snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 16 November 2010, 04:24 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,650
Icon13 Obama has forbidden pat downs of hijab wearers

Comment: Please help me! I am hearing more of this "proof Obama is a
Muslim" crap...Now the word is that Obama has issued a directive that
Muslim women wearing a Hijab are not subject to a pat down and can only be
touched in the head and neck area. This is allegedly being reported by
Glen Beck, Fox News and other "news" sources. Please help clear this up!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16 November 2010, 04:25 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,650
Icon13

Comment: It's being spread that Muslim women wearing hijabs or burqas re
not subject to the new airport security rules, at least not subject as
rigorously as everyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16 November 2010, 05:06 PM
Spam & Cookies-mmm's Avatar
Spam & Cookies-mmm Spam & Cookies-mmm is offline
 
Join Date: 09 July 2002
Location: Northwest Florida
Posts: 12,864
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
This is allegedly being reported by
Glen Beck, Fox News and other "news" sources. Please help clear this up!
I haven't heard it there or seen it on Drudgereport. Drudge did run a photo yesterday of a nun in full habit being patted down, however.

CNS News has reported that CAIR suggests Muslim women who wear a hijab should tell the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck. I haven't seen any news source, left, right, or impartial, that claims that Obama backed them up on this. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-wearing-hijab
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16 November 2010, 05:11 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

At which point the officers will do what?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16 November 2010, 05:19 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,544
Default

Since the pat downs are done by same-gender agents, there shouldn't be a religious objection to them specific to Muslims--women can touch women; it's opposite-gender contact that is forbidden. (And this would extend to head and neck. So I'm confused.)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16 November 2010, 05:38 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Obama is not going to make such a rule.

Dumbasses.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16 November 2010, 05:47 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,479
Default

Here's the actual press release from CAIR. .

Quote:
Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:

* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.
* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.
* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.
My interpretation of this is that if the additional search is being done because of the hijab, then only the area covered by the hijab should be searched.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16 November 2010, 06:21 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Obama is not going to make such a rule.

Dumbasses.
Yeah. If someone were to make such a rule, it wouldn't be Obama, unless he were the micromanager of all time. The FAA is not his, for lack of a better word, jurisdiction. Even then, he could probably only suggest it, not make it law.

I wonder what will happen to Jewish women wearing sheitls.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 16 November 2010, 06:45 PM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Israel

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
I wonder what will happen to Jewish women wearing sheitls.
I doubt the people who are wound up about this can tell the difference.

Incidentally, they also tend to argue in favor of racial profiling on the grounds that (in their mistaken view) terrorists are always young male Muslims. If they believe that, I'm not sure why they'd be upset about reports that women are getting a break.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 16 November 2010, 07:22 PM
Thrifty Thrifty is offline
 
Join Date: 06 August 2010
Location: Newark, DE
Posts: 236
Default

I like AnglRdr's response best. Short and sweet. Just what I was thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16 November 2010, 08:11 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
When asked today if she will insist that Muslim women wearing hijabs must go through full body pat downs before boarding planes, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did not say yes or no, but told CNSNews.com there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue.

“On the pat downs, CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] has recommended that Muslim women wearing hijabs refuse to go through the full body pat downs before boarding planes,” CNSNews.com asked Napolitano at a Monday press conference. “Will you insist that they do go through full body pat downs before boarding planes?”

“Look, we have, like I said before, we are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made,” Napolitano responded. “With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come. But, again, the goal here, you know, we’re not doing this just to do it. We’re doing it because we need to keep powders and gels and liquids off of planes that are unauthorized just as we need to keep metals off of planes.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...e-come-body-pa
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16 November 2010, 08:33 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Given that CNS misstated CAIR's suggestion (*gasp* *shock*), is it possible that their interpretation of the Secretary's answer might also be misstated (i.e. I think, but do not know for sure, that she gave this answer to a different question--it doesn't really seem to fit what CNS says she was asked at all)?

[ETA: I just got a Tea Party newsletter with the subject line "Impeach Naplolitano Now!" so I suspect CNS just made shit up.]
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 16 November 2010, 08:37 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
so I suspect CNS just made shit up.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 16 November 2010, 09:04 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,479
Default

I was annoyed by CNS's making repeated references to CAIR's press release, without providing a link to it (it took me about 30 seconds to find it, including browsing through dozens of them on CAIR's press release page). It's sloppy, at best.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16 November 2010, 09:12 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
 
Join Date: 14 July 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 12,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrifty View Post
I like AnglRdr's response best. Short and sweet.
As is generally the case.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 16 November 2010, 09:28 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
I wonder what will happen to Jewish women wearing sheitls.
I totally read that as "shelties."

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16 November 2010, 09:39 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
I totally read that as "shelties."

That goes with post # 2 of this thread: http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=67370
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16 November 2010, 09:53 PM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,237
Australia

One of the things I find curious is the tendency to assume direct Head of State intervention in the interpretation of agency practices. Do the people who make these statements really think Obama has spent time specifically exempting certain groups from certain actions or giving them special privileges? Do they imagine he sits at his desk and people say stuff like "Today, sir, we are considering the ways in which we implement water control regulations relevant to federal environment guidelines in the south of New Jersey."

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16 November 2010, 10:05 PM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropbear View Post
Do they imagine he sits at his desk and people say stuff like "Today, sir, we are considering the ways in which we implement water control regulations relevant to federal environment guidelines in the south of New Jersey."

Dropbear
A lot of people do apparently.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 17 November 2010, 01:33 AM
Steve Eisenberg Steve Eisenberg is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 11,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
My interpretation of this is that if the additional search is being done because of the hijab, then only the area covered by the hijab should be searched.
As CAIR surely knows, a pat-down on the basis of someone wearing a hijab is against TSA policy:

Quote:
"Pat-down procedures are used to resolve alarms that occur at a walk-through metal detector, if an anomaly is detected during screening with advanced imaging technology or during random screening."
Since only a idiotic TSA employee would not only actually pat down someone because of wearing a hijab, but admit to it as well, I cannot take the CAIR statement at face value. They are telling Muslim women to give airport security staff a hard time. Not good.

I have been repeatedly patted down at the airport, and I was not wearing Muslim garb. Asking which of the three possible reasons I was patted down for would slow down the line and, if I got a truthful answer, would provide me with information that someone who is probing airport defenses would love to have. As for asking whether they patted me down for an illegitimate reason, the only way they are going to say yes is if they misunderstood the question.

And a request for a pat down of only the head and neck is obstructing a federal employee from doing their job.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPS shut downs the car for delinquent payments snopes Automobiles 42 29 March 2009 11:10 PM
New Fashion for Tin-Foil Hat Wearers TrekkerScout Spook Central 2 28 April 2007 09:13 PM
"Forbidden Planet" proto-glurge? TB Tabby Glurge Gallery 14 17 February 2007 02:26 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.