Muslim woman barred from flight after refusing body scan

Telegraph UK ^ | March 3, 2010

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

They’re doing everything they can to get special privileges for themselves. They should have one special privilege - a reservation on a one-way flight to the hell holes they came from.

[edge10]

The system works!

[DBrow]

I’m struggling with a broader point. Islam as an institution, an organization, is resisting these scanners on moral and religious grounds. Christian organizations are not, at least not that I can see.

I agree that an individual, of any faith, might refuse to be scanned naked.

[ScottinVA]

In sum, the scanners make people safer.

When muzzies don't fly, people are indeed safer.

[ClearBlueSky]

You’d think that people who are SO determined to live in the 12th century would reject all modern conveniences. Surely, a good Death Cultist would only want to travel by camel, not the infidel invented airplane.

Want airline safety? Screen everyone before they enter the airports- not just the planes.

[Secret Agent Man]

I believe if people have implanted powered medical devices that are sensitive to radio waves they may not want to go through a scanner. It’s not like you’re going to trust some random guy working an airport scanner to tell you there’s no risk to you going through that machine. I wouldn’t. It’s no skin off his nose if it damages your device and you croak there or maybe on the plane later on. He’s still alive. All he’ll say is they offered to give you a body search and you chose to go through the scanner.

[null and void]

Flying is not a right.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Let her take the train.

[FrankR]

"Then he/she doesn’t fly. Boats, cars and trains are still around. "

...and there's always their old, reliable Camels.

[Durus]

This happened in the UK so generally speaking I couldn't care less. If this were to happen in the USA however I would have an issue.

4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". Ben Franklin

[Oldpuppymax]

Medical reasons? Maybe she was concerned that all of those wires might cause a “shock!”

[ZX12R]

What is your issue exactly? It’s not clear in your post.

[GeronL]

The body scanners go too far.

[FredZarguna]

Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is expansive, but fortunately it is not -- and never has been -- shared by the Supreme Court or any other Federal Jurisdiction. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy at a public event, or with respect to public transportation. Consequently, the search is not unreasonable, and no warrant is required.

Nobody is giving up "essential liberty" by passing through a magnetometer. Those who think they are "deserve" to get blown to smithereens. Unfortunately, innocent people get killed along with the terrorists and their enablers.

[Eva]

Meanwhile, in other European countries, the move to ban Burkas is growing. Sarkozy started it and now support for the ban is growing in other countries. England and the US will be the last countries to take a stand.

[Durus]

I think that body scanners are an infringement on our 4th amendment rights. I thought that was fairly clear.

[ZX12R]

I think that body scanners are an infringement on our 4th amendment rights. I thought that was fairly clear.

If this happened in America, could you point out where in the story, that her fourth amendment right might have been violated? She wasn't searched, either by the scanner, or a person.

[prairiebreeze]

I agree that an individual, of any faith, might refuse to be scanned naked.

Then you don't fly. If pat-downs, wands and regular detectors aren't sufficient, no one can demand unequal treatment.

I don't think anybody is happy about this. The responsibility for these measures being forced upon everybody lays at the feet of muslims.

So the irony of their complaining is enormous.

[Durus]

Actually my “interpretation” is simply what the amendment says textually and exactly what it meant to the founders. Modern abominations of the constitution don’t interest me.

[null and void]

Compare to "implied consent".

If you choose to exercise the privilege of driving, you are regarded as having consented to a breathalyzer test at the whim of the local traffic cop.

Until such a time as muslims forswear mass murder as a means of religious dialog, should we choose to exercise the privilege of air travel, we will be regarded as having consented to any means necessary to prevent a mass murder event.