There are laws they must enforce period (like no smoking, no babies in the exit row), rules/policies that are in the books but do not necessarily require enforcement (like they having to open soda cans before handing it to passenger – if that’s even really in the books), and then there’s the whole grey area of them being able to kick anyone off a plane for any reason except a few (race, religion – you know, basic civil rights).
The first isn’t a problem. The second can be, when it’s applied selectively. Maybe that’s what this is, or maybe it’s just kicking someone off a plane for “whatever” reason" – where that whatever reason equals something barely explainable because it’s really for a reason they can’t say.
That is what I see. Some people are able to take advantage of the super fast modern news cycle, and some are not. That is one of the smart things that CAIR does. I work for a big global company that investigates incidents probably in a way similar to the way an airline would. We have a whole process that has to take place to investigate any incident. That includes statements from all involved, including witnesses. Some of those people would want to schedule interviews with legal or union representatives present. The officer conducting the investigation gets all the statements, fills out a bunch of forms, then sends it all to the company, where it gets reviewed by any number of people. If it is a situation where legal action might happen, the lawyers also get involved. The issue is, it takes time. All CAIR needs is an accusation. They are an advocacy group. They will always be able to hold their press conference before the other party has a chance to investigate properly. The airline might be able to release some kind of vague statement, which they did in this case. The statement made by the airline in this case sounds to me like they probably believe that they have justification. But it is too early to tell.
I agree. And it works the other way too; Christianity hijacked a symbol of Roman cruelty, which helped a whole load of classics teachers to gloss over what a barbaric system the Roman Empire really was, if you weren’t rich.
I’m really trying to come to terms with your apparent distaste for CAIR here. What’s wrong with advocacy groups? Should we dismantle the NAACP? It seems to me that such groups are useful, as an individual, with limited funds, has a much, much smaller voice than an umbrella organization that can rally more funding and a stronger voice for their members?
At this point in time, there is actually a fair amount of animosity aimed at Muslims. You have a presidential candidate who wants to end immigration for all Muslims, and another who believes his faith is at war with theirs. At what point is it actually being discriminated against to stand up and work together to ensure their civil rights as human beings? Do we need to wait until they are being rounded up and put into camps, or is that too early for you?
I’m fine with wanting more information about this story- but this is a common theme. Ask a Muslim, or anyone who could be imagined to be a Muslim (they look like they come from the mid east, etc), about traveling. These are not rare occurrences - these are just the ones we’re hearing about.
I didn’t read it as apparent distaste for CAIR, rather just pointing out the realities of an advocacy group vs a company than can get sued or what ever if they don’t handle issues correctly. Silence or vague statements are less damaging than statements that turn out to be wrong later.
Advocacy groups are always going to be more limber and I think they are usually less damaged if they make a statement that turns out to be false later.
I know it’s fun to dog pile, and my gut even says that someone at Southwest screwed up, but at the same time you have to make sure you’re stringing up the right guilty party. Of course as it often goes, by the time it shakes out as to what really happened, everyone has lost interest in the outrage. So it is hard to fault CAIR or others if they capitalizing on the incident right away.
That is just my take on it, but I can see how someone would read otherwise. I guess this is a classic YMMV issue.
Southwest needs to state right away what happened, and say they are investigating those claims. The Pilot, and the attendant report immediately to Southwest management why they wanted the passenger removed. If they claim that she threatened anyone it will be on the record. If during their investigating they find credible witnesses that rebuke that, then the attendant, and possibly the Pilot are in trouble, not Southwest
If I was to be removed from a plane, I would want a written report of exactly what the accuser claims I did, within minutes… It is not enough to just say you were disruptive.It would also be wise to also remove the accuser so that the local authorities could question them also.
Puzzlement here. In the story you give as an example, the Guardian later updated their story to change the abode of one individual from Brighton to London. Was that the important detail? Or something else?
Now be fair. What if there were a vocal advocacy group for people you didn’t like, that also employed the law? You wouldn’t like those advocates. They are taking the side of the under-represented minority and amplifying their voices. These are troublemakers.
LoL @Max_Blancke I kid I kid, I’m sure you don’t like other groups that serve the same function for other populations.
Probably @anon61221983 noticed that Max opens with claims that only one side is reported, even where the airline has been contacted and released a statement that is contained in the report. Then Max gives as a reason for his skepticism the involvement of CAIR, on a basis that has been refuted, that only one side is reported. And once someone does this very thing twice it seems to reveal a bias.
He’s just a long-winded, polite “Wait and see, it probably isn’t racism, because it’s probably that agency that would benefit if it were racism”
I’ve read enough anti-CAIR crap to hear the dog whistles. I’d say maybe he accidentally stumbled and his hand landed on the big red button by accident, but I’m aware of his posting history.
I think there is some suspicion there for sure, that CAIR is only doing this for the press, not because they are acting as advocates for their constiuents. And @Max_Blancke as expressed concerns about CAIR before. I am curious what the root of that is - a general distaste of this kind of ethnic political advocacy or a distaste of CAIR specifically, or something else entirely. He seems to have an assumption that we should automatically question what they say, while Southwest gets a pass or at least the benefit of the doubt. Why does a for-profit corporation get the benefit of the doubt and not an advocacy group?
And thanks @ActionAbe for not making me look crazy!
I absolutely have no issue in general with ethnic advocacy. I generally distrust CAIR, because of their history and background. And I also generally am disgusted with the airlines. I travel almost constantly, and have seen the average attitude of airline employees towards the flying public decline tremendously over the years. I think it is well within the realm of possibility that the flight attendant is at fault here, but I would rather hear the facts from some unbiased source.
I can hopefully add a non-controversial comment to that one issue. Where i work, we deal with a lot of small aircraft, and I have to stay current on aircraft firefighting. Keeping the shades open does two things. First, if the power goes out in an incident, it helps you see to escape. Secondly, it helps a firefighter see where internal flames or survivors are, and helps them decide where to cut into the skin of the aircraft. Or so I was taught.
