Freedom of religion? Not for innocent Muslims

[scouterjim]

Doesn't matter...their mere existence with provincial funding as instantiated by constitution acts speaks volumes. Pat Robertson isn't spending Canadian taxpayer money. Seems that some concessions were made to Catholics and Protestants in some provinces to continue their religious indoctrination whenever the minority population. As for forcible expulsions...ever heard of Acadians?

Ever hear of 1753? That was the year of the Acadian expulsion. Your pal Pat wants it done TODAY. He doesn't believe in freedom of religion, separation of church and state or freedom of speech (although he certainly uses it freely). His way of thinking is as much a threat to freedom in the US as the way the al Qaida thinks. A theocratic dictatorship, no matter what faith runs it, is just that: a dictatorship!

[bush_cheney2004]

Ever hear of 1753? That was the year of the Acadian expulsion. Your pal Pat wants it done TODAY. He doesn't believe in freedom of religion, separation of church and state or freedom of speech (although he certainly uses it freely). His way of thinking is as much a threat to freedom in the US as the way the al Qaida thinks. A theocratic dictatorship, no matter what faith runs it, is just that: a dictatorship!

1755 -1763....but who's counting, right? Pat Robertson has religious and speech rights protected by his nation's constitution. He is allowed to think anyway he pleases....he doesn't live in Canada.

[scouterjim]

1755 -1763....but who's counting, right? Pat Robertson has religious and speech rights protected by his nation's constitution. He is allowed to think anyway he pleases....he doesn't live in Canada.

True enough, but he has his counterparts here in Canada, and they are a threat to me and my way of life.

[bush_cheney2004]

True enough, but he has his counterparts here in Canada, and they are a threat to me and my way of life.

Then lock them up for hate speech....you can do that in Canada...not in the United States. See the difference?

[DogOnPorch]

lol @...BC-2004's pal Pat Robinson.

[bush_cheney2004]

lol @...BC-2004's pal Pat Robinson.

He he....me and Pat go way back!

[DogOnPorch]

He he....me and Pat go way back!

Mr Swaggert plus Jim and Tammy, too, no doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TBQWR2-iqY

[scouterjim]

Then lock them up for hate speech....you can do that in Canada...not in the United States. See the difference?

They claim "religious freedom" to spread their hate speech, thus it is protected. Oddly, that is a freedom they wish to destroy.

[bush_cheney2004]

They claim "religious freedom" to spread their hate speech, thus it is protected. Oddly, that is a freedom they wish to destroy.

It has already been "destroyed" in Canada. Pat Robertson is safe from HRCs at home in his 700 Club.

[jbg]

Ever hear of 1753? That was the year of the Acadian expulsion. Your pal Pat wants it done TODAY.

Weren't the Acadians unwilling to swear loyalty to the King or Queen? I know there is a "Catholic issue" but it seems to me that common sense could have prevailed. Quebec's current posture speaks volumes about the likely lack of common sense, and Britain at that time couldn't stomache it. Perhaps Quebec should have had to swear loyalty after the Plains of Abraham.

[jacee]

The problem is...

Should people have the freedom to fly or otherwise travel in close quarters with people if they are almost naked, and wearing Indian war paint?

If someone shows, by garb or otherwise, that they are not prepared to accept the rules of society ...

How one dresses at a mosque is not how one dresses on an airplane.

Good grief! You would justify discrimination based on what people wear? Surely we've progressed beyond that! What "rules of society" are you talking about? I must have missed that.

And of course your "rules" apply equally to Orthodox Jews, Mennonites, etc.? What about hippies? Punkers? Musicians? What about someone who dresses a little avante garde or retro? A woman who dresses as a man or viceversa? How do we know when we have put ourselves at risk by violating your society's rules? What the hell ARE the rules?

I have an aversion to buttoned-down bloodsuckers myself. ;-)

[Handsome Rob]

Again: if there was more to this story to indicate that there were reasons beyond the garb of these two passengers as you suggest, why wouldn't the airline talk about it? What possible reason would they have to keep information back that would make their employees appear less bigoted to the public?

Ah yes, the bigoted pilot hell bent on removing the two imams at any cost. But he wasn't going to stop at just stopping them at the gate, he was going to taxi out to depart, then feign an event in the cabin causing the pax to ask these two fellows to deplane.

It was conspired during the safety brief you see, the story's passed around the cabin so they could be the same. Thus not only does he get to give the two muslims the boot, he was going to give the carrier the finger too, cutting every penny of revenue possible out of the flight at the two thousand bucks an hour it costs to run an RJ.

But of course the airline is in on the conspiracy too. They're not pissed at the money burned up any more than they are the bad press, and they certainly wouldn't throw this arsehole of a pilot to the wolves in a 1/4 second to stop a minute of possible bad publicity.

Have you any idea what happened to the pilot flying BA 038 that saved 152 lives....just because he was looked at poorly by the public, for no good reason?

But of course everything necessary is known, so no point in considering further.

[Black Dog]

Ah yes, the bigoted pilot hell bent on removing the two imams at any cost. But he wasn't going to stop at just stopping them at the gate, he was going to taxi out to depart, then feign an event in the cabin causing the pax to ask these two fellows to deplane.

It was conspired during the safety brief you see, the story's passed around the cabin so they could be the same. Thus not only does he get to give the two muslims the boot, he was going to give the carrier the finger too, cutting every penny of revenue possible out of the flight at the two thousand bucks an hour it costs to run an RJ.

But of course the airline is in on the conspiracy too. They're not pissed at the money burned up any more than they are the bad press, and they certainly wouldn't throw this arsehole of a pilot to the wolves in a 1/4 second to stop a minute of possible bad publicity.

Have you any idea what happened to the pilot flying BA 038 that saved 152 lives....just because he was looked at poorly by the public, for no good reason?

But of course everything necessary is known, so no point in considering further.

Look dipshit, no one suggested a conspiracy (though now that I think about it, your take demands a conspiracy of silence by the airline, aircrew, security staff-who most certainly would have been involved-passengers and anyone else who witnessed the "incident" that you allege to have taken place).

We can only deal with what's known and, based on all accounts so far and the evidence available, there's no evidence of an in-cabin incident. But I suppose because you use terms like "pax" and worked at the airport (FMC driver? caterer?) you know the inner workings of the clandestine world of airline security.

[Handsome Rob]

Look dipshit, no one suggested a conspiracy (though now that I think about it, your take demands a conspiracy of silence by the airline, aircrew, security staff-who most certainly would have been involved-passengers and anyone else who witnessed the "incident" that you allege to have taken place).

We can only deal with what's known and, based on all accounts so far and the evidence available, there's no evidence of an in-cabin incident. But I suppose because you use terms like "pax" and worked at the airport (FMC driver? caterer?) you know the inner workings of the clandestine world of airline security.

Ah, and I thought intelligence was totally lost 3 or 4 pages ago, but it seems a small quantity still dwelled until now.

Why did the aircraft return to the gate pray tell? Maybe their was another airplane the next gate over that it had a crush on? They forgot to load gas? Maybe the pilot wanted lunch?

Lot's of perfectly reasonable explanations for an airplane to return to the gate that have nothing to do with the self loading freight being removed against their will, in la la land of the naive.

Why even bother reading? You already made up your mind, no other alternative is possible. I guess their is a lack of equipment up there to process other possibilities, but I always thought you could go through them one at a time. I guess critical mass has been achieved.

Oh, and I used a better word than pax, hope you're happy?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Handsome Rob

[Black Dog]

Ah, and I thought intelligence was totally lost 3 or 4 pages ago, but it seems a small quantity still dwelled until now.

Why did the aircraft return to the gate pray tell? Maybe their was another airplane the next gate over that it had a crush on? They forgot to load gas? Maybe the pilot wanted lunch?

Lot's of perfectly reasonable explanations for an airplane to return to the gate that have nothing to do with the self loading freight being removed against their will, in la la land of the naive.

I can almost smell the smoke as your brain gears grind this nonsense out. Why did the plane return to the gate? It was in a link some goof posted earlier:

The plane was taxiing out when the passengers complained that they were uncomfortable with the men being on their flight.

Seems pretty straightforward. Yet you continue to assert there's more to the story despite a paucity of evidence to support your theory. So I'll ask you: why did the plane return to the gate? Sub question: if some "incident" occurred, why is everyone involved staying mum on the subject?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Black Dog

[scouterjim]

I can almost smell the smoke as your brain gears grind this nonsense out. Why did the plane return to the gate? It was in a link some goof posted earlier:

Seems pretty straightforward. Yet you continue to assert there's more to the story despite a paucity of evidence to support your theory. So I'll ask you: why did the plane return to the gate? Sub question: if some "incident" occurred, why is everyone involved staying mum on the subject?

Why did the plane return to the gate? Because the two men were MUSLIMS. That is the ONLY reason they were put off the plane!

[bloodyminded]

So I'll ask you: why did the plane return to the gate? Sub question: if some "incident" occurred, why is everyone involved staying mum on the subject?

It's a pretty large and perhaps unprecedented conspiracy. So successful that we can't even guess at the conspiracy's subject...except that it's most likely benign.

[Guest American Woman]

Why did the plane return to the gate? Because the two men were MUSLIMS. That is the ONLY reason they were put off the plane!

And what was the reason two men who weren't Muslim were removed from a plane I was on a couple of years ago?

And when was the last time your head of state/spouse of your head of state was a Catholic?

Perhaps you should concern yourself more with discrimination in your own country - government sanctioned, at that.

[Handsome Rob]

I can almost smell the smoke as your brain gears grind this nonsense out. Why did the plane return to the gate? It was in a link some goof posted earlier:

Seems pretty straightforward. Yet you continue to assert there's more to the story despite a paucity of evidence to support your theory. So I'll ask you: why did the plane return to the gate? Sub question: if some "incident" occurred, why is everyone involved staying mum on the subject?

Yay! We've established something happened in the cabin causing the aircraft to turn around.

Surely this discredits the idea that the pilot is a bigoted rube hell bent on removing the passengers at any cost. Something happened in that cabin to cause them to turn around.

Next question in the ever present chain of logic that doesn't appear, what happened in that cabin to cause these events? Was it teenagers whispering causing the grape vine to upset everybody? Did one of the Imam's utter a "think we're terrorists" joke, that was eavesdropped by the other passengers? The list of possibilities is endless.

Crowd mentalities get nasty, especially in a crowded aluminum pipe where everybody just finished getting poked and prodded for the security theatre and are concerned about missing their downstream connections.

Surely if the rest of the passengers were that ridiculous prejudiced and bigoted, they would have grounded their concerns long before the door closed and they pushed. If they were that hell bent on removing these two at any cost, the airplane never would have pushed. (Note, this doesn't imply guilt on the hands of the victims any more than it does the crew)

But shall we continue with guilty until proven innocent?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Handsome Rob

[scouterjim]

And what was the reason two men who weren't Muslim were removed from a plane I was on a couple of years ago?

And when was the last time your head of state/spouse of your head of state was a Catholic?

Perhaps you should concern yourself more with discrimination in your own country - government sanctioned, at that.

We have had several Catholic Prime Ministers, and NOBODY called that into question...unlike a certain president constantly being called "a Muslim".

[Guest American Woman]

We have had several Catholic Prime Ministers, and NOBODY called that into question...unlike a certain president constantly being called "a Muslim".

Your Prime Minister isn't your head of state.

[Black Dog]

Yay! We've established something happened in the cabin causing the aircraft to turn around.

Not sure who you were having a conversation with where that was up for debate. Perhaps some inner voice?

Surely this discredits the idea that the pilot is a bigoted rube hell bent on removing the passengers at any cost. Something happened in that cabin to cause them to turn around.

Yeah: the appearance of two dudes in Muslim regalia. Have you not been paying any attention to this thread at all?

Next question in the ever present chain of logic that doesn't appear, what happened in that cabin to cause these events? Was it teenagers whispering causing the grape vine to upset everybody? Did one of the Imam's utter a "think we're terrorists" joke, that was eavesdropped by the other passengers? The list of possibilities is endless.

Crowd mentalities get nasty, especially in a crowded aluminum pipe where everybody just finished getting poked and prodded for the security theatre and are concerned about missing their downstream connections.

Waitafuckingminute.

This whole discussion centres around the allegation these guys were kicked off the plane solely because of their dress and religion.

You claimed that no, there must have been some "incident" or "disturbance".

You have no idea what sort of disturbance in the cabin instigated his actions, but if one thing is certain, it's that the probability that this pilot was standing at the gate looking for passengers to deplane, is pretty much zero. Such incidents do not occur without reason, reasons that will come out in time.

But it turns out, we can downgrade that "disturbance" or "incident" to "whispers" down "the grapevine." Which raises the question of why the passengers were uncomfortable and whispering. Well, it's not a dramatic stretch to think that maybe they were uncomfortable because the guys were Muslims in Muslim garb.

I don't even think you're trying to make a point anymore. If you ever were.

Surely if the rest of the passengers were that ridiculous prejudiced and bigoted, they would have grounded their concerns long before the door closed and they pushed. If they were that hell bent on removing these two at any cost, the airplane never would have pushed. (Note, this doesn't imply guilt on the hands of the victims any more than it does the crew)

But shall we continue with guilty until proven innocent?

Right, you want to start applying logic now without addressing the logical quandry of why the airline would stay silent if there was an issue in the cabin that prompted this incident which, on the face of things, makes them and/or their employees look pretty terrible.

[Handsome Rob]

Not sure who you were having a conversation with where that was up for debate. Perhaps some inner voice?

The two men through security TWICE, but the pilot still refused to allow them to fly. He used their faith as a reason. That is bigotry.

Point is, past behaviour is not indicative of future behaviour. He never did it before? Great. That's not really relevant since he did it now.

Waitafuckingminute.

This whole discussion centres around the allegation these guys were kicked off the plane solely because of their dress and religion.

You claimed that no, there must have been some "incident" or "disturbance".

But it turns out, we can downgrade that "disturbance" or "incident" to "whispers" down "the grapevine." Which raises the question of why the passengers were uncomfortable and whispering. Well, it's not a dramatic stretch to think that maybe they were uncomfortable because the guys were Muslims in Muslim garb.

I don't even think you're trying to make a point anymore. If you ever were.

Right, passengers whispering -> complaining about two passengers = incident/disturbance in the cabin. Not rocket science but I know it can be tough. Should we call it a roller-disco party instead?

So why did the passengers start complaining while the aircraft was taxiing? Why wasn't this done at the gate before the door closed? This makes some semblance of sense to you?

Because if I was a bigoted prejudiced asshole that didn't want to fly with muslims because they were muslims, I certainly wouldn't wait for the door to close.

Every single one of them took a minimum of a 1 hour delay in their travels, being a feeder airline how many missed their connections? They did this willingly? Just to get them?

Right, you want to start applying logic now without addressing the logical quandry of why the airline would stay silent if there was an issue in the cabin that prompted this incident which, on the face of things, makes them and/or their employees look pretty terrible.

If their employees are such bigoted assholes, why wouldn't they discipline them? Such discipline would certainly be justified, and look good in the public's eye. But they publicly state the opposite, why?

Why would they bring any more press to such a non-story at all?

[scouterjim]

Your Prime Minister isn't your head of state.

The queen is a figurehead with no real power. Political power rests with Parliament.

[Guest American Woman]

The queen is a figurehead with no real power. Political power rests with Parliament.

The queen is your head of state.