The Dilemmas of Non-Violent Demonstration: Jalal Ahmed and the Luton Protest

A British citizen Jalal Ahmed, who was working as baggage handler at Luton Airport, took part in a demonstration against the war on Iraq on Tuesday. During the Royal Anglian Regiment’s homecoming parade, he was brandishing a sign saying “Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra.”

Two days after the demonstration, his employer, Menzies Aviation, stated that they had revoked his airside pass, and he could not work with them until a full investigation was complete.

Some argue that the decision was correct , as a person with extremist views should not be working as an employee loading luggage onto conveyor belts into aircraft holds. Others insist that anyone who takes part in a non-violent demonstration cannot be treated as a potential terrorist without any proof, even though the decision taken might produce temporary consequences.

What are you thinking about this situation? Do you consider the situation as a deadlock or is there an answer to the problem?

What if Jalal Ahmed decides to cooperate with terrorists and helped them pass the bomb in a luggage into a plane? Do you think that most people will feel much safer if we can employ someone else who has not participated in any kind of demonstration?

On the other hand, what if life became unbearable for Ahmed in his country?  How "safe" is Jalal Ahmed if he loses his job without any proof linking his non-violent demonstration with an illegal organization?

I am an advocate of Jalal Ahmed's actions, simply posing questions. Are we going to deprive a human being of his livelihood, even as he is innocent of any specific crime, and maintain the presumpton that a protestor is more likely to be manipulated by terrorists rather than, say, an employee who has not participated in a demonstration?

Comments

[Jonny]

I suppose it depends on what is meant by 'investigation'.

I think (and 'think' is used on purpose) that so far his employer is right. He won't be 'loosing his livelyhood' at this stage - I'm assuming he is on full pay - and he does work in a circumstance that is sensititve, surely it is necessary to be careful? Of course the problem is how trasnparent that process of 'checks' is. For example, will he be allowed to answer properly for any percived security threat? More than that 'proof' seems to be the key word. Is there any? We can't assumine there is just because he protested (nothing wrong with that), but we can't assume there isn't either. Having said that I can't help but feel this should happen quite quickly. If it doesn't, then clearly there is more to this. There is a big difference between proof and suspicion.

Put it this way, if a Dr. at a maternity hospital was found to be protesting against abortion or unfit 'underaged' mothers, the hopsital would have a duty to at very least have a word with him and check he won't do something stupid. A better example would be a copper found to be a member of the BNP. Or, perhaps most pointedly of all, the recent story of Birmingham ambulance drivers who had criminal convictons.

It might seem a bit glib to assume a protestor is more likely to be manipulated, but the alternatives are to think about no-ones background, or everyones. It's just a pratical fact of life that in some jobs an employer needs to be sure that the person they employ doesn't pose a risk. But, it does entirely depend on how that is handled .

[Mike Dunn]

If Ahmed was a terrorist (and I mean this hypothetically, I don't think that he is), he'd have been very foolish to draw attention to himself at a demonstration like this- I'd wager he'd be guaranteeing the failure of any plot he was involved in.

[Ethicswideboy]

The most disturbing aspect of this, for me at least, is not so much the fact that this individuals personal choice to dissent against the prevailing logic has been correlated to his potential for terrorist threat, but that his employers security measures are contingent upon such information. What sort of vetting procedures are in place such that this act of demonstration is deemed threatening? They might as well start rounding up all men with beards whilst they're at it. It's just as (il)logical and arbitrary. Women with beards too, for that matter.

[Dave]

The BNP is a legal party. Two Church of England priests (one a BNP member, the other Labour) preach on a Sunday morning. Whose sermon is more likely to contain white nationalism, which could potentially induce people to commit acts of violence? Apparently the Church of England sees BNP member clergy as a danger, even though the BNP is a legal party. My question is -- where do we draw the line?