http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece

[image: Times Online]

>From Times Online
March 3, 2010
Muslim woman refuses body scan at airport
Will Pavia

   -  
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece#comment-have-your-say>

[image: A Security officer views images from the body scanner at Manchester
Airport]

(Andrew Yates/AFP/Getty Images)

The introduction of scanners has been criticised by human rights groups

A Muslim woman was barred from boarding a flight after she refused to
undergo a full body scan for religious reasons.

The passenger was passing through security at Manchester Airport when she
was selected at random for a full-body scanner.

She was warned that she would be stopped from boarding the plane but she
decided to forfeit her ticket to Pakistan rather than submit to the scan.
Her female travelling companion also declined to step into the scanner,
citing “medical reasons” for her refusal.

The two women are thought to be the first passengers to refuse to submit to
scanning by the machines, which have provoked controversy among human rights
groups.
RELATED LINKS

   - Air passenger with chemicals held last
month<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6972127.ece>


   - 'Strip search' scanner suspended for
children<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article6880806.ece>


   - 'Strip-search' scanner comes into
operation<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6872432.ece>

They were introduced on a limited basis last month at Heathrow and
Manchester airports in response to the alleged attempt by Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab to blow up a jet over
Detroit<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6968218.ece>
on
Christmas Day using explosives concealed in his underpants.

The X-ray machines allow security officials to check for concealed weapons
but they also afford clear outlines of passengers’ genitals. They are due to
be introduced in all airports by the end of the year.

Civil liberties campaigners have said the scans represent an invasion of
privacy and their introduction may yet be challenged by the Human Rights
Commission.

Trevor Phillips, head of the commission, has told Lord Adonis, the Transport
Secretary, that there are concerns over passengers’ privacy and an apparent
lack of safeguards to ensure that the scanners are used without
discrimination.

Sources at Manchester Airport have said the two women were due to board a
flight two weeks ago when they were turned back at security.

No other passengers had objected to the checks and about 15,000 have so far
submitted to the piercing eye of the £80,000 Rapiscan machine at the
airport’s Terminal 2.

The second female passenger was said to be concerned because she had an
infection. They may be the first to be turned back for their refusal to be
scanned, though a spokesman for Heathrow said it could not comment on
individual cases.

At Manchester, a spokeswoman said: “Two female passengers who were booked to
fly out of Terminal Two refused to be scanned for medical and religious
reasons.

“In accordance with the government directive on scanners, they were not
permitted to fly. Body scanning is a big change for customers who are
selected under the new rules and we are aware that privacy concerns are on
our customers’ minds, which is why we have put strict procedures to reassure
them that their privacy will be protected.”

Last month, Lord Adonis stressed that an interim code of practice on the use
of body scanners stipulated that passengers would not be selected “on the
basis of personal characteristics”.

He said that images captured by body scanners would be immediately deleted
after the passenger had gone through and that security staff were
appropriately trained and supervised.

Objectors to the scanners, and indeed the two women who forfeited their
flight last month, have an unlikely ally in Pope Benedict XVI, a man who is
likely to be waved through airport security for the rest of his life.

Last month he told an audience from the aerospace industry that,
notwithstanding the threat from terrorism, “the primary asset to be
safeguarded and treasured is the person, in his or her integrity”.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"humanrights movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.

Reply via email to