This is why ....

This is why ....

Anudist
Anudist

November 1st, 2002, 4:42 pm #1

This is why we should support top freedom equality ...



the media reports that I have seen on only sketchy and I do NOT have full information on the following. Nonetheless,the following is something that I think we should discuss.


Midwest USA ---

A french woman, visiting the USA, was stopped by an airport screening device and personnel. She was asked to go to a "private" area for further screening. At the further screening she was asked to open and remove her blouse which she did. Why blousless, she also removed her bra and was then therefore topless. She was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct and placed in a holding cell. A local judge told her that she may get up to 6 months in jail for her "stunt".


Questions that arize:

Was this disorderly conduct?

Anyway to treat our visitors?

Did she act properly or inproperly?



What comments do you all have on this story?
Reply
Share

Jodi
Jodi

November 1st, 2002, 6:41 pm #2

There are no grounds here for any charges. Would they have charged her if she were braless to begin with and how did they know she wasn't braless anyway.
This was completely un called for.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 1st, 2002, 8:45 pm #3

Good point- What if she had been braless? Will Ashcroft (the guy who covers topfree statures) make a new rule that women have to wear bras in order to fly in airplanes?

One could argue she was merely helping the inspectors do their job. Indeed, I don't think it would be impossible at all to hide some sort of device (perhaps a small vial of chemical) in a bra that would go undetected through airport inspections.

Clearly we have a basic conflict here between America's prudery and America's Security. I prefer security myself!

-Nat

PS:- BTW- It's not just women with this concern- airport inspections is a frequent topic on my Freeballers forum.
Reply
Like
Share

Eefje
Eefje

November 1st, 2002, 11:35 pm #4

This is why we should support top freedom equality ...



the media reports that I have seen on only sketchy and I do NOT have full information on the following. Nonetheless,the following is something that I think we should discuss.


Midwest USA ---

A french woman, visiting the USA, was stopped by an airport screening device and personnel. She was asked to go to a "private" area for further screening. At the further screening she was asked to open and remove her blouse which she did. Why blousless, she also removed her bra and was then therefore topless. She was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct and placed in a holding cell. A local judge told her that she may get up to 6 months in jail for her "stunt".


Questions that arize:

Was this disorderly conduct?

Anyway to treat our visitors?

Did she act properly or inproperly?



What comments do you all have on this story?
We have to get things straight. It was not a private screening - just the regular metal detecting wand which we all meet on airports. The woman became irritated because of the screening and reacted by removing part of her clothes - which was not needed and was not asked for. I don't like the searching myself (besides when there really is a screening in a private area or a screening with hands, this is always done by officials of the same sex) and I can imagine one is already stressed on the airport but this reaction has nothing to do with the rights of women to be brafree (she even wore a bra!) or to be topfree - just with overreacting or maybe a statement ('you want to search me, here I am') by the woman. She created a scene and the officials don't like scenes at the airport. Of course the verdict is just as overreacting as the woman was. But I am sure they would have charged a man as well. However I hope this is not an example for women and not an example for officials. By acting like this we all make fools of ourself.


" Aguillaume was arrested Monday at Evansville Regional Airport after she allegedly stripped to the waist in an angry response to a security screener's attempt to search her with a metal-detecting wand.

During a routine security screening, authorities say Aguillaume kept reaching inside her sweater, forcing guards to search her again.

Aguillaume then became upset and allegedly removed her sweater, shirt and bra. Police said Aguillaume tried to pull away as an officer attempted to handcuff her. She later dropped to the ground and refused to get up. "

Associated Press

Reply
Share

John Bayko
John Bayko

November 2nd, 2002, 1:19 am #5

Good point- What if she had been braless? Will Ashcroft (the guy who covers topfree statures) make a new rule that women have to wear bras in order to fly in airplanes?

One could argue she was merely helping the inspectors do their job. Indeed, I don't think it would be impossible at all to hide some sort of device (perhaps a small vial of chemical) in a bra that would go undetected through airport inspections.

Clearly we have a basic conflict here between America's prudery and America's Security. I prefer security myself!

-Nat

PS:- BTW- It's not just women with this concern- airport inspections is a frequent topic on my Freeballers forum.
The Canadian government recently issued a travel warning to Canadian citizens, in particular those who were born in certain middle eastern countries such as Syria, Iran, and so on, to consider avoiding travel to the United States, because of the actions of U.S immigration officials.

At the beginning of October, an engineer named Maher Arar was returning to Canada from a trip with his wife and daughter to Tunesia. He got on the plane in Tunesia to return (to Toronto I think it was) - his wife stayed a few days longer. He never arrived in Canada.

It turns out he was scheduled to change planes in New York. Two weeks after he disappeared, his family got a phone call from him - he had been abducted by immigration officials and secretly taken to a detention facility. In violation of international law, the Canadian government was not informed of the detention of a Canadian citizen, and by the time the Canadian consulate request for access was responded to, he had disappeared again.

At no time was he allowed to see or speak to a lawyer.

Immigration officials had deported him - not to Canada, as a Canadian citizen, but to Syria, where he had left at age of seventeen (and apparently arrested for dodging compulsary militery service). With the full knowledge of the U.S immigration department.

In the year and a bit since the terrorist attacks on September 11, the U.S government has has become draconian in it's security activities. The persecution of the French woman is fairly minor, as these incidents go. And, they seem to be getting worse. Mr. Arar is not the only Canadian harassed, but his experience is the most extreme. It's frightening when people (American citizens, too) start "disappearing" as they used to do only in totalitarian states and third world countries.

Sorry for getting serious in this forum.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 2nd, 2002, 6:45 am #6

Well this a very difficult situation. There is no question that injustices are happening, probably more than we ever hear about. At the same time, I know there are "evil doers" out there (to use GB' terminology!) and I know we have got to be a lot more vigilant than we use to be. It's hard to know where to strike the balance between security and freedom. I now relish the time, not so long ago when you could walk in about any public building without the hassle of security. I wish it could be like that again but we have to face the fact we live in a very dangerous world now, and it's not going to become any less dangerous anytime soon. :(

-Nat
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 16th, 2002, 5:35 pm

November 2nd, 2002, 3:01 pm #7

We have to get things straight. It was not a private screening - just the regular metal detecting wand which we all meet on airports. The woman became irritated because of the screening and reacted by removing part of her clothes - which was not needed and was not asked for. I don't like the searching myself (besides when there really is a screening in a private area or a screening with hands, this is always done by officials of the same sex) and I can imagine one is already stressed on the airport but this reaction has nothing to do with the rights of women to be brafree (she even wore a bra!) or to be topfree - just with overreacting or maybe a statement ('you want to search me, here I am') by the woman. She created a scene and the officials don't like scenes at the airport. Of course the verdict is just as overreacting as the woman was. But I am sure they would have charged a man as well. However I hope this is not an example for women and not an example for officials. By acting like this we all make fools of ourself.


" Aguillaume was arrested Monday at Evansville Regional Airport after she allegedly stripped to the waist in an angry response to a security screener's attempt to search her with a metal-detecting wand.

During a routine security screening, authorities say Aguillaume kept reaching inside her sweater, forcing guards to search her again.

Aguillaume then became upset and allegedly removed her sweater, shirt and bra. Police said Aguillaume tried to pull away as an officer attempted to handcuff her. She later dropped to the ground and refused to get up. "

Associated Press
If Eefje's version of the story is the most correct one, then she clearly overreacted, but still, arresting her was much worse an overreaction.
Answering Eefje's comment (I am sure they would have charged a man as well) I'm pretty sure that if it was a man who did the same they would just tell him "There's no reason to get upset, sir, I'm just doing my job" and ask him to cover up again.
Reply
Like
Share

Eefje
Eefje

November 2nd, 2002, 5:23 pm #8

I am not so sure about that. I used to work in the airline-industry and still know some people who work at the airport. What I have heard from them security is very tight, esp after 9/11. Officials tend to be very strict with the rules. Anyone who obstructs security and safety checks will be handled in a strict formal way: men and women alike. No fooling around with these procedures. Whether we like it or not history has shown that you can be better safe than sorry.
Reply
Share

Joined: August 16th, 2002, 5:35 pm

November 2nd, 2002, 11:44 pm #9

You confused me a bit. You begin by saying you're not so sure about something I said, and then you say something completely different than anything I said...
Reply
Like
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 3rd, 2002, 2:42 am #10

This is why we should support top freedom equality ...



the media reports that I have seen on only sketchy and I do NOT have full information on the following. Nonetheless,the following is something that I think we should discuss.


Midwest USA ---

A french woman, visiting the USA, was stopped by an airport screening device and personnel. She was asked to go to a "private" area for further screening. At the further screening she was asked to open and remove her blouse which she did. Why blousless, she also removed her bra and was then therefore topless. She was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct and placed in a holding cell. A local judge told her that she may get up to 6 months in jail for her "stunt".


Questions that arize:

Was this disorderly conduct?

Anyway to treat our visitors?

Did she act properly or inproperly?



What comments do you all have on this story?
I heard on the news that they have fined the lady $2 ($1 for each charge) which must be the least they could charge, so I suspect the airport people just want to put this matter to rest as quick as possible. I think this was just a case of over-reacting on everyone's part. Something that can happen when people are tired and frustrated.

On this subject, some airports are now testing a new computerized thermal-imaging system made by Sony which can literally "see through" clothing. It is suppose to be so good it can see moles on the skin. Of course the privacy wonks are all upset about the prospects of being "undressed" this way. I wouldn't care as long it meant I would get where I was going safely.

-Nat
Reply
Like
Share