In July 2006 I struck a small blow for freedom at Brisbane Airport.
At the security gate, after depositing the contents of my pockets on the conveyor belt, I was asked to remove my beret for a security check. This was the first time such a request had been made, and no such procedure had been in place on the previous occasions post 9-11 when I had flown from or to Brisbane.
I stood my ground and refused. The security staff eventually allowed me through and one of them applied the metal detector wand to the beret, even as it remained securely on my head. I then proceeded to the departure lounge, boarded the plane to Melbourne and completed the remainder of the journey without incident.
This episode satisfied me that it is not necessary for Brisbane Airport security to require all passengers to remove hats or headwear, because the wand can be used. Nonetheless, the company responsible for Brisbane Airport security continues to obsess about passengers’ headwear. According to the Courier-Mail:
A federal investigation has been launched into a ruling by the company in charge of the airport’s security to demand passengers remove for security checks religious headwear, including turbans, veils and Jewish skull caps.
At least one international flight was delayed at the weekend when staff from the company, ISS Security, demanded 13 people of the Sikh religion remove their turbans and a Muslim woman to take off her face veil.
Apparently the policy (which appears to be unique to Brisbane, at least among Australian airports) has now been resiled from. However one wonders what the point of it was in the first place. How big a bomb or a gun can a Jewish man hide under his yarmulka?
It’s not only at the airport that headwear (religious or otherwise) excites Brisbane authorities. A 12 year old Sikh boy has been denied admission to Brisbane’s elite Ormiston College because of his refusal, on religious grounds, to remove his turban and cut his hair. The matter is now before the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission.
As someone who remained proudly be-bereted through Brisbane Airport security in 2006, and who after 13 years finally managed to get the Campus Club at Bjelke-Petersen Memorial University to capitulate (ouch) over its ban on hats, caps and berets, I wish the kid well in his coming battle. But I remain mystified as to why the wearing of headwear, whether for religious or secular reasons, attracts such disapproval from diverse sources.
Paul asked: “How big a bomb or a gun can a Jewish man hide under his yarmulka?”
I suppose it could be made of nitrocellulose or plastique! (But a sniffing device would detect that)
Note: UltraOrthodox jews (who killed that Israeli PM a while back?) have bigger hats, and Moslems cover their heads too.
You are so up with the technology.
Since I often need to send email on the run I must get myself one of the those fancy new Blackberets.
Hope the trepanning job I did to you has healed up…
And are they aware that both the Discordians and the Pastafarians probably, but not necessarily, mandate that male members be covered with berets?
You could wear a mrtal bowler hat like that James Bond villain, nextime, just to see what happens. And what about hatpins, if they’re still worn? Am very disturbed if they’re not as it would make it harder for Miss Marple to solve murders.
Does this airport head-gear fetish extend to asking the follicularly-challenged to remove any rugs they may be wearing?
That might prove a bit embarrassing.
Still, I suppose some middle-aged gonzo might be hiding a bomb or contraband of one kind or another under that bouffant Elvis toupee.
Geez, I feel safer already.
You reckon being asked to remove headgear is intrusive?
Try being asked to remove your leg!
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/811442,CST-NWS-tsaangone25.article
Check the uniforms more closely mate. I’m pretty sure they would have been the Federal Fashion Police. They would have done the same thing for a safari suit or highpants.
“mandate that male members be covered with berets?”
Why? Have they got religious objections to wearing pants?
“Try being asked to remove your leg!”
Seems like a sensible precaution to me.
I spose those at cataplexy http://catallaxyfiles.com/ would defend your right to wear what ever headgear you choose. Me I’d ban berets everywhere.
A beret could easily be combined with a Gauloise fuse and all hell would break out. Yep, ban those suckers but go easy on the Sikh and his turban. They take for ever to wrap and Mr Singh would likely miss his plane.
Paul Norton: “Nonetheless, the company responsible for Brisbane Airport security continues to obsess about passengers’ headwear.”
WATSON: What I still don’t understand, my dear Holmes, is why they would care in the least about what the passengers were wearing on their heads.
HOLMES: My dear Watson, whomever in the world do you mean by “they”?
WATSON: Well, the writer above seems to say that ‘they’ are “the company responsible for Brisbane Airport security,” and… ohhh, now I see. Deuced clever of you, Holmes! Deuced clever!
HOLMES: Not at all. Now be a good chap and pass me that shovel full of cocaine. Tonight, we have a *real* mystery to solve…
“This episode satisfied me that it is not necessary for Brisbane Airport security to require all passengers to remove hats or headwear, because the wand can be used.”
So Paul is satisfied, on the basis of a statistical sample of exactly one incident, (and a personal one, no less), as to how security policy should be modified, for an entire security firm in charge of an entire airport.
Huh.
Don’t ever change, lefties.
[quote]How big a bomb or a gun can a Jewish man hide under his yarmulka?[/quote]
I’m guessing that a law which requires muslims to remove their headgear but exempts the jews would piss them off even more than the current law does.
Islamic headdresses, Jewish yamulkas, Sikh turbans, Paul’s beret… what religion requires you to wear a beret?
I imagine berets are considered “religious headgear” to the extent that they a symbols of devotion to Frank Spencer.
I was asked to remove my (very stylish Italian) hat at Bangkok airport in 1997, so it’s not a post-9/11 thing.
It’s not a requirement, really, but elaborate hats are popular in Catholicism:
As a Sikh I wear a Turban since childhood. Sikhs wear Turbans to keep their long hair in place and as a religeous part of dress code.
I was working in USA (Texas) during the 9/11 period – and I had absolutely no problems going for lunch or shopping. In October 2001 I boarded a Plane to Singapore from Dallas International. Many passengers were whisked for more than rutine checking.
No one asked me to remove my turbon, in fact I was not even thoroughly checked – SUCH IS THE REPUTATION OF SIKHS in general.
One would need to do a deeper check on this security firm called ISS as to their cross-cultural educational levels along with enthusiasm for dramas in public. sometimes you only need one person in scheme of things to result in overjelous actions and insensitivity to other cultures than his own. Such a person / persons need more than basic training in thier jobs. They need “World knowledge training” to get them out of their narrow and stereotype thinking.
Sikhs fought in 2 World wars with the British armies. They were in front of contigents in liberation of france. Sikhs also fought along side Aussy Diggers in Galipoli. Sikhs died in 10’s of thousands serving in the British Army. They won the highest number of Victoria crosses (or equivalent) for bravery in war – ALL THIS WITH THEIR TURBANS AND NOT BULLET PROOF HATS !! NO ONE DISTURBED OR INSINUATED THIER TURBANS THEN COZ THE BRITISH KNEW THAT TO THE SIKH – HIS TURBON IS DEARER TO HIM THAN HIS LIFE OR SOMEONE’S LIFE WHO INSULTS HIS TURBAN. THAT INCLUDES ME AS SUCH A SIKH AS FOR AS MY TURBAN IS CONCERNED.
A Turban is part of a Sikh’s person and not merely a head gear. It is also not an object to be triffled with in public. thats why a Sikh don’t tie or undo his Turban in public. Asking a sikh to remove his Turban is asking him to be ‘naked’ in public. Conservative Sikh tradition does not take lightly to such insults.
At time of need A SIkh may use his Turban to save a drowning person at his own discretion. Try to kick a Sikh,s Turban (or mine) and GOD help you. This action can result in a quick and massive payback. It may sound hard but who knows best what the Turban means ?? oNly a Sikh does.
Technology today is sufficiuent to ensure safety on flights. Taking away pins, Pens, pencils, water bottles does not solve the security issues.
Security can also be a two-way process. Building trust and mutual respect with passengers is also very important.
Hypothetical exapmle”
IF I as a Sikh was harrased before boarding the plane. Some nasty charater next to me is about to hit a waitress etc etc or create problems on board. As a Sikh i am supposed to rise to the challenege and help save my fellow passengers lives even at risk of my own life, if i can. BUT WILL I DO THAT ?? my motivation will be the treatment i got myself from the security just prior.
Regarding the hulaboo going on in the Brisbane School incedent, I think it is media first who wants a “Hot Issue” to roll out the news and sell the story.. just for few bucks. The media is known to blow things out of proportion many a times. This one is no exception it seems. The child’s parents will go to the courts to redress the discrimination. The Sikh community is fully behind them moraly and finacialy. After that is decided, it is obvious that the SCHOOL CONCERNED IS NOT FIT TO HAVE CULTURALY DIVERSE students, it does NOT add a zilch to the so called ‘elite-ness’ of this school. It takes away a few good things from it as an educational institution, for it can not teach by example the Values such as, acceptance of others the way they are, mutual respect, equality in mankind, universal brother hood and few more.
re 2nd pic of Papa Ratzi:
“I know what you’re thinking punk, was that five hail Marys, or six….”