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?