitely does do, though, is further alienate and divide U.S. travelers.
Such requests have not been granted in the cases we know about.
A lot of this obviously hinges on the policy in question–turbans shouldn’t fall under a category of suspicious head covering anymore than pants should fall under a suspicious category as well. However, as a consistent check of articles of clothing that can hide a dangerous contraband I don’t see any problem.
Of course, the fact that the kippah apparently is exempt makes me suspect that if and when the formal policy is actually revealed that there will be a number of well deserved lawsuits and criticisms of the TSA (and this is from someone who theoretically has no problem with turbans, kippahs, etc being checked).
I don’t know that all head covering search policies would necessarily employ a guilty till innocent strategy if done consistently but so far the way the TSA has handled this doesn’t inspire much confidence in this policy.
As for the failure to allow private screenings, while I’d appreciate some links, the fact such cases exist makes me appreciate a person’s ability to sue in this country (even if sometimes its done frivolously).
If the TSA had a truly random check all the clothes of a person policy, combined with an evenly applied suspicious behavior policy, I might accept it.
As is, suggesting to screeners that they check for bombs in turbans when there’s no good way to hide such a thing in there, and leaving it up to their discretion, is a bad move. It also doesn’t inspire much confidence that they are increasing our security. It’s like checking all people wearing spandex while letting people wearing loose dresses through.
If the harassment becomes constant, I’ll have to stop flying I suppose.
And if they’re looking for explosives
a) can’t they do a wipe test like they do with my laptop?
b) shouldn’t they not need to do this in airports with puffer machines?
More reasons why this feels like theater.
ennis, check my first couple sentences in 17. wipe tests and puffer and other TEDDs are not effective with many explosives
But if they’re truly worried, then shouldn’t they be doing large scale and random strip to your underwear searches then?
ce blast:
in re: your comment 54.
the key word is “discretionary.” the pat downs you speak of are random. the new TSA policy allows discretionary (and seemingly recommended) searches precipitated on head coverings, namely the turban.
As a caucasion Sikh, I can assure you this policy is not limited to brown people… though I do believe it is clearly targed towards Sikhs… based on a perception of being ‘terrorists.” I’ve flown 3 times in the last 2 weeks… and EACH time… I was patted down. Also… each time.. I didn’t set off any alarms. So.. if it’s ‘discretionary’ by the TSA agent.. .then I’d say the overriding state of discretion is to pat down Sikh turbans no matter. While it ‘is’ possible to hide something I spose in a turban… or in a ‘fake hair knot’ beneath the fabric… it is also ENTIRELY possible to hide MUCH more inside the bra of fake or real breasts. This policy has no reason other than to harrass non-‘normal’ people. There’s a large black comedienne who does a shtick complaining about the price of drinks in bars… by the time she’s done.. she’s pulled a cup, ice, pint of vodka and a gallon of OJ out of her bra. TSA is fueling the politics of fear among the public, and I look forward to a constitutional challenge to this policy.
So, I just flew home to Newark from SFO and totally got the hijab pat down…
Sorry, but I’ll be damned if I’m subjecting myself to a pat-down. Their hands have no business on my turban. If they deem it necessary, I’ll gladly unroll it and expose my kesh for their eyes, but I’ll most likely wind up in the pokey if they lay finger one on my pag.
Amina, thanks for sharing that — it changes my perception of the new rules somewhat. (I still don’t like them.)
Pat down is not great, but a whole take this off routine … shudder. I’ll leave my job and move elsewhere where I don’t need to fly if that’s the case ….
I don’t know if i agree with you on that reading. If they said that the method by which the screeners would choose specific people was discretionary or that head covering searches are allowed at a screener’s discretion than yeah, it would probably suggest some type of profiling if a particular screener felt any person with a head covering deserved to be searched (whats unfortunately inevitable is that regardless of policy, some screeners will do this anyway). However, at least in the excerpts referred to in this post, the term discretion doesn’t apply in those ways. The first mention But now security will have greater discretion to inspect turbans so that they can be manually checked for objects such as non-metallic weapons. suggests that security will now have the ability to inspect turbans through different physical methods as opposed to just taking one off and unraveling. Its why its followed directly by the non matellic weapons bit and is preceded by the methods which were allowed previously.
The second reference also seems to be a physical as opposed to profiling reference: Despite the fact that the TSA guidance lists turbans as an example of headwear that can be the subject of secondary screening, a TSA screener is not required to conduct secondary screening of a turban. The screener can use his or her discretion to determine whether he/she believes the turban could conceal a non-metallic threat item. Here the TSA asks the screener to judge whether a partiular turban could physically conceal a non metallic threat item—its why they refer to a singular turban and is even prefaced by the bit that says the turban doesn’t have to be subject to secondary screening. One reason why the kippah may be exempt is because the TSA may believe (as they also seem to suggest about some turbans from this sentence) that they physically cannot hide a dangerous non metallic threat. This is justifiable difference, but a very, very poor one because anyone with familiarity in the area can tell you that a non metal explosive that would be very dangerous can definitely be hid under some kippahs.
TSA should also include the following items to be patted down removed and searched as the wearer can cause issues if they smuggle any chemical bombs in them….. (1) Underwears (2) Bras (3) Baggy Jeans (4) Loose Fitting dress – may it be any – shirt, pant, underdress.
Then I will say TSA is not biased, until then it’s just causing an unnecessary stir in the Sikh community and brining Americans who are illiterate about Sikhism closer to being more hateful about us – The only turban wearers in the West…..
Muslim women with headscarves are being subjected to a secondary pat down as well — regardless of whether the alarm goes off. My little sibling, who wears a headscarf, was recently subject to a secondary pat down. She was asked to put her hands on her head, while the TSA agent patted her down. Her hands were then “swabbed” (because she touched her headscarf with them). My sister, who is in her last year of law school, asked the Agent why she was being subjected to this. The agent simply said: “because you are wearing bulky clothing.” My sister was wearing a light summer tunic with a pair of fitted jeans.