Terror has struck in the heart of Air Canada as they have issued a directive to their ticket agents et al that Salman Rushdie is **banned ** from Air Canada and is not permitted to purchase a ticket.
The excuse is that a security ruling by the FAA regarding Rushdie and flights in the USA would be applicable within Canada by some twisted logic, requiring measures that would result in a 3 hour delay for passengers.
I am appalled by this chicken shit measure on the part of Air Canada. As my tax dollar supports this national airline I expect it not to back down in the face of the enemy in our present war on terror. Certainly Rushdie does not represent a definable group that can cry discrimination, but his loneliness in the face of the world wide enemy reminds me of the weak and young member of the prey herd targeted by the predator.
This is an excellent example of the effectiveness of terror. Any other author that wishes to challenge Islam will have to consider his freedom of movement throughout the world. At least in Canada anyway.
I hope public opinion causes them to reverse their decision.
Accordingly, for all you public opiners, here are some contacts. (The phone numbers have answering machines outside of business hours, so don’t let the late hour stop you.)
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport)
Phone: (613) 995-4988
Fax: (613) 995-1686
Email: Collenette.D@parl.gc.ca
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister)
Phone: (613) 992-4211
Fax: (613) 941-6900
Email: pm@pm.gc.ca
Air Canada Complaints
Fax toll free: 1-866-584-0380
Fax: (403) 569-5333
(No phone, ‘cause then they’d have to talk to you.)
Air Canada Ombudsman
Email: ombudsman@aircanada.ca
I’m obviously missing the point here, but if the presence of Mr Rushdie is likely to increase the risks to other passengers, then doesn’t this make some sense? I mean, if the plane carrying him got blown out of the sky, wouldn’t the relatives be demanding to know why their loved ones weren’t warned that they’d be sharing the flight with a man who has so many enemies, etc?
Hey, is it just me, or didn’t I used to have a post in this thread? Right after a double post by grienpeace that isn’t there anymore either? Did a mod “clean up” in here and get my post by mistake, or am I just hallucinating? [sub]Please be hallucinations! I’d love a good hallucination.[/sub]
As regards the OP: Bastards. Mess with my favorite magical realist, will ya? Feel the steely edge of my e-mail, cowards!
Why? Because terrorists are staking out airports all over the world, on the off-hand chance they see Salman Rushdie, and if they do, they’re going to jump right out and hijack whichever plane he happens to get on? Because the terrorists have vast psychic powers and will know what time and what flight Salman Rushdie will be taking? Because, after blowing up the WTC, and being under more pressure and scrutiny and 24–hour bombardments than ever before, terrorists are going to mount a major hijack operation and risk compromising whatever organizations they have left just to take out some guy who wrote a book ten years ago?
Yes but look on the bright side. Everybody who knows you will be able to say “Oh look everybody, this is Cazzle, you know, the girl whose Auntie Pearl was blown up with Salman Rushdie?”
Redboss
um, apologies for this cheap joke to Salman Rushdie, his publishers, Cazzle and her Auntie Pearl.
It’s not that Rushdie will necessarily make it less safe for other travellers, but rather that Air Canada is not willing to mitigate the increased risk by going to the extra effort and expense necessary to ensure that flights with Rushdie are as safe as flights without Rushdie.
Assuming that Salman Rushdie is smart enough to make travel plans under false names; make sure that nobody knows (in advance) the details of his travel plans; and otherwise takes reasonable steps to travel incognito . . .
I wouldn’t mind traveling on the same plane as him.
(Not any more than I would mind traveling without him, anyway)
As suggested by other posters, it would tremendously difficult for extremists to attack a plane on which Rushdie is flying without the benefit of some kind of advance knowledge.
Okay, Quagmire, try to line those three lonely briain cells bouncing around in that cavernous skull of yours long enough to actually think about this:
First, only one person related to the publishing of the book has been attacked: his publisher in Norway, William Nygaard, and he survived. This was almost ten years ago. (Cite) This is what’s known in these circles as a “fact.” Pay attention to this, there’ll be a test later.
Second: hijacking a plane is an enourmously complex, expensive, and risky operation, more now than ever before. It requires months of advance planning. It is NOT the sort of thing you do on a whim. “Hey, Salman Rushdie is on this plane. Guess I’ll hijack it!” Just finding and getting to Rushdie is hard enough: why complicate it unnecessarily by doing on a jet?
Third: Yes, there’s a threat. Every plane is a potential target, even the ones without famous authors on them. This is not Salman Rushdie’s fault. He’s done nothing wrong. It’s not fair to punish him because a bunch of psychopaths don’t understand the use of metaphor in magical-realist writing. There’s a principle involved here: (To save you time, here’s Merriam-Webster’s definition of what a principle is. While you’re there, check out “justice,” “ethics,” and, just for kicks, “manners”) People have rights. If they’ve broken no laws, then no one else can take those rights away from them. Here’s another principle: you don’t ever give in to terrorists. It only encourages them (DNFTT is not just a board policy).
But please, Quagmire, don’t let any of this dissuade you from boarding an airplane. By all means, stay at home. Don’t leave the country. Idiots like you we don’t need to export; we’ve already got enough enemies in the world.
I’d rather not go down at all (on a airliner, at least)
Guess it’s called Risk Assessment or a Survival Instinct
If I knew Rushdie was on the same flight I’d get off (the plane).
Putting extreme sports aside, it’s human nature to avoid putting oneself in unnecesarilly dangerous situations…especially when another flight would make itself available in the immediate future.
It’s no different than when some people refuse to drive on New Year’s Eve or St. Patty’s Day because there are too many drunks on the road. They don’t blame law enforcement for not adequately doing their job…they just assume not take the risk.
I consider the FAA / Canadian Transportation Ministry’s ruling a sane and rational one…kind of like choosing to use a condom as opposed to having unprotected sex (it may not be necessary all with every person you meet-but better safe than sorry that one time you needed to).
Speaking of safe sex, the argument for letting Rushdie fly on commercial airliners reminds me a little of the debate over the ban on Haitian immigrants back in the mid 80’s because of their high rate of HIV infection. Some people were outraged over the injustices heaped on the innocent non-infected emigre’ whilst others loudly questioned both the risk and financial burdon placed on society in lifting the ban. Both the “not-a high-enough” and the “why-take-any” risk camps had their point…it just depended on the individuals perspective.
Call me an unprincipled, chicken-shit, but my populist instincts tell me with all the free publicity the radical islamists have provided over the years, his publishers can well afford chartering a flight for him on the private jet of his choice.