An Air Canada Flagging

tahmed32

Excerpt 1 was response to ali1 or somebody - not for general consumption. Excerpt 2 has nothing racist about it.

Anyway - until next time - see ya.

that doesn`t answer my question

what ideology?

Urstruly:
The one being taught at certain (not all!) madrassahs.

DM/89 - sirji . . . how can you say that the issue is one of why he was flagged, in isolation from everything else? I mean, a certain percentage of people will be flagged everyday, sooner or later everybody`s turn will come.

What I am objecting to is the assumption that the writer makes that what happened to him was because he was a Pakistani. My submission here is that, in Canada as elsewhere, at different times in history, this sort of thing has happened to various groups of people.

Shall add more at length later.

DM

what ideology you are talking about

Urstruly:
``We must stop this war and this war cannot stop until we find a political solution to the problem.``

...and what`s the problem? Injustices in the world? Was there ever a time when there was no injustice in the world? But these did not result in a ``civilisational`` war.
No, my friend, it is your turn to own up to your part of the responsibility for what`s going on. While one can understand the resistance being put up by Iraqis, Palestinians and others directly affected by an event, it is the tendency of those not directly affected by those events to jump into the fray -not as members of the UN, Arab League or even OIC but as individuals to blow themselves up, which is causing these huge problems to millions of innocent people like Shahid Mahmood. So, why not deal with the ideology that encourages such behaviour?

Now, you can go ahead and call me a ``sarkaari gawah`` for being able to see both sides of the issue.

veeresh:
I am afraid we have some disagreements here.
``1) there is nothing new about his ongoing whining about being denied his basic rights. It happens all over the world, and it will continue happening, to vast groups of people.``

I do not know about the world but it did not happen in Canada in recent past. As long as one had proper documents, entry was allowed. Even if one did not have proper documentation, one only had to utter the magic word ``refugee`` and entry was ensured.

``2) just because it is Canada does not mean that there is no history or tradition, past or present, of discrimination or denial of rights.``

Yes, there is but the society is trying to correct historical wrongs, to the extent of special measures, such as an apology to Japanese Canadians for their treatment during the War and of native people for depriving them of their land and cultural rights.

``3) by stating that his wife was permitted because she was not of Pakistani origin, and broadening that to include the sub-Continent, Shahid brings out the perception that it was his ``origin`` which caused the denial. Well, Shahid should know that being denied boarding/entry/free passage, these are not new things for people like us from the sub-Continent.

If Shahid had, in all his writings and cartoons, even once taken up the case of laborers and other poor people being denied boarding and worse all over the world, then I would have understood his predicament vis-a-vis the Canadian authorities.``

Are you suggesting that one must be a flagbearer of others` problems to earn the right to stand up for his rights? If so, you are setting up a much higher standard of morality than I do.

``Let Shahid take this forward as part of a larger group with a larger worldview. Maybe you as an economist can add by stating your views on the economics of the whole thing.``

It`s for Shahid to decide whether he wants to fight for himself or for all downtrodden. One can always look for an economic angle in anything but I prefer to see it as a human rights issue and not that of cost-benefit.

``Something like that happened to Gandhiji in South Africa over a century ago, and he took on the Empire on behalf of everybody, not just for himself. That`s where I am coming from. If we all have to draw inspiration from history, look there. Gandhiji was best of breed advocate, but who did he fight for when he woke up to see his truth?``

Once again, if one is not a Gandhi, one shouldn`t complain? Surely, I am missing something. In any case, Gandhiji was in violation of the law of the land, howsoever unjust the law might have been. Shahid, on the other hand, did not break any law and if he did, he has not been told about it.

To me, the issue is simply one of his right to know why he was flagged. I think that this society has, generally, gone overboard in protecting the rights of the individual versus protecting the society, such as privacy laws, parole rules, unanimous jury decisions, etc. But in the name of security, some basic rights are being trampled with. Even our justice minister, Ian Cotler, has said that these rules need to be looked into. And he, by the way, is a prominent leader of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

tahmed32/86 - I could provide you with anecdotes by the ice-cream barrel full (butterscotch) about language issues abroad in the pre-visa days . . . but hey, for a moment . . . why do you assume I am only talking about boarding denied for getting into non-3rdworld countries?

Boarding denied for any reason, entering or leaving, and the countries I mentioned pertain to points between and near Dammam through Dhaka.

thanks very much for nothing, shahid. i asked what flagging is-i now have some idea. you have every right to complain.

veeresh #85 actually on looking at it again, your q2 below is NOT a very good one - desis were never ``denied boarding`` in pre-9/11 days based on nationality (keep in mind that airlines are there to make money). instead, desis (and indeed third world people generally) were ``denied entry`` to countries when they tried to get in by breaking their rules(i.e. by showing up without visas), which is a totally different thing. in the 1960`s in fact, most european countries including germany did not require any visas from pakistanis (and presumably other third world nationalities) at all - all that changed when large numbers started to go to these countries in the 1970`s and started settling down. airlines thus started to check for visas as well. my elder brother (who was a student in germany back then) used to make some extra money by acting as interpreter and had some interesting stories to tell - like the fellow who the german police thought had gone on hunger strike in jail after being caught for illegal entry to germany - but (as he explained in panjabi to my brother) the problem was they were serving him meat which he was sure was not halal. so my brother suggested they change his diet to some fine german bread and vegies and everybody was happy.

tahmed32/84 - Reference to Oklahoma was aimed at those trying to justify a stricter post 9/11 scenario at airports based on background and profiling.

Much before Pakistanis and ex-Pakistanis became khatta-meetha pickle of choice for matters pertaining to aviation, the FBI was going around questioning people at the Airman Flying School in Norman, Oklahoma. This was 1996-1998, and pertained to trainee pilots (Philipino) Abdul Hakim Murad and another pilot identified only as Osama Bin Laden`s pilot.

veeresh:
On q1) how does oklahoma slip into this? you mean there is a danger from refugees from the oklahoma dust bowl of the 1930`s coming to canada via a time machine and hijacking planes? or maybe there is a danger of 19 little old ladies getting onto planes and forcing the passengers to knit sweaters?? when it comes to matters of life and death (which is what aircraft security is about), you dont fool around with hurting someone`s (even a world famous cartoonist like shahid m.) feelings.

On q2) now this is a good question.

tahmed32/82 - sirji, my usage of the Gandhiji/South Africa example was used because it is similar to what Shahid chose to imply . . . that he (Shahid) was denied boarding in Canada on grounds of a name/religion/colour/previous nationality, which links to a particular religion/race/colour. Racial discrimination, Security concern, Religious segregation?

q1) For all:- If it was only about security concerns, then, with all due respects, how far back in history do we go in Canada or USA? Why just to 9/11? Should everybody from Oklahoma also be denied boarding?

q2) Specifically for Shahid as a mediaperson:-If it was only about being denied boarding on grounds of background, then why complain only about Canada? Look closer home? How many people of Pakistani - or sub-Continenal - origin are ``denied boarding`` or worse on a daily basis in friendly neighbouring countries? And, after all that, simply vanish? Where are your whines about them?

Which is also what I tried to explain when I said the Canadian officials must be having a great laugh. I mean, here is a person unwilling to defend or complain about his own ``back home``, but whining about something less offensive in Canada?

veeresh #81 your post makes good sense until the end - Gandhi was kicked out of the first class compartment in the south african railways at the turn of the last century because of racial segregation. Shahid was bumped off the flight because of hightened security concerns after 9/11. Big difference, since racial segratation is unjustified while security concerns stem from the right of self-defense of every human and every society and is fully justified.

dost-mittar/59, sirji, who is denying Shahid his rights? All I am stating is that

1) there is nothing new about his ongoing whining about being denied his basic rights. It happens all over the world, and it will continue happening, to vast groups of people. For the purposes of this article, let us say it shall happen to people from the sub-Continent who have certain kinds of surnames.

2) just because it is Canada does not mean that there is no history or tradition, past or present, of discrimination or denial of rights. Just the players change sides now and then, and re-write history to suit themselves, and it is strange that you put forth the argument that in the case of Canada, their shady past needs to be ignored or condoned?

3) by stating that his wife was permitted because she was not of Pakistani origin, and broadening that to include the sub-Continent, Shahid brings out the perception that it was his ``origin`` which caused the denial. Well, Shahid should know that being denied boarding/entry/free passage, these are not new things for people like us from the sub-Continent.

If Shahid had, in all his writings and cartoons, even once taken up the case of laborers and other poor people being denied boarding and worse all over the world, then I would have understood his predicament vis-a-vis the Canadian authorities.

But here, he expects me as a reader and inter-actor to have sympathy for him on an individual basis? What does he think, we are so naive?

Let Shahid take this forward as part of a larger group with a larger worldview. Maybe you as an economist can add by stating your views on the economics of the whole thing.

But it cannot sound as though an English speaking middle class WOG in Canada, after years in Pakistani media, has suddenly discovered truth as applying to him alone.

Something like that happened to Gandhiji in South Africa over a century ago, and he took on the Empire on behalf of everybody, not just for himself. That`s where I am coming from. If we all have to draw inspiration from history, look there. Gandhiji was best of breed advocate, but who did he fight for when he woke up to see his truth?

Dost Mitter

You have misunderstood me. The point I was trying to make through out my many posts was that the issue of profiling, detentions, deportations and inhuman torture of Muslims in prisons, all are just tangential issues. The real issue is the war. Now call it a war of civilizations, or war on terror, or war on colonial agression, an uprising against imperial occupation, a Jihad or a crusade, the point is that there is something going on that has upset the whole world from Norh America to Japan. What is that these two people fighting for. We have to find that out. We must stop this war and this war cannot stop until we find a political solution to the problem. A war by definition is the ultimate mean to reach a political solution. But do we know what the political problem is?