Muslim baggage handlers barred from working at Charles de Gaulle Airport

[Ms DD]

Paris Court to Rule on Muslim Baggage Handler Case

By Lisa Bryant

Paris

23 October 2006

 

 

 

A Paris court is to rule Monday on the first of several appeals by Muslim baggage handlers barred from working at Charles de Gaulle Airport because of suspected links to radical groups. The Muslims complain of discrimination.

 

French security officials say they have barred about 43 mostly-Muslim baggage handlers from working at the Charles de Gaulle Airport, outside Paris. But a major labor union claims at least 70 Muslims have either been stripped of special passes, which allow them to access sensitive sites at the airport or have been warned they will soon lose them.

 

 

Mohammed Seddiki, one of the Muslim workers who have been barred from working at the Charles de Gaulle airport

Security officials fear they may be linked to radical groups. Saturday, the French interior minister defended the decision to bar the workers, saying he could not accept people with radical practices working at the airport. Police interviewed the baggage handlers about their religious practices, among other things, before barring them.

 

Those who lost their passes - including this one interviewed on Europe 1 radio - argue they are not radical Muslims and that they are being unfairly targeted.

 

One man said he has never been criticized about his work or told that he represented a security threat.

 

One French trade union has filed charges of discrimination against the government, on behalf of some of the workers. So has the anti-discrimination group Movement against Racism and for Friendship among People.

 

The organization's head, Mouloud Aounit, says the charges appear unfounded for the three men it represents. He condemns what he calls a witch hunt against Muslims since the publication of a book, earlier this year, alleging threats to the airport posed by radical Muslim workers.

 

Security officials previously rebuffed allegations made in the book, "The Mosques of Roissy," penned by a far-right politician. But France's Interior Ministry subsequently shut down seven Islamic prayer rooms at Charles de Gaulle and another Paris airport.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-10-23-voa13.cfm

 

Whatever next?

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Cambarro:

Whatever next?

Start being honest. This just fell out of the sky look of false indignation doesn't wash anymore. It's old broken record.

 

In the article you posted above is mentioned the closure of SEVEN mosques in Charles De Gaule and other airports in Paris allegedly involved in suspicious activities. I did further digging into this story and what did I find? Since January this year, 18 imams have been expelled from France for inciting violence and spewing vile hatred. Do you also feel indignant about their expulsion as well?

 

All this doesn't prove these muslim men are guilty of any crime but it does compellingly suggest what was done to them wasn't solely on the basis of their faith and not anything they might have done.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by Cambarro:

Whatever next?

Start being honest. This

just fell out of the sky

look of false indignation doesn't wash anymore. It's old broken record.

 

In the article you posted above is mentioned the closure of

SEVEN

mosques in Charles De Gaule and other airports in Paris allegedly involved in suspicious activities. I did further digging into this story and what did I find? Since January this year, 18 imams have been expelled from France for inciting violence and spewing vile hatred. Do you also feel indignant about their expulsion as well?

 

All this doesn't prove these muslim men are guilty of any crime but it does compellingly suggest what was done to them wasn't solely on the basis of their faith and not anything they

might

have done.

Waryaa - where you at in O-town so I can slap you silly! This is the basis of the expulsions:

 

"Security officials fear they may be linked to radical groups. Saturday, the French interior minister defended the decision to bar the workers, saying he could not accept people with radical practices working at the airport."

 

So it's not anything they have planned out or conspired about or anything they actually did - these men were barred because the French interior minister felt they had 'radical practices' - whatever that means. Do you believe that is a good enough basis to deny ppl the right to work? It really becomes as simple as that. As Oodweyne might say, over to you now, dear boy

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Do you believe that is a good enough basis to deny ppl the right to work?

Of course, duh! If you're in cahoots with nefarious posse who are incessantly planning new deadlier ways to maim and terrorize people... if you're under the spell of diabolical imams, not only should you be fired from your work but apprehended and sequestered for your own good. I'd consider that doing them a favour. Rescue operation if you will. Saving them from the jaws of death. Do you want to work with a man who subcontracted his conscience to an imam or idealogy? I sure don't.

 

Have we not seen this play out time and again. In similar fashion? Young seemingly normal muslim men falling under the influence of radical imaams who indoctrinate them with hate for life and lust for death. Encourage them to go out of this world with a bang. Take as many people with you as you can. Allah will reward you for it. Next thing you know, your average next door young muslim man's face is scrolling on the Telly screen as one of the casualties of the latest Islamic ispired suicide bombing carnage. Only that he isn't the so innocent victim but the one who caused the carnage.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

Of course, duh! If you're in cahoots with nefarious posse who are incessantly planning new deadlier ways to maim and terrorize people

That remains unproven. And the terms 'cahoots' and 'nefarious' have to be well defined if this is to pass resonable-ness tests let alone stick up in court.

 

if you're under the spell of diabolical imams, not only should you be fired from your work but apprehended and sequestered for your own good.

Another unproven point - all we have so far is from the interior miniser and that is 'radical practices'. So I wonder - if you were suspected of being 'under the spell of diabolical' violent anti-abortionists - would interior minister SB have me barred from my job. I can tell you I have heard of no such case in North America. But then SB, you would want to be the right of righwing Americans.

 

So in essence, SB supports ppl being barred from their work because they may have links to ppl who may be in the process of committing terrorist acts. Or they may also be barred because they may be under the spell of imams who may be planning something diabolical. So much common sense let alone legal principles. And throw in basic human decency and fair play. :rolleyes:

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

That remains unproven. And the terms 'cahoots' and 'nefarious' have to be well defined if this is to pass resonable-ness tests let alone stick up in court.

 

Outside of mathematics, proofs don't exist. They are meaningless. To rigorously prove something there has to be comprehensive and finite account of all relevent information/evidence. And since this is eternally unattainable, we go by the available evidence. There's only greater or lesser confidence based on available evidence. People say something is proved -- in the vernacular sense -- to mean there is so much compelling evidence that not to accept the allegation true would be absurd.

 

With that out of the way, let me address your quote above. There comes a time in any process where intelligent and rational beings must make a provisional decision based on the limited and inocomplete evidence. That's all I have done. (Note men of responsibility, those tasked to look out for public safety don't have the lexury of waiting until they have foolproof case against those they suspect are about to commit a crime). Authorities allege that these men were involved in questionable activities. Mosques in their place of work were shut down because of suspicion of illegal activities. These two factors and given history of similar cases are more than enough to say it was justified to arrest these men. Not guilty of alleged crimes. That's for courts of law to decide.

 

Remember the issue is whether it was warranted to fire them from work as security risks. The answer is yes given the disclosed facts.

 

 

So I wonder - if you were suspected of being 'under the spell of diabolical' violent anti-abortionists - would interior minister SB have me barred from my job.

 

 

What a red herring. The two scenarious aren't even distantly comparable.

 

If it is the anti-abortionists agenda to sow mass carnage then absolutely yes. I should be fired from job, prosecuted and then sent to psychiatric ward. I trully beleive these zombies of death are suffering from mental issues.

 

 

So in essence, SB supports ppl being barred from their work because they

may

have

links

to ppl who

may

be in the process of committing terrorist acts.

 

Whether they may or may not have links to unsavoury characters or illegal business is for courts to decide. All I'm saying is if someone is suspected of being at a stage where the available evidence warrants their arrest, then by all means yes.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

 

Whether they may or may not have links to unsavoury characters or illegal business is for courts to decide. All I'm saying is if someone is suspected of being at a stage where the available evidence warrants their arrest, then by all means yes.

There is no arrest - the courts have yet to rule. They have been barred from work BEFORE any court has ruled. In essence, they have been deprived of their livelihood on the basis of speculation and hearsay. And for this there is no legal basis - and yet you agree with it.