Here’s a sign of where we might be headed as a country – just days after our Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock was trying to get a book banned for mentioning euthenasia options, today we’ve got reports that Qantas refused a passenger, Allen Jasson, permission to board a plane in Melbourne because he was wearing a t-shirt calling George Bush a terrorist.
Qantas treats the T-shirt as a security risk or clothing that could upset passengers and had banned Mr Jasson from wearing it when he flew to Australia in December.
(link)
A “security risk”?? What are they concerned about? That it will explode? That it will cause a riot?
So what’s next? If I fly on a Qantas plane and say George Bush is a terrorist, will I get arrested? Will they read my blog before they let me fly? Will I have to sign a form agreeing not to speak negatively about Bush, Blair or Howard before I can fly Qantas? When did Qantas feel themselves responsible to curbing free speech on their flights?
I haven’t decided how I feel about this myself in terms of freedom of speech but I don’t agree with how you are looking this.
First, an image that could inflame others on a plane is a legitimate consideration as a “security risk”. Surely you would agree that bombs and weapons aren’t the only risks to passengers’ security that an airline must consider. As I say, I’ve not made up my own mind whether Qantas had the right answer but they were asking a fair question.
Second, neither Qantas (which doesn’t have the power to anyway) nor the police in Melbourne threatened to arrest Mr Jasson, so it’s too absurd — or at least not analagous — for you to suggest that you might be arrested for saying that Bush is a terrorist. There is a difference between something being illegal and its being offfensive. And something doesn’t have to be illegal for a private company to refuse service because of it. Should you be obliged to produce my podcast if you don’t like my opinions? In a free-ish world we get freedom of speech and freedom to refuse to listen or do business with the speaker.
Third, Mr Jasson was planning to wear his shirt on the plane and it is clear that Qantas was afraid that this might upset other passengers who saw it during the flight. What he — or you — write on a blog, again, isn’t analagous.
Fourth, why should Qantas be obliged to allow freedom of speech on its planes, especially at the expense of other people? If someone walks up to a customer in a bar and insults him, most people would accept the bar’s right to put him out. There is no law that obliges any of us to promote free speech.
The Sydney Morning Herald article makes it clear that Mr Jasson has made a habit of trying to wear this shirt on flights. He knows, therefore, that it is confrontational and I do not understand why anyone thinks a company should be obliged to let one customer confront others.
Steven, I take your point. Qantas is public company, not a private one, but your point about them being able to decide which passengers they accept and which they don’t is just as valid. But if they will refuse Mr Jasson to board the plane wearing a t-shirt, what do you think they would do if he (or I) started saying the same things to another passenger on the plane once it’s already in the air?
And I still don’t understand why Qantas think his t-shirt would upset other passengers? A political statement about the President of another country isn’t something that any reasonable person would get upset by. Perhaps if he was saying something derogatory about Muhammed, I could at least understand their point (but would still disagree with them denying him access). But the President of the United States?
I’m wondering what kind of legal ground they are on and I hope he does move forward with his case against them. If he paid money for his ticket and didn’t break any of the Terms and Conditions of the ticket, he might have a case. No offensive behaviour might be one of their T&C’s (I don’t know that it is but I’m assuming that’s going to be their line of argument) but it’ll be interesting to see if the court thinks a criticism of an elected politician is considered “offensive” to a reasonable person.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments this t-shirt expresses. However, I don’t see that Qantas has done anything wrong.
What is the difference between Qantas refusing this guy service due to his t-shirt and a pub owner refusing service to someone in shorts and thongs? Many establishments have dress codes and most of those dress codes are based on the business owner’s best guess at what is and isn’t going to be offensive or off-putting to their other customers. I was once refused entry to the Members enclosure at Lords due to the fact I was wearing “thongs”. My footwear cost $190, was jewel-encrusted and and bore no resemblance to the rubber flip-flops generally pictured when you hear the word “thongs” but I was refused entry none-the-less; presumably because toes in their naked state are offensive to cricket-loving Brits. How is this a different circumstance to the bloke wearing his political leanings on his chest and being refused service because of that? It’s a business making a business decision that you either deal with or find an alternative supplier who will serve you regardless of your clothing.
I also wonder if “freedom of speech” is really the issue here. Perhaps I’m overly cynical but I’m forced to ponder if the same moral outrage would have so loudly befallen the blogosphere if someone had been refused service wearing a “Bush is Brilliant” T-shirt? I have my doubts.
Bernadette, I think there is a world of difference between Qantas and your pub example. Pubs have a dress code. It’s stated on the door. AFAIK, Qantas do NOT have a code in their terms which says “You can’t wear t-shirts with political slogans.” If they did, and this guy deliberately flouted them, knowing when he bought his ticket that he was flouting their terms, that would be one thing. But for them to arbitrarily decide that they don’t like this particular political slogan, is out and out political correctness gone mad.
And you’re right – I don’t think we would care if they stopped him wearing a “Bush Is Brilliant” shirt, but then again, that didn’t happen either.
What’s wrong with wearing a T shirt stating your opinion on the performance of publicly elected politicians? We vote them in and tell them how they’re doing. It’s what we’re all *supposed* to do, isn’t it?
In my opinion, the only people who should be denied boarding are those sufficiently intolerant, immature or unstable enough to be inflamed or offended by this. They are the *truly* dangerous ones.