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

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.

"Big John" wrote in message
...
|
| Is BA a 'common carrier' and what are the rules for common carriers?
|
| If BA is a 'common carrier' what difference who owns it?
|

British Airways is a common carrier, meaning that it holds itself out to
carry passengers and property for hire. It does not mean that British
Airways is community property. After all, a guy who offers to carry loads of
hay with his horse and wagon is a common carrier. Being a common carrier is
no different than any other type of business. Are you saying that just
because someone is a common carrier that he has no right to control over his
personal property?

CJ

Not sure what is legal or not.

If I run a restaurant offering food to the public and I don't permit a
ethnic group to use my facility, will the Govt do anything? Even if
the group are doing high fives, playing their "Boom Boxes" at high
volume and other disruptive things that prevent the rest of the
customers from eating their meals. If I kick them out what happens.

If I go to the airport and buy a ticket on a 'common carrier' can I
say (In lobby or in aircraft) that I don't think GW is a good
president and should be taken out and hanged for the things he is
doing I see every day in the paper, cartoons of GW that I wouldn't
let my young daughter see. If fact just reported today that a cartoon
in CA shows GW being assassinated. Where do you draw the line? Can I
take that cartoon on a flight pined to my coat (free speach)

Since Gilmore didn't run up and down the isle crying out "look at my
button" (didn't cry fire) what is the problem with people in the world
today? I've said before on the thread that I feel like a terrorist
every time I go to fly and have to go through the over reacting check
in.

I carry pen and pencils and credit cards on all of my flights. I met
with my US Representative and demonstrated that the pens and pencils
were deadly weapons and I could kill someone with a stroke of either.
I also demonstrated that I could cut the throat of an individual with
a credit card (basic special forces training). All we have are knee
jerks fueled by the media which is only interested in the bottom line,
not security in the USA.

Long rant. It's hard to put up with idiots and fools.


Big John

CJ. Sorry I tied this rant to your posting to my post. If you don't
agree, please accept my appoligies.


On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:58:23 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
|
| Is BA a 'common carrier' and what are the rules for common carriers?
|
| If BA is a 'common carrier' what difference who owns it?
|

British Airways is a common carrier, meaning that it holds itself out to
carry passengers and property for hire. It does not mean that British
Airways is community property. After all, a guy who offers to carry loads of
hay with his horse and wagon is a common carrier. Being a common carrier is
no different than any other type of business. Are you saying that just
because someone is a common carrier that he has no right to control over his
personal property?

"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

"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?

"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.

To his *credit*? He was acting like a jackass, and you think it was to
his *credit* that he didn't resist against obviously overwhelming
force when he was booted off the plane for being a jackass? He simply
decided he didn't want to see the inside of a jail. So essentially, he
'believed' in his cause enough to cause consternation for others and
to disobey the captain of the airliner, but lacked the stones to go to
jail for his beliefs. His call...but hardly anything worthy of
admiration.

A remarkable number of Americans seem to think that because they think
they *should* have the right to do something means that they *should*
so that thing. Given the current sensitivity, I think most passengers
would be a bit concerned seeing somebody saunter down to the lav
wearing a button saying 'suspected terrorist'. Is he really a
suspected terrorist? Is he being transported on this plane? If he is,
where are his keepers? Why should the 'rights' of a self-aggrandizing
fool to yelp 'it's sort of a fire!' in a theater trump the rights of
the passengers (many of whom are naturally fearful of flying) to have
a flight that is not unnecessarily fear-inducing?

Obviously BA had the right to boot him. In fact, he agreed to that
right when he purchased a ticket. That isn't in doubt. But what I find
ironic is that this moron is acting like the wounded party because he
didn't get to exercise his 'right' to call attention to himself and
make other people feel uncomfortable. His 'Hey! Look at me! I'm being
clever! LOOK AT ME!' is a pethetic example of the histrionic tendency
that many (often otherwise worthless) people have developed....I guess
if you don't do anything worthy of note, if you can get enough people
to look at you, then that's close enough.

Pathetic.


"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"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.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

A while ago someone was kicked out
of a mall for wearing a t-shirt that expressed an anti-war opinion.

No, he and his son were kicked out for bothering the other customers. If he'd
kept his mouth shut, nobody would have cared about his shirt.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel