Man thrown off plane for 'terror' t-shirt

[sanctus]

George Bush

An Australian has been thrown off a flight for wearing a T-shirt branding George Bush a terrorist.
Allen Jasson was barred from a Qantas flight from Melbourne to London for his apparently offensive choice of clothing.
The T-shirt bore a pictured of US President Bush and the slogan 'World's number one terrorist'.
Airport staff at first told Mr Jasson to change into a Qantas shirt - then, when he refused, refused to let him fly.
The 55-year-old IT specialist is now threatening to sue the airline, saying he had worn the shirt on previous domestic flights without a problem.
Mr Jasson, who lives in London but had been visiting family in Australia, said: 'I am not prepared to go without the T-shirt.
'I might forfeit the $2,500 fare but I have made up my mind I would rather stand up for the principle of free speech.
Qantas insisted any comments, spoken or on clothing, would 'not be tolerated' if they had potential to offend other passengers or threaten security.

 

[tamarin]

I'd love to give the lad twenty different t-shirts. All with some variant on terrorism. And have him pick what would be appropriate on such a flight and what would not. It all comes down to common sense. Hey, in Canada the PC's would send him for sensitivity training. It's a major growth industry here.

 

[Tonington]

Well he got his wish. It made it into the news of course. I think Mr. Jasson is a little extreme here. He wore the shirt on another flight previous, I'd call him a $hit disturber. People have to know by now that there are limits to so called free speech.

 

[eh1eh]

Welcome to America,land of the free.:-x , not.

 

[I think not]

Welcome to America,land of the free.:-x , not.

This was in Australia!?!?!?!?! Duh?!??!

 

[Tonington]

It was actually in Australia this happened, where they don't have an ammendment in their constitution like the Americans have.

 

[eh1eh]

OK, but the world is America's servant. And the shirt didn't say anybody else is a terrorist just the ruler of the world.

"It was actually in Australia this happened, where they don't have an ammendment in their constitution like the Americans have."

So they don't have freedom of speech?

 

[agentkgb]

I guess the airline has the right to do whatever it wants if it's not run by the government, but that's still weird.

 

[Tonington]

There is no express provision in their constitution that relates to freedom of speech. The high Court in 1992 decided that there are implied rights to freedom of speech when concerning politics and government, so theres also a bit of a grey area between that freedom and over-riding public interests.

 

[eh1eh]

There is no express provision in their constitution that relates to freedom of speech. The high Court in 1992 decided that there are implied rights to freedom of speech when concerning politics and government, so theres also a bit of a grey area between that freedom and over-riding public interests.

I guess they need a Trudeau to get them those rights. I think the airline could have had him turn his shirt inside out or something. But then again maybe he was not co-opertive about things and you don't want a fuss at 30,000 feet.

 

[Tonington]

They don't even have a bill of rights, but I believe their Parliament has acts which cover most rights.

Heres some arguments for and against their introduction of a bill of rights:

FOR
Australian law does not protect fundamental freedoms
A Bill of Rights would give power of action to Australians who are otherwise powerless
A Bill of Rights would bring Australia into line with the rest of the world
A Bill of Rights would enhance Australian democracy by protecting the rights of minorities
A Bill of Rights would put rights above politics and arbitrary governmental action
A Bill of Rights would improve government policy making and administrative decision making
A Bill of Rights would serve an important educative function
A Bill of Rights would promote tolerance and understanding in the community

AGAINST
Rights are already well protected in Australia
The High Court is already protecting rights through its interpretation of the Constitution and the common law
Rights listed in the Constitution or Acts actually make little or no difference in protecting rights
The political system itself is the best protection of rights in Australia
A Bill of Rights would actually restrict rights, that is, to define a right is to limit it
A Bill of Rights would be undemocratic by giving unelected judges the power to override the judgment of Parliament
A Bill of Rights would politicise the judiciary
A Bill of Rights would be very expensive given the amount of litigation it would generate
A Bill of Rights would be alien to our tradition of Parliamentary sovereignty
A Bill of Rights would protect rights (e.g. the right to bear arms) which might not be so important to future generations

 

[I think not]

There is no express provision in their constitution that relates to freedom of speech. The high Court in 1992 decided that there are implied rights to freedom of speech when concerning politics and government, so theres also a bit of a grey area between that freedom and over-riding public interests.

You have the same gray area in Canada.

"only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"

 

[Tonington]

You have the same gray area in Canada.

"only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"

Our charter gives us fundamental freedoms, though it doesn't say freedom of speech.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.

It doesn't need to say freedom of speech anyways, as our fundamental freedoms go beyond speech, whereas the Aussies don't have such a listing in their constitution.

 

[#juan]

Prime Minister Howard would bend over backwards to please Bush. I'm sure that were it up to the people of Australia, the guy would be able to wear his damned T-shirt. When you come right down to it, who does that T-shirt hurt? Nobody!

 

[karrie]

Well, most businesses such as airlines, reserve the right to refuse passengers travel if there is a reason their presence will disturb other passengers. You really don't want a fight breaking out midair because this guy's t-shirt pissed off some hot head on the plane, regardless of which country it is being flown out of.

Seems like common sense not to allow an inflammatory political message to be worn on board, even under the umbrella of free speech.