more reasons for GA: John Gilmo I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button

take your business else where because you have to show ID to use a credit
card?
Dood, you have issues.



Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:42:39 GMT, lardsoup wrote:

Don't take out your frustrations on the regular people,
like pilots and passengers.

I always thought that pilots are not regular people :-)

Where
I work we won't let you use a credit card without ID.

well, it is your decision. But the decision of the customer to make
business with you. I would take my business elsewhere if I have the
slightest chance. Free market is a nice thing. :-)

GEEZ. With all the
problems in the world

rant
Oh yes, please elaborate the problems the world has with the regulations
and demands of the USA. The problem is not _the_ _world_ ... [it is people
with your mindset]
/rant

we have to put up with jerks like this. Like the
other poster said - WALK!

Go back to start and read the article first and don't start bashing after
reading the first 10 lines. Ah yes, and try to think of the consequences
this will bring on your every day life.

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmo I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

Very well said - You should be working for a news paper, you write better then
most of them.


C J Campbell wrote:

Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?

Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet another
Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
London. Although he started in the United States, no US government authority
has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.

Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended to
prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a private
company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner of
that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA a
private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company and
should be allowed to behave as such.

Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the right
of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.

Is BA a 'common carrier' and what are the rules for common carriers?

If BA is a 'common carrier' what difference who owns it?

Must be someone who can answer these questions?

I might have known years ago, but old age takes it's toll.


Big John


On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:36:00 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?

Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet another
Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
London. Although he started in the United States, no US government authority
has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.

Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended to
prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a private
company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner of
that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA a
private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company and
should be allowed to behave as such.

Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the right
of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?

Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet
another
Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
London. Although he started in the United States, no US government
authority
has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.

Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended
to
prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a
private
company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner
of
that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA
a
private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company
and
should be allowed to behave as such.

Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the
right
of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.



Well after slogging through all the other (mostly) moronic posts containing
such obligatory propagandistic left-wing phrases like "fascist police state"
and "narrow minded bigot", I'm giving this post the award for having the
most common-sense and defensible premises. Congratulations, sir, for being
just about the only person here that seems to be able to think critically
and logically about this issue.

Now, my opinion on this issue is that tactics like those used by Mr. Gilmore
are a self-fulfilling prophecy and he knows it. He chose to flaunt the
post-9/11 heightened sense of security for the simple juvenile purpose of
being able to scream "fascists" when BA took the pre-determined action that
he wished to protest against. Not only that, but if I were a passenger on
that plane, I certainly wouldn't have looked at him as some kind of "freedom
fighter" or revolutionary who standing up for his rights by fighting the
"oppressive totalitarian state", but rather I would have viewed him as an
immature simpleton that thinks he's making a profound sociological
statement, when all he's really doing is holding up a plane full of people
that don't give a **** about his "cause".


-smc

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
take your business else where because you have to show ID to use a credit
card?

Let's see now: you seem to feel that making customers show ID in order to
use a credit card is a significant enough demand to bring it up in this
thread. Yet, at the same time, you think someone who chooses not to do
business with someone who makes such a requirement is being unreasonable?

Nothing about your position seems inconsistent to you? Nothing at all?

Dood, you have issues.

Seems like that applies at least as well to you.

Pete

Yes, the airlines say to EVERYBODY: you are a terrorist unless proven you
are not.

If you really want to drive the last nail in the coffin of commercial
airline service, force them to treat passengers otherwise.

After 9/11, like it or not, most passengers WANT the added "security"
measures that TSA have put in place. I'm sure if you put it to a vote there
would be five Air Marshals on every flight, and "ground-controlled
auto-land" capability on every plane -- stupid though that may be.

The fact that Mayor Daley is walking around a free man after bulldozing an
airport in the name of "increased security" says volumes about the current
attitude of the general public. In "normal" times (I.E.: Pre-9/11), Daley
would have been hauled away in handcuffs for destroying public property in
the middle of the night.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"S. Culver" wrote in message
...
Well after slogging through all the other (mostly) moronic posts
containing
such obligatory propagandistic left-wing phrases like "fascist police
state"
and "narrow minded bigot", I'm giving this post the award for having the
most common-sense and defensible premises. Congratulations, sir, for being
just about the only person here that seems to be able to think critically
and logically about this issue.

Now, my opinion on this issue is that tactics like those used by Mr.
Gilmore
are a self-fulfilling prophecy and he knows it. He chose to flaunt the
post-9/11 heightened sense of security for the simple juvenile purpose of
being able to scream "fascists" when BA took the pre-determined action
that
he wished to protest against. Not only that, but if I were a passenger on
that plane, I certainly wouldn't have looked at him as some kind of
"freedom
fighter" or revolutionary who standing up for his rights by fighting the
"oppressive totalitarian state", but rather I would have viewed him as an
immature simpleton that thinks he's making a profound sociological
statement, when all he's really doing is holding up a plane full of people
that don't give a **** about his "cause".


He was wearing a BUTTON, for god's sake. A while ago someone was kicked out
of a mall for wearing a t-shirt that expressed an anti-war opinion. In each
of these cases, could the respective parties force the patrons to leave?
Sure, they could and they did. However, I wonder what we have come to when
this happens, when many of us are so intollerant of differing opinions. Who
does this remind me of? Are we becoming extremists in our thinking too?

Please point out where it says democracy in the constitution.

The USA is a democratic republic at this point. A representative
democracy. Democracy is about how the decisions are made, or the
government is chosen; a republic is one of the forms such a government can
take. Neither of these are guarantees of freedom. And fascism, though
it
is often associated with dictatorship, is more about the policies and
practices of a government, being one that 'exalts' the nation, or the
race,
perhaps, above the individual'. But whether or not such a government
becomes in the end a dictatorship, such a government could still
conceivably
have in the beginning been democratically elected.

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:f%ASa.93708$GL4.25281@rwcrnsc53...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| ...
|
| I'd just like to do a quick consistency check here, CJ. By the above
| reasoning, if (hypothetically) BA had ejected Mr. Glimore for being black
or
| Jewish (rather than for his button), then (although I assume you'd
| disapprove of that policy) you'd be equally unsympathetic to Mr. Gilmore
for
| suing them, and you'd consider him equally "hypocritical" for thereby
| challenging BA's "freedom"--correct? Indeed, you'd consider Mr. Gilmore's
| wrongdoing to be just as grave as a slave owner's, correct?
|

That is indeed correct. That does not meant that I approve of such
discrimination -- I merely assert that I think people have an inalienable
right to do business, or not, with anyone they please for any reason. There
is no moral difference between a company that will not do business with
blacks or Jews than a boycott of that business by blacks or Jews or any
other group. I will grant that I would probably honor a boycott against a
discriminatory business, but again I think this is a matter that is better
handled through social pressure than through official legislation. I believe
that government interference in this relationship does more harm than good.
Such laws breed more resentment than tolerance.

Frankly, I have never understood racial discrimination. Such divisions of
humanity have always seemed artificial to me. Why a business would
deliberately cut off a large potential customer base and then insult others
by doing so just seems to me to be really bad business. Nevertheless, I
think a business has a right to be stupid, to put it bluntly.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
|
|
|
| He was wearing a BUTTON, for god's sake. A while ago someone was kicked
out
| of a mall for wearing a t-shirt that expressed an anti-war opinion. In
each
| of these cases, could the respective parties force the patrons to leave?
| Sure, they could and they did. However, I wonder what we have come to
when
| this happens, when many of us are so intollerant of differing opinions.
Who
| does this remind me of? Are we becoming extremists in our thinking too?
|
|

That is a whole different issue.

While I would say that British Airways has a right to be intolerant of
divergent political opinions, I would also say that their actions exhibit an
extremist point of view. I think their actions also do their business more
harm than good.

To Mr. Gilmore's credit, he does not appear to have resisted being taken off
the airplane. His threat to sue is another matter, since that involves
government enforcement. If Mr. Gilmore had not threatened to sue the airline
I would not have a problem with anything he did. That does not meant that I
agree with his point of view. It does mean that I would not have a problem
with the way that he expressed.