• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

First, they came for the Muslim

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)[4] As you may have read, two Muslim women refused to go through full-body scanners at Manchester Airport this week.

My support for them has seen the Big Brother Watch mailbag swell with abuse, and we've had some pretty tasty phone calls, too (all pretty much along the lines of the charming comments left over at the Daily Mail website). I suppose that this is bound to happen at some point with an organisation like ours, but it's the first time for us, so it's had a particular impact.

To state the obvious; I'm not supporting these women because they're Muslims. I don't care what they are. I would stand up for anyone in this situation. If the first people to refuse to be scanned said they were Jedi, or a made up religion like Scientology, then I'd be on their side. Because I don't think that anyone should be compelled to go through the scanners.

I note with interest that one of the women refused to go through the scanner for medical reasons – well, given that the government has made compulsory for fliers that which the best available guidance says is dangerous, I think that that should not be discounted.

But to my mind the main issue is the significant – and unjustifiable – intrusion into private lives, the extension yet again of power by the state over the life of the individual. I've made my position on this clear elsewhere and all I'd add is that, people still constantly say – "well, if it makes us a little safer, it's worth it" – "if it saves one life, stops one crime…" – I spend a lot of time pointing out just what a specious argument that is. Plainly, it would "save one child" to ban the motor car, or introduce a night curfew, but we don't, because it would be disproportionate and we have to get on with normal life, even if we incur a slightly higher element of risk in doing so. We don't encourage people to take wild risks with cars, but we don't make liberty-reducing and disproportionate laws, either. We should react to the threat of terrorism in just the same way. .

People are understandably afraid of terrorism. But as I've said before, we didn’t allow the IRA to impede our freedoms or change our way of life to anything like the degree we are changing now. Those upset by the prospect of undergoing these scans shouldn’t be forced to choose between their dignity and their flight. What kind of a free society does the Government think it is “protecting”, when it invades our privacy like this? When we are forced to expose ourselves at the airport in order to go on holiday, the terrorists have won.

If you are not free, I am not free.

By Alex Deane

Posted on March 4, 2010 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Body Scanners
  • http://www.deansonline.net/ Paul

    Be encouraged too – there are a lot of us who support what you’re doing and the others just show the great need for education about this.

  • http://ampers.wordpress.com Andrew Ampers Taylor

    If I have to fly, I’ll wear a kaftan. And if asked to go through a scanner I will just whip it off (naked underneath) then they can all have a good look and there’ll be no need for the scanner.
    At 70, I am NOT a pretty sight!
    Ampers.

  • http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home 1984

    I have put my comments on this site before and I have contacted numerous groups including the ‘LORD’ Adonis and several UK airports with my privacy, but particualrly health concerns. I have asked them all to explain to me how if these scanners only look at the surface of the body ( and therefore are not dangerous because they would have to be high power x-rays to travel into the body ), they can CLEARLY see bones. None are prepared to answer this contradiction.Why not? Most people are just idioits, if you don’t believe me then just look at the images widely available from Raiscan, they are plain for all to see.
    No right-minded person would object to these scanners IF they protected privacy ( they DO store and transmit the images, Rapiscan state this themselves ), and if they were SAFE. I have asked this question on here before, if anyone can answer the conundrun that I have raised above I would be very grateful – how can the scanners see bones if they are not travelling into the body?

  • brendan

    I’m surprised. I assumed people could see beyond ‘muslim’ and see ‘power mad state’ jumping up and down and waving it’s arms wildly just behind.
    Whilst most of the comments appear to be ‘one rule for all of us’ which I agree with, I don’t understand why they don’t pause and consider whether this ‘one rule for all of us’ should exist at all.
    It seem BBW has a harder job than I ever imagined.
    The irony is that the anti-muslim-are-special-cases views are not Labour ones, and the anti-state-intrusion are not Labour views – so wtf is voting Labour?

  • Gav

    Alex , This stance is an absolute joke !It is no more dangerous than an x ray PLUS its about the majority NOT the minority !
    I bet the airlines would NOT take off if the about 300 passengers wanted off the aircraft and wanted their money back OR wanted two muslims off the aircraft for them to fly ?
    Wake up and smell the roses Alex !

  • http://www.irdial.com/blogdial irdial

    I completely agree with you 1000%. Natural rights for everyone, without exception.

  • http://clarinettesblog.wordpress.com/ clarinette

    in this interview it is clearly stated by Ms Sarah Barrett, head of customer experience at the Manchester airport that Passengers could refuse to be scanned. Is this not true?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8303983.stm

  • http://profile.typepad.com/alexdeane Alex Deane

    Passengers could refuse to be scanned…
    … and not permitted to fly as a result.

  • http://alastairs-place.net alastair

    Again, stop harping on about them being “potentially dangerous”. It’s complete bunk and it makes you look like an idiot.
    The reason for not having them is the same as the reason for not taking off shoes or unpacking bags and letting officials inspect laptops: IT DOESN’T MAKE US SAFER.
    In the case of taking off shoes, it’s annoying but at least it doesn’t cost us anything. But these scanners don’t protect us *and* they’re expensive, so we should save the money and not have them.

  • Bucko

    “I bet the airlines would NOT take off if the about 300 passengers wanted off the aircraft and wanted their money back OR wanted two muslims off the aircraft for them to fly ?”
    You are assuming that all 300 passengers are as petrified of muslims as you are.
    If you want to cling to your security blanket than thats fine but dont bring the rest of us down to your level.
    We can see the terrorist threat in proportion, rather than getting our knickers in a twist and throwing our liberties at the government screaming “please protect us, please!”

  • LeChiffre

    “Those upset by the prospect of undergoing these scans shouldn’t be forced to choose between their dignity and their flight.”
    The real choice is not between dignity and flying but between good health and flying.
    Keep up the good work Alex.

  • guy herbert

    Hear hear, Alex.
    I rather suspect the scans are in fact harmless, and personally I am not bothered by nudity, more by the bullying officiousness, cost, inconvenience and timewasting of airport security theatre; but the issue is the personal dignity and freedom of movement of *everyone*.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/alexdeane Alex Deane

    Alastair,
    I’m glad you’re in partial agreement but you’ll forgive me if on the medical aspect I take it from the experts, whose advice is that
    1) Air passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings
    2) Governments must explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation
    3) Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning
    And until that advice is revoked, I’ll keep saying that this government is compelling people to do something the best possible advice says is potentially dangerous.
    (as per here:
    http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/02/airport-body-scanners-may-be-dangerous-and-our-government-is-ignoring-that.html)

  • Purlieu

    Re: “no scan no fly”
    Erm, it’s the airport doing the scanning, and the airline doing the flying.
    Since when did BAA tell Easyjet who to allow on their planes.

  • .

    Please carry on, someone has to speak with a clear voice.

  • NeverSurrender

    I’m behind you all the way Alex. This ‘you can only fly if you agree to being stripped naked’ or ‘let some pervy stranger rub their hands all over you’ is outrageous. There are non intrusive search methods available which should be used instead and they don’t carry health risks either. Metal detectors and chemical sniffers are what are needed not the disgusting strip search scanners.

  • Crux

    Wouldn’t it be more logical to scan *everyone*? I mean, imagine the repercussions of a terrorist not being scanned and then blowing up a plane. How long will it be until everyone travelling is scanned *just to make sure*.
    And why stop at having these scanners at airports. Bring them in at Busports, Underground stations, Train stations, Ports, the Channel Tunnel, Pubs, Restaurants, Shopping Centres – anywhere, in fact where people congregate. Because, as far as I understand, terrorists don’t just pick on airlines.
    I’m sorry, this is insane. Please keep up the good work.

  • Marcus Junius Brutus

    Absolutuely right to defend their rights!!!
    All of us face this big brother society together

  • http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com FaustiesBlog

    Those who want government to protect them from every ill are efectively renouncng personal responsibility.
    We need to instill in our younsters the benefits of personal responsibility, to combat the ever-increasing reach of the state.

  • Steve Fraser

    Whilst I am in agreement with you on many issues surrounding personal provacy, I am not on this. Airport security is so importnat that we cannot allow people to choose whether to undergo these checks. I fly regularly and consider the hassle of going through security a pain – but I recognise it is a necessary one. If I am asked to walk through a scanner I will do so. Why is always the rights of people’s religion that are considered and not those of atheists such as myself who wish to fly in complete safety. Those are the rules, choose to fly and you may be scanned. Attendance at an airport is not compulsory, unlike having a wheelie bin, for example. Drop this particular campaign, it reflects badly on your otherwise l;audable and sensible activities. Otherwise I await the day when a plane is bombed by someone excused a scan with trepidation – where will you be then?

  • G Hopkins

    This really shouldn’t be an issue, nobody is forced to take the scan, its one of the conditions for using the service, like buying a ticket, having a photo id or passport. IF you don’t like it take the train.
    I could argue that not having enough money to pay for the flight was an infringement of my freedom to travel, there has to be limits or all your campaigns will be discredited

  • Derek

    Gordon Brown is a traitor to his country.
    In Britain if you are asked to go through one of the scanners you must comply. If you refuse you will be barred from flying and your name will be kept on a list. Guilty before you fly. You are not given the opportunity to have a pat down.
    The terrorists have scarred the not properly elected Prime Minister (what a joke) in to forcing civilised human beings in to getting there naked bodies photo graphed and looked at in detail by anyone who is TRAINED. Have these perverts been vetted or are they on the sex offenders list. I bet all the Trained individuals are men.
    A Doctor is the only other man i would willingly let look at my wife’s naked body for medical reasons not some floor cleaner who applied for a job as pervert. Looking for bombs or staring at naked woman all day. What a job to have. Not having to pay for porn but also getting paid to look at it. I spoke to a friend at an air port and he told me that the images are kept for an hour before they are deleted. Just encase something happens on the plane they can then go back and have another look at the porn. So all this “the images aren’t stored in anyway and are deleted straight away” is complete rubbish!
    In order for myself and family to have a nice holiday in the sun I am expected to let my wife expose herself to a complete stranger.
    I didn’t marry a slag. Porn stars have a choice to get photo graphed, our wife’s and children don’t. Until these Skandalis machines are destroyed I am stuck in this country for a holiday. To drive to a hot country with a young family is unfair on them.
    The dignity of our loved ones has been thrown away just because of some mud hut dwellers go boo !!!
    Do you think Winston Churchill would have aloud his loved ones to expose there genitals to strangers just so they could go on holiday.
    Get some Genitals Brown. Don’t jump on the first band wagon that they say it will stop terrorists. This last attack would still of happened even if he had gone through a scanner.
    I served in the Army for my family and friends protection. Now my Supposed Leader is making them strip in front of anyone deemed TRAINED.
    Disgusting behaviour from a supposed leader of men.
    Bend over Britain all is lost.
    PS.funny how the shares in these machines are on the up. Some one is making a lot of money out this.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p0120a9003033970b www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkx7VWwzuIKO3lJwP57LTFZB1GvbeaXYN0

    Anyone who believes this virtual strip is to combat terrorism, is, frankly mad.
    This is all about getting the general public used to kowtowing before authority, just like microchips in bins are being used to get us ready for the onslaught of their use.
    If we accept strip searching and chipping in these instances then it will be extended to other areas of our life- buying and selling, getting money out of your bank account- have a microchip implant or your an outcast.
    Think i’m over the top? wait and see.

  • LYNDA

    whoever said above “Why is always the rights of people’s religion that are considered and not those of atheists such as myself who wish to fly in complete safety.” should seek knowledge, and realize its a case of modesty,thats why women muslims wear scarfs, now pointless if they are to be shown naked! Utter disgrace! I also say “no good shutting the door after the horse has bolted” The so called terrorists will be one step ahead, and find another way, they certainly wont do that trick again.,and we are lagging behind, using that method when its too late.There is enough racicm in this country already, and this is whipping it up even more.Lets all hate the muslims!! well I wont,because I am a muslim, welsh woman, born and bred, but just changed my religion.

  • http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home 1984

    Firstly, with regard to the tv programme last night on the Christamas Day bomber, this only shows just how inept our security staff are. They knew he was a potential terrorist(even his father told the authorities as much ), and they did nothing. Instead our great airport security is more concerned with, and spends all its time, stripping June Whitfield naked for their jollies, or letting six year old boys direct air-traffic into one of the world’s busiest airports. If the security numpties really cared about passenger safety they should have stopped the bomber well before he got on that plane, and even failing that, they knew that chemical bombers were ready to strike and any bomb could also have been stopped in preparation. A simple tamper-proof chemical detector, similar to a smoke detector, could easily be fitted in every aircraft toilet, where any bomb would clearly be assembled. No, our airport security are too busy cleaning their sticky fingers from their June Whitfield experience.
    Secondly,the UK Government are lying about their interim policy on privacy with regard to airport scanners. They state that passengers are chosen at random- really? then how come these two muslim women were screened -they were also together when they left. The Government should stop lying. Also the Government states that innocent passenger anonymity is protected in these scanners. Not true. If a women with a breast prosthesis due to a mastectomy ( either implant or over the skin ) is scanned these will clearly show up. The person in the room seeing the scan will then radio through to the observing scanner operative to strip and fondle the said unfortunate woman, therefore removing any notion of privacy – together the two operatives have seen the woman naked, know her full identity and have violated her. Some people may think that violating thousands of women in this way is acceptable ( that is their opinion ), but the Government should just stop lying about protecting privacy, when clearly many people like the women above will have no right to privacy or dignity – be HONEST for once in your life,Mr Brown.
    Finally, as a Lawyer Alex Deane, would you be prepared to support a legal action that such a vulnerable person might wish to take against the Government?

  • http://alastairs-place.net alastair

    Alex, I don’t know which experts you are relying on for the opinions on health effects of airport scanners, but the fact is that the X-ray ones (which are the only ones that are even *potentially* dangerous) give the scan-ee a dose smaller than they would get from spending an hour in a kitchen fitted with granite worktops. Do you worry about granite worktops? Do you hear people advising pregnant women against spending time in their kitchens?
    Further, even ionising radiation is not necessarily “cancer-causing”. It depends critically on the dosage. Recent studies suggest that in actual fact a low level exposure to ionising radiation may have beneficial effects (“hormesis”) because it activates a repair mechanism in our cells; there’s plenty of published research on this topic if you care to look for yourself.
    The health risk is all about the numbers, and as far as I can see they just don’t stack up, regardless of where you got your information from. It smells to me like the usual “precautionary principle” mumbo-jumbo.
    Honestly, the health thing is the wrong way to attack this issue. The facts that they won’t make us any safer and cost a large sum of money are indisputable. Stick to those and IMO you’re onto a winner.

  • Bucko

    I take this incredible quote from above – “Why is always the rights of people’s religion that are considered and not those of atheists such as myself who wish to fly in complete safety. bove – ”
    This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. You have only mentioned religion because it was pointed out that these women are muslim.
    There are both men and women of all or no religion that are against this. That is because it is unecessary and intrusive. Typical of our government.
    Do you honestly believe it is possible to fly “in complete safety”? If you are that scared then dont fly. Stay at home and hide under your bed.
    Aircraft drop out of the sky with regular monotiny for a wide variety of reasons and you simply cannot regulate against it.
    Life is sometimes dangerous and rarely fair. Get over it.

  • LYNDA

    you know, we all have our own destiny. You could get on plane, fly wherever, get off plane, and then get run over/killed by the tourist bus that came to pick you up !!!! who knows ?? when/where/how we die? When your time comes….it comes.Regardless of any plane/boat/car/train.

  • David wakenshaw

    Better to get scanned then blown up! since extremist muslims are the ones trying to kill us all at the moment its common sense to scan them more.
    lets have two planes one for those who take the scan, and one for those who do not want it for whatever reason, I know which plane I will be on, btw I hope you can find an aircrew for the plane where no ones been scanned. I would rarther go threw six hours of checks then get blown up by misguided fanatical fools.

  • marycurran

    I’ve stopped going on holidays abroad because of the “security” theatre at airports, which is getting ever more intrusive and degrading.If the holiday industry suffers, too bad. And I’m fed up with being insulted by the tinpot hitlers in the security sections at airports. recently I committed the crime of wincing when I was being frisked, and stopping to drink a bottle of water which I was not allowed to take on the plane: for which I got roundly abused by two hatchet faced harridans in security.
    Those people who abused you because you stuck up for these women (who happened to be Muslim) are stupid, its people like that who are making our fight against Big Brother harder than ever. Keep up the good work.

  • LYNDA

    Well said ‘marycurran’, I am going on hols end of march, and I bet you, if the scanner is there, I will def. be picked !! why ?? because I wear a scarf!I am welsh born and bred (now a muslim),and in my 50′s and certainly DO NOT want anyone looking at my untidy bits :-) I am in total despair.

  • bob parker

    The “Xmas day bomber” didn’t have a passport when he got on the plane.
    2 people standing next to the counter overheard him tell the checkin chick that he had no passport but needed to get to America. After some talk he went away and came back with another man and all three of them went to talk to presumably the checkin chick’s boss who then came back to the counter and booked the “bomber” on board. During the whole flight there was a man at the back of the plane with a camcorder (spelling?) filming the entire flight. Within 1-2 days there was X-rays at a lot of airports in US and double-quick time in UK also. Now go figure!!!

  • Peter

    I am an atheist and I will never go through such scanning. This is humiliation. I used to be against Turkish accession to the EU and I used to be in love with “European freedom”, but now I can see that Europe is going backwards. Freedom in Europe doesn’t exist any more. So, although I’m a liberal atheist, now I will gladly see Turkey in the EU. I hope this country will block any EU Commission’s ideas concerning the installation of such scanners on European airports.

  • Chris

    We support you!

  • IDS

    Glad to see that someone is trying to do something about this – have you contacted these women to try and open a case?

  • http://imaannetworking.wordpress.com imaan

    I am curious, what is the legal standing of these passengers? Can they sue for damages or at least for their money back? Can we as passengers offer an alternative search? I would prefer an actual strip search in front of a female office rather than be scanned and have the naked image of my body saved, or potentially viewed by a man. Shouldnt the airports offer this alternative? I feel entitled to this level of privacy at least!