It shouldn’t be any surprise to people that we are ringing in 2009 with another one of these stories. (via RaceWire)
Nine Muslim passengers on a New Year’s Day flight on AirTran were kicked off a flight after others flying reportedly heard remarks about airport security. Because of the confusion, that was eventually cleared up, no one was able to fly.[RaceWire]
What could these “dangerous” remarks be? Did they say one of the handful of words that as brown people we are not allowed to say within a ten mile radius of an airport, including but apparently not exclusively, the following words: bomb, terrorist, Bin Laden, explode, die, Bush, fire, shoe, fertilizer, Allahu Akbar?
Mr. Irfan turned to his wife…wondered aloud where the safest place to sit on the airplane would be — the front? The rear? Over the wing?But passengers sitting behind them evidently overheard the remark, saw Mr. Irfan’s beard and his wife’s head scarf, and grew concerned…The worried passengers contacted flight attendants, who contacted Transportation Security Administration officials, and soon, Mr. Irfan and his wife were off the plane and being questioned in the jetway.[NYT]
Oh! The trigger word was ‘safest.’ How ironic.
Before long…the F.B.I. concluded that the incident was obviously just a misunderstanding, and told AirTran officials that the family was cleared to travel. But he said AirTran still refused to rebook them, offering only to refund their tickets. The F.B.I. agents helped the family get on a later USAirways flight to Orlando, but those seats cost them twice as much.[NYT]
It took me a while to get to posting this up because frankly, this is a dime a dozen story. In 2008 alone, the Transportation Department reported 87 cases of complaints alleging discrimination by airlines and only four were security related. Flying while brown stories happen all the time. I’m tired of blogging about stories like this and that these incidences are still happening. These stories are a part of our lives on the margin and being brown. I’m not implying that we should stand by the wayside and merely accept the injustice. Which is exactly what Mr. Irfan didn’t do. Instead he got organized. AirTran issued an apology but it seems really weak.
Security is a shared responsibility and this incident highlights the multiple layers of security that are in place in today’s aviation environment. While ultimately this issue proved to be a misunderstanding, the steps taken were necessary.[AirTran]
D.C. delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is asking for a congressional hearing on the incident.
She said that reports of similar incidents among other airlines show that personnel are confused about how to judge security risks and respond to them. Norton said airlines are allowing “amateurs” to make serious decisions, and that Congress has an obligation to address the incidents.[USAToday]
I for one never flew AirTran because of their cramped seats. But now I have even more reason not to.
i would yet highlight this
i would yet highlight this too little, too late. and none of this was offered at the time of the incident. i don’t want to presume, but i would not be surprised if this action was taken primarily for PR measures
one of then is an attorney – and there’s no better an american way to solve this than a nice big lawsuit.
Koofi,
why are you in such a hurry to sing praises and justify airTran? If they offered refund etc, that’s ONLY after it became a big issue. I mean, these gora people, when they practice modern racism, the want to do it in a polished manner, without making it look like racism. When it is called racism, they usually issue a barrage of verbiage to mask it, paint it otherwise. Then they make some token amends. And then, some brownies like this start making it look like the gora airTran is the being oh so magnanimous and it is all in some way the brownies fault.
It all started when some white (anyone betting it wasn’t?) thought he/she could not sit with this brownie with a beard. Had it been a black family instead of a brownie, this country would have been oh so upset by now. Since they are brown, we are singing praises to AirTran.
These amrus are oh so fond of pointing out India’s caste system every now and then. They have their racism, and while it is not posted conspicuously, what incidents like these remind you is, ‘oh brownie, your living here is a privilege, you sitting in this airplane with us is a privilege, don’t you forget it. We can take away that privilege anytime, anywhere, and still make it look like your fault. Dont you ever forget that.’
Well, it is not a brown issue, IMO.It is more of a ‘beard’ and ‘head scarf’ issue.Lets keep that distinction clear.
Also, attributing a misjudgement by an airline staff should not make us say ‘these goras’.That, to me, is being reverse racist.
A congressional hearing? is that really necessary?
I heard the guy talking about this on the news and he sounds like a pretty intelligent guy — so frankly, I’m surprised he didn’t know that once a plane is up in the air, there is no safe place to sit. Your only hope for survival rests in the pilots hands.
Maybe we need to be more honest here about what happened on 9/11 — it wasn’t white old grandma’s who brought down those planes and because of that maybe people are not being entirely racist when their fears are raised by people who fit a certain “profile”.
I’m surprised that you guys are surprised.
it is always funny to see brownies finding new ways to justify gora racism. So kumar, you think a gora with a beard and scarf would have gotten the same treatment?
How nice of you. Please remember it when you get the same treatment somewhere. I, otoh, prefer to call a spade a spade and say these goras, because about 99% of the racism treatment when someone is *denied something in america because of race, color etc is instigated by , shall I say, these goras.
“I’m suprised that you guys are surprised.”
I’m sure you are. Most anonymi who are posting for the first time with no intention of sticking around after their usual two or three intentionally provocative posts usually are. Yeah, right.
5 · NM said
Barring that I disagree with the spirit behind the above logic, did it occur to the author that three women with hijabs tugging along three kids didn’t bring down those planes, either?
‘these goras’ come in varying shades of white too.
Your statement is racist and makes you no different than the people who assumed ‘bad’ things about the poor Muslim passengers.
Oruvan,
I repeat: It is not a brown issue.It is not a race issue.It is a safety issue.
The passengers have every right to complain if they suspect some one.And the airline staff is duty bound to follow the rule book in such instances.These things may cause inconvenience to some innocent people at times.I would measure that inconvenience against the need to be vigilant, and bear it.Enough lives have been lost to political correctness already.
Faiqa,
Whilst I sympathise with these innocent hijab wearing women (in the photograph) and their children, I would want you to look at this wikipedia entry.
The job of airline staffers is not as easy as you think.They can’t ignore passengers’ complaints.And they get pilloried for following the rule book.
Maybe one of the legal eagles could explain this –
I can understand additional searches while brown – absolutely understandable. But how on earth does an airline have the right to pull someone off the plane if that person ‘passes’ a second and presumably beefed up security check? Isn’t this unconstitutional? This is right out of the ‘Gandhi in South Africa’ ages.
Why hasn’t this one gone to supreme court as yet?
10 · Kumar said
You are kidding me, right?
Maybe when it was two teenagers who overheard a man with a beard talking about safety on a plane and decided to report it…maybe that is a safety issue, highly clouded in racial profiling.
But the issue here is that even after the FBI CLEARED the family and deemed them safe, they STILL couldn’t fly to FL on AirTran. They had to go on another airline, US Airway, and had to pay double the fairs because it was such short notice. If it was a SAFETY issue, then once the FBI said they were safe, they should have been allowed by AirTran to continue on their flight.
It doesn’t matter that AirTran is reimbursing them for their flight, the difference in cost of the new flights, and travel to and from DC. The point is they were not allowed to fly at all on AirTran, despite being called safe. And that is incredibly racist.
Oh brother. I suppose holding completely innocent people at Gitmo is a safety issue too. The above is a totally ridiculous statement.
To clarify, both Gitmo and this stupid airline policy is NOT a safety issue. It is a legal, “cover our ass from any possibility whatsoever of being sued or being blamed in case one terrorist slips by” issue.
Abhi,
What has Gitmo got to do with this?
Ok..I say it is a safety issue and you say it is a legal issue.So, we agree it is not a race issue?
Taz,
If the FBI has cleared them for travel and AirTran still did not allow them, then it is a legal issue. But that is not what I read in NYT.Here’s what the link you provided in the post says; I am sure you read it all.But please read again with my highlights.
Please note: I am not defending the airline’s action completely.But trying to understand it from their point of view.I think we are being over sensitive to attribute racist behavior to the air line staff.They followed the rule book, that’s all.
Kumar,
Nice spin.
But what you are quoting is technically the direct quote from AirTrans initial apology release the day after it happened. Of course in an AirTran verbatem press release, they will leave pertinent facts out.
Please see original blog post above where I quoted from the NYT directly –
The FBI had to rebook their ticket. That’s absurd that the FBI had to go to that lengths.
As for
Just because it’s in the rule book, doesn’t make it not racist – Critical Race Theory 101. Society perpetuates racism, and rules just support it. Rules are created by people. It’s through legal cases around incidents like these that racism is broken and rules change.
Good for Mr. Irfan. If more people would stand up (including non-browns) and not just suck it up (and for non-browns- not say, whoa, well, that’s the way it is nowadays)- maybe things would be less racist and paranoid for all of us.
I’m all for a little congressional searching (soul and otherwise- although I am not always sure Congress actually has one- they still haven’t found much of a backbone, so I’m not holding my breath on the soul part) – if they represent the people- and Mr. Irfan and co are included- then why should this type of profiling be pandered to legally and commercially? And why should anyone’s uninformed, racist paranoid behavior be encouraged and abetted?
As for the “safety” issue- most racial incidents and hate crimes are perpetrated by White Men, not to mention rape. So, would I be justified in whispering to the airline attendant that the big, scary looking white dude whose NRA mag has wandered into my personal space, makes me fear that I might be indecently put upon because I’m a smaller, b wearing a non-Christian symbol, c liberal, d reading something not in English (or the NYT), etc. and to please remove him? If so, that would make my next trip so much more fun…
Seriously, this “public safety” excuse for nasty profiling and screwing with people needs to stop. You can’t claim to be a country of decency and ethics and get in a snit over China and other places and allow this kind of thing. It’s been over 30 years since basic civil rights legislation was passed, a few less than that over the profiling incidents in California and other places (where driving while brown is no joke). This administration (good-bye, Bush….) has a repulsively low regard for civil rights, human rights and basic decency (cluster bombs, for example), but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t hold ourselves to higher standards.
Taz,
I think the spin was started by you, not me.
Here, let me quote from the NYT article again, without deleting what you have deleted.
So, it is not the FBI you quoted in your post.You quoted Mr.Irfan speaking to The Lede.
Now, we have Mr.Irfan saying some thing and AirTran saying some thing else.Irfan’s word against AirTran’s. I will believe the air line’s word.You can trust Irfan’s word.
Ok..even accepting what you say about Critical Race Theory 101, what do you reckon we need to do with the rules now? If tomorrow a passenger lodges a complaint about fellow passengers, what do you propose the air line should do?It is easy to talk theory.When you are a service provider with liabilities every where, it is ‘safest’ to follow the rule book.And that is what AirTran did.It may be stupid/inefficient of them to take so long (2 hrs) for the departure, but that doesn’t make them racist.
I agree there are genuine incidents of racism.But this one doesn’t seem to fit the bill.
With all due respect, I think SM is seeing the outcome of its obsequious political neutrality, in the form of a readership that hears about an Indian Muslim family being arbitrarily detained and accuses SM of “reverse racism” and misrepresenting “a legal issue” and a “safety issue.” The natural conclusion is that “enough lives have been lost to political correctness already.” Right: a virtual genocide.
Are we really discussing with any degree of seriousness that the beard and religion markers had absolutely nothing to do with the paranoia of the fellow passengers? Really?
Personally, I find the constant exhortations of “See something, say something” beyond spooky.
And while we’re on the subject of Wikipedia (with apologies to any Tamil readers):
Lebanon saw the first bombing, but it was the LTTE Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka who perfected the tactic and inspired its use elsewhere[64] . Their Black Tiger unit has committed between 76 and 168 (estimates vary) suicide bombings since 1987 , the higher estimates putting them behind more than half of the world’s suicide bombings between 1980 and 2000[65] (read more-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombers#1980_to_present)
I am assuming most Tamils don’t wear hijab?
17 · Taz said
i would go with a classic liberal rights-oriented response taz, b/c these postmodern theories tend to turn against themselves. critical legal/race studies denies the existence of neutral principles, informing us that they are really covers for certain power/class/race interests. so cross burning, it has been argued, should not be constitutionally protected speech b/c within the historical context of the usa, it only furthers the hegemony of white supremacy.
so rights are relative and should be contextualized. theoretically then, the right to non-discrimination or equal protection could be viewed by critical legal theorists within the context of the rise of Islamic terrorism/supremacy. so denying these individuals their rights could be justified within this context, as a reaction against a violent movement hellbent on destroying individual freedoms.
Kumar,
dude, it’s totally a brown thing. if you think it isn’t, tell that to the Sikh cabbies in NYC who were dragged out of their cars and beaten to death, or the Hindu shop owners beaten shortly after 9/11. And I’m not sure if you remember 9/11 correctly. As I recall, none of the hijackers had a beard or a headscarf, or looked particularly “Muslim”. To condone this is like saying its OK for cabbies to not pick up dark passengers in the middle of the night, since they think that they are more likely to rob you. Or that you shouldn’t leave your small children around Catholic priests…
Racial profiling is racial profiling. Plain and simple. It’s not fair. It may be under the guise of safety but it predisposes us to persecute the innocent while not keeping us alert for the people who are terrorists, but just aren’t stupid enough to yell, “I’m a terrorist”, or dress like one. If you think that a terrorist would wear a keffiyeh scarf and have a beard, you are more of an idiot than i already think you are.
Airtran and the passenger who reported this acted in a racist fashion, misinterpreting speech and actions that fit their small worldview of what is acceptable American traveler norms. Airtran didn’t retract their original statement until it became a public relations nightmare. For that reason, I don’t accept their apology and will continue to boycott them indefinitely.
Who’s with me?
Talking of beards and turbans, something similar happened last month when three sikh singers were de-boarded from their flight after the pilot refused to fly with them on board. They hadnt even been talking about safe seats or bombs. Heck, they couldnt even speak english.
18 · zazou said
Yeah, except standing up for brown peoples rights is probably one of the things we as brown people are not allowed to do within 10 mile radii of airports. . . . sigh . . .
I really don’t understand why airport security is still so high 8 years after 9/11. As if there aren’t a million other ways that a terrorist could blow up America.
No, we are not discussing that aspect.The post seems to attribute racism to the air line’s actions.I feel that the air line did what it was supposed to do as per the rule book.Taz says the rule book is racist.And I am asking her to define what the rule book should be in such cases.
The individual passengers who complained about Mr.Irfan are definitely reacting to the religious stereotypes in the current global context of Jihadi terrorism.How do we change the stereotype? I am sure we all have different solutions for that.
But are we really looking for a solution here? Or accusing any contra opinion as ‘spin’?
A lot of you are simplifying a very complex issue. If AirTran did not respond to the concerns of the passengers and heaven forbid, these brown folks were indeed Jihadists, what then? AirTran has a standard operating procedure for dealing with these incidents, and it sounds like they followed it to a T. Yes, it is very unfortunate that Muslims are stereotyped in these times, but the solution involves a shift in Muslim identity in this world, not in embracing political correctness. Until that happens, good luck trying to convince people that a brown bearded man discussing safety issues on a plane is no cause for concern.
I think, just for fun, i’m going to try to pick out the most unassuming guy on my next flight (maybe a really old lady) and raise my suspicions to the airline staff. Just to see if they ignore me, or haul my ass off the flight. That is assuming that I’m not in a hurry.
Maybe we should all buy tickets on the same day and do this. Imagine the chaos of hundreds of flights delayed around the country. All Airtran flights. Passive resistance…but vindictive.
I was kidding. But in the abstract this would be kinda funny…as a just dessert.
Oh, come on. Look, I accept Jindal’s conversion and all, but now I’m a bad guy if I associate Catholic priests and pedophilia? Give me a break–you are a candidate for the “Darwin awards.”
Nadeem, can I come, too? Maybe we can get each other thrown off! I’ll bring my video equipment and presscard…
In a completely pure world, people would not identify Muslims as dangerous based on the actions of Jihadists. But we do not live in such a world. It is sad that innocent Muslims are racially profiled, but that’s NOT the fault of passengers who are on high alert when they hear something suspicious. It is the fault of Muslim fundamentalists who have taken over the identity of what it means to be a Muslim.
Hmmm,
Except that after following their rule book and clearing these families, they persisted in denying these passengers a seat.
You’re absolutely right that this is a complex issue. But it’s sad when we can’t agree that what happened to this family was, in fact, racism. despite whatever safety/security/complex tag that you put on it.
I agree with what Hmmm says above.
It is sad, but we have been cursed to live with this paranoia, for Khuda knows how many more years.
Why do you keep calling it racism, when it’s clearly based on their religion, not their race? That’s just weird.
Nadeem,
Oh no, I totally agree that this is racially motivated. However, it is the Muslims’ cross to bear as long as their identities are marred by fundamentalism. Is it fair? Hell no. Is it reality? Unfortunately yes. Do I fault the passengers for being on higher alert? I wish I could say yes but in reality, I can’t.
As for AirTran not allowing the family back onto the plane, has that been definitely concluded? It seems like from the above comments, it is the family’s word versus AirTran.
rob,
it was a joke, sort of. but again, not all catholic priests are pedophiles, most aren’t. stereotypes are our way of neatly grouping people. though they may exist for a reason.
I’m just stating that our stereotypes of Muslims are based on a very small percentage of bad people. a similar percentage of bad people that exist in almost every group of people. (i just made that up, don’t ask for a citation, i don’t have one, but it’s seems to me like it’s probably true).
Anyway, sorry to use that example. but i think your response illustrates the point. we probably shouldn’t be afraid to leave children with catholic priests but b/c of some priests they have a poor reputation. they aren’t all pedophiles.
btw, i don’t get the jindal conversion or darwin award comments. please explain.
It’s kinda ironic that their website banner is emblazoned with the exhortation: “go. there’s nothing stopping you.”
rob,
you’re right. i’m using racism as an umbrella word. it’s more like stereotypism. but then again, it’s not only muslims that suffer from this. like the posters ahead of me mentioned: Sikhs, South Indians, non-Muslim Arabs all get singled out as well. In that sense it is racism.
Ummm–well, I was saying that (1) I don’t object (unlike some commenters) to Bobby Jindal’s conversion from Hinduism to Catholicism, but (2) to think that Catholic priests aren’t a particular risk for children (compared to, uhhh, say, chemists or nurses) is to court negative selective pressure–hence “Darwin awards.”
does that mean to fly with a brown guy with a beard courts negative selection?
I think not–my mommy grew up in Delhi, but she’s South Indian (that’s why I speak Tamil)–she would laugh at you if you compared her to the Irfans in terms of how she’s treated in the US–and I mean laugh really, really hard! I’m not condoning discrimination vs. the Irfans, far from it, but please–let’s stay realistic. (PS–in a syncretic act, I got her a VHP-A membership as her Christmas gift.)
i was referring to the comment above about how a Tamil speaking person was detained at Sea-Tac for speaking Tamil. Hence “South Indians”.
oops sorry, i got my blogs mixed up.
http://www.236.com/news/2009/01/02/tips_for_travelling_muslims_10945.php
OK, well, whatever–nobody is going to arrest me for talking to my mommy on my mobile in Tamil, sorry.
sorry messed up again, it was rahul’s post from above.
sorry to repost your posting Rahul.
http://sambharmafia.blogspot.com/2006/10/tamil-speaker-attracts-attention-at.html
Oh, please. It’s racism pure and simple masquerading as a public safety measure. Here’s a thought-in the last 150 years how many Arab or Muslim nations have invaded and occupied Europe? I’m sorry- was the answer ZERO? You would be correct! Let’s see, there’s France, England, Germany did some mucking around as did Spain… hmmm. And yet few people on Air Jordan or Royal Air Maroc say get this gaouri away from me because his/her people have this nasty habit of taking our countries, using us as slave labor, importing us as labor, stealing our stuff (including our property)and making us learn another language in order to get anything done while occupied. Oh, and did I mention, when asked to leave, they usually engage in a nasty war of liberation in which 1,000s and 1,000s of us get killed? And that’s why I don’t trust this person.
It’s part and parcel of the conscious fear-mongering. Thank god for Colin Powell (ok- a little too little spine a lot too late), who finally said when asked if Obama is a Muslim, the technically correct answer is no. The culturally ethical answer is no, but so what- not oh, god no- how could you slander him so?
.
I talk to my mommy all the time in public in Tamil on my cell-phone–no problems. You are really doing a disservice to people back in the Desh to spread what I would consider the lie that Tamils face the problem here of being viewed as terrorists. That’s just dumb. Can we be honest?
at least they weren’t busted for DWI (driving while Indian.)
P.S. Being one, I took a little offense to the guy up top who insists that all goras ‘practice modern racism.’ Not a very nuanced statement, and almost ironic, given the suspicious eye which many Hindus give to Muslims. I can’t imagine many RSS/BJP types getting too worked up about the incident.
*Obviously, I’m using the term ‘racism’ in a loose way here. But you know what I mean.