March 3, 201016 yr Muslim women who refused to take 'naked' full-body scan are barred from Manchester to Pakistan flight By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 4:04 PM on 03rd March 2010 Comments (139) Add to My Stories Two Muslim women have become the first passengers to refuse to subject themselves to controversial 'naked' full body airport scans, it emerged today. The pair - who security officials insist were selected at random - opted to miss their flight to Pakistan and forfeit tickets worth £400 each rather than be screened. One of the women refused to go through the full-body scanner at Manchester Airport on religious grounds while her companion also declined for 'medical reasons'. The women were travelling together to Islamabad when they were selected to pass through the controversial security screen after checking-in at Terminal Two at the airport. An estimated 15,000 people have already passed through the scanners, with the pair the first passengers to refuse a scan. Naked scan: A Manchester Airport employee tests the scanner, with suspicious substances in his pockets that show up as a dark colour identified in the red squares Both told airport staff they were not willing to be scanned. They were warned they would not be allowed to board the Pakistan International Airlines flight if they refused. The pair decided they would rather forfeit their £400 tickets and left the airport with their luggage. The £80,000 scanners were introduced at Heathrow and Manchester airports on February 5. The X-ray machines allow security staff to see a 'naked' image of passengers to show up hidden weapons and explosives, but it has attracted criticism for also showing clear outlines of passengers' genitals. Manchester Airport confirmed the passengers had refused to be scanned but said it had received no complaint from the women. The women were travelling together to Islamabad in Pakistan when they were selected to pass through the controversial security screen However, civil liberties campaigners say the incident could form the basis of a legal test case to challenge the use of the Rapiscan device in airports. Alex Deane, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, said the organisation would represent the women if they wished to challenge the decision in court. More... Airport scanners revealed: TravelMail puts new airport security technology to the testBlog: Are full body scanners really something to blush about? He said: 'People shouldn't have to sacrifice their health, their faith, their dignity, or their privacy in order to fly. 'People with health and religious concerns shouldn't be forced to go through these scanners if they have good reason not to. Foolishly, the government has ignored both issues and ignored privacy concerns to boot - they are in the wrong on this.' Security: The passenger is asked to stand in front of the machine, which produces a virtual 'naked' image that shows if they are carrying explosives or any other suspicious items There is one Rapiscan scanner in use in a trial at Manchester Airport's terminal two, which has seen 15,000 people pass through it. A further two devices - one each for terminals one and three - have been delivered and are set to be operational within the next month. The scanners have been criticised by the human rights group Liberty and the government's own Equality and Human Rights Commission. Only selected passengers are scanned. Security staff say they are chosen at random and not according to race, religion or ethnicity. Councillor Afzal Khan, who was Manchester's first Asian lord mayor, said the vast majority of Muslims believed that any privacy concerns should be outweighed by ensuring they are safe when flying. He said: 'Hundreds of Muslim passengers have gone through without a problem. While I appreciate people's concerns for privacy, these steps are necessary for our safety and security.' A Manchester Airport spokesman said: 'Two female passengers who were booked to fly out of Terminal Two refused to be scanned for medical and religious reasons. 'In accordance with the government directive on scanners, they were not permitted to fly. 'Body scanning is a big change for customers and we are aware that privacy concerns are on our customers's minds, which is why we have put strict procedures in place to reassure them that their privacy will be protected.' Last month, Transport Secretary Lord Adonis stressed that an interim code of practice on the use of body scanners stipulated that passengers would not be selected 'on the basis of personal characteristics'. Two weeks ago, a week after the scanners were introduced at Manchester and Heathrow airports, Islamic scholars in the U.S. said Muslim travellers should not pass through the scanners because they violate religious rules on nudity. The Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, warning Muslims not to go through the scanners. ‘It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,’ read the order. ‘Islam highly emphasises haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.' In the U.S., there are now 40 scanners in 19 airports and could be as many as 450 by the end of the year. The powerful council of ten scholars that issued the fatwa is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255104/Muslim-women-barred-flight-refusing-naked-body-scan.html#ixzz0h89XLJuR
March 3, 201016 yr You know why this is? Because fucking retarded newspapers hype these machines up to say they show you naked, no they don't.
March 3, 201016 yr You know why this is? Because fucking retarded newspapers hype these machines up to say they show you naked, no they don't. True, I suppose :thinking:
March 3, 201016 yr They pretty much do, maybe not entirely, but enough to give a good idea or impression of how a person would look naked. Wonder what would happen if the guy who randomly selects people just kept picking hot women and saying its 'random'.
March 20, 201016 yr Why not simply avoid shoing nipples and genitals? Just like a silhouette. I can't really imagine how one could hide exposives or weapons between those.
March 20, 201016 yr Author cant see why people have the problem.. ! idiots ! Exactly. You'll always get someone who'll say they should be exempt for some reason. This shows how ludicrous things can get if you allow people to use "religion" to avoid abiding by laws or rules: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214367/Jedi-church-founder-thrown-Tesco-refusing-remove-hood-left-emotionally-humiliated.html
March 20, 201016 yr You know why this is? Because fucking retarded newspapers hype these machines up to say they show you naked, no they don't. ^^ It's not religions fault.
March 21, 201016 yr You know why this is? Because fucking retarded newspapers hype these machines up to say they show you naked, no they don't. No, they do... It actually violates the right of intimacy. It's not as simple as people using religion to avoid security. The debate is open in many countries though.
March 21, 201016 yr I honestly couldn't care less though, why do people care? Are their bodies so fucking special and amazing that they can't let a security guard check if they have anything hidden? It's not like they are (or even can be) looking at intimate areas with their cock out wanking over you, they don't give a shit, it's just their job, you don't have to get naked, you just walk through a fucking thing and nobody even cares. My point was that newspapers hype it up to be something it is not.
March 21, 201016 yr Author No, they do... It actually violates the right of intimacy. It's not as simple as people using religion to avoid security. The debate is open in many countries though. It might well be, but the simple fact of the matter is, if it is made law that you have to pass through these scanners if you want to travel by plane, everyone has to abide by that law or find a different way to travel. There can be no exceptions.:smug:
March 22, 201016 yr I think different airlines should fund their own security. If you want to board a flight that offers minimal invasion of privacy, then you have that choice. But there's also the chance the flight will crash because Osama's hidden in the overhead compartment. There can also be an airline that offers the opposite extreme - cavity searches for everybody! For the thrill seekers, of course.
March 22, 201016 yr Author Interesting idea. I wonder how that would affect travel insurance cover?:rolleyes: I think different airlines should fund their own security. If you want to board a flight that offers minimal invasion of privacy, then you have that choice. But there's also the chance the flight will crash because Osama's hidden in the overhead compartment. There can also be an airline that offers the opposite extreme - cavity searches for everybody! For the thrill seekers, of course.
March 22, 201016 yr Mark, then for you it would be ok to go like: "Everyone who wants to take a flight should get naked for it, if you do not agree then fuck you, don't fly " I mean, seriously, what kind of extremes are we reaching as we try to increase security? isn't terrorism becoming some kind of psychosis for the people in the first world? I know the dangers exist, but it's simply stupid when it interferes with people rights. I honestly couldn't care less though, why do people care? Are their bodies so fucking special and amazing that they can't let a security guard check if they have anything hidden? It's not like they are (or even can be) looking at intimate areas with their cock out wanking over you, they don't give a shit, it's just their job, you don't have to get naked, you just walk through a fucking thing and nobody even cares. My point was that newspapers hype it up to be something it is not. Just because you don't give a damn about showing your body, doesn't mean others shouldn't... for religion, principles or shame, whatever... It's not simply a debate the daily mail created... the problem is more complex as I tried to explain above in this post.
March 22, 201016 yr Bottom line: I think the first world should change it's view on how dealing with the menace of terrorism, and see it more like an educational, undevelopment related problem and not something solved with a war. And don't take me wrong, I'm not against security measures on flights! but why on earth do they have to show you naked? :dozey:
March 22, 201016 yr Author Mark, then for you it would be ok to go like: "Everyone who wants to take a flight should get naked for it, if you do not agree then fuck you, don't fly " I mean, seriously, what kind of extremes are we reaching as we try to increase security? isn't terrorism becoming some kind of psychosis for the people in the first world? I know the dangers exist, but it's simply stupid when it interferes with people rights. I didn't say I thought full-body scanners were necessary or even fool-proof, just that you can't have people refusing to obey laws or rules simply because they don't fit in with their "beliefs". It's not simply a debate the daily mail created... the problem is more complex as I tried to explain above in this post. Exactly. However, there are certain ignorant individuals who find it convenient to just blindly slag off the "messenger" rather than debate an issue in a civilised manner, presumably as they're incapable of actually doing so.;)
March 22, 201016 yr Author Bottom line: I think the first world should change it's view on how dealing with the menace of terrorism, and see it more like an educational, undevelopment related problem and not something solved with a war. That's another issue entirely.;)
March 22, 201016 yr Exactly. However, there are certain ignorant individuals who find it convenient to just blindly slag off the "messenger" rather than debate an issue in a civilised manner, presumably as they're incapable of actually doing so.;) If it wasn't for the "messenger" incorrectly labeling things most people wouldn't care, at all.
Create an account or sign in to comment