Occupy protester 'banned' from flight home for Christmas

[cowcommander]

A member of the Occupy London protests was stopped from boarding his flight home for Christmas after he was found carrying anarchist literature, it has been claimed. The demonstrator, who is part of the group occupying the empty UBS building dubbed the "Bank of Ideas", said he was told he would not be allowed on the Ryanair flight to Malaga because the pilot feared he might distribute leaflets and "upset other passengers".

John Charles Culatto, 34, claimed he was approached by police at Bristol International Airport who told him they had seen him "acting suspiciously" on the airport's CCTV system when he stopped to talk to fellow travellers.

He said he went to airport security an hour before his flight was due to depart, where staff found posters in his bag linked to the anarchist group Crimethinc and refused to allow him through until they had contacted the airline. He claimed he overheard security staff who were examining his luggage using the word "terrorism".

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/occupy-protester-banned-from-flight-home-for-christmas-6282555.html

[kenfrequed]

1. Speaking out against the banks is terrorism now.

This is friggin ridiculous.

[ixion]

4. This is what happens when you let ANY government have unchecked power to wage endless war

and why it should never have been allowed in the first place.

[hang a left]

5. uh...

how were we to stop it??

[ixion]

7. Well, gee, there was a dem majority in congress when the unPATRIOTic Act was passed.

So not only did the dems not try and stop it, they very gleefully passed it.

[hang a left]

15. Are you a member of congress?

I don't get the "we" part.

[ixion]

20. We, as in We, the People.

When you vote for someone, you are, in affect, endorsing them to act in your proxy. I voted for Obama because he said he was going to restore the rule of law. Color me a sucker, he lied. He won't get my vote again, because that would mean that I am endorsing endless war, which I will not do.

[gtar100]

24. I disagree. We don't have the kind of democracy that allows us to vote that way.

There are three choices on the state and national level - vote republican, vote democratic, or throw your vote away. Sucks, but that's how it works.

I will vote for Obama because I don't want a crazy, psychopathic repug in the White House. And when I vote for Obama, I won't carry the baggage that I'm endorsing endless war or anything else I disagree with him on. We can do that. Really.

Change? Vote for progressives in your neighborhood, help to put progressive measures on the ballot. From the ground up we can effect change. From the top down, the best we can do is minimize damage.

[ixion]

25. No, that's the way political hacks want yo to look at it

but that is most certainly not the way is was defined when our constitution was founded. We have a MULTI-party system, not a TWO party system. The system has currently been hijacked by two parties, who shut out any party that seeks to change the status quo.

[gtar100]

31. I agree in principle but it's not how it works. Two parties - that's all that's being served,

despite the other options listed on the menu. Yes, our system has been hijacked by the two parties. And it has been manipulated to the point that voting for a 3rd party or not voting at all only has an effect on swinging the vote right or left. I don't like it anymore than you do but my vote for Obama is not an endorsement for every action he makes. I agree with some things he's done, disagree with others. The feelings I have can be very contrary to each other. In the end, though, I consider him the better choice between the repugs and dems.

Real change is from the ground up. That's where our focus should be in regards to bringing a real democracy to our country. I imagine you would agree with that too. I think we want the same thing. I just feel differently about the value of my one vote. I would *like* for it to be meaningful and represent my highest ideals, but the system does not allow for that. But what it can mean is minimal damage control while we do the real work of changing our neighborhoods and communities.

[freshwest]

40. 'Real change is from the ground up,' is correct. The GOP has done this state after state until they

Have now made it almost impossible for a progressive to be seated in those states or to get a national platform.

People who want a progressive agenda have to take the risk of opposing the people closest to their homes, their families and their jobs.

It's hard when one is confronted by people who take their emotional cues and talking points from hate talk radio and television.

Standing to the sidelines and criticizing doesn't do anything except allow the person doing it a nice safe place for righteous indignation and mocking those whose work is humbling and can be dangerous.

I'm not going to go with the negative, it helps the right wing who do get out and are active and see the lack of liberals in local events as a sign of cowardice. The right thinks Democrats, are too timid to lead the country.

[nineteen50]

44. As long as we continue to vote for

the shit they give us the longer they will give us shit.

[lunatica]

61. Do you think that will miraculously stop if you don't vote?

It will effectively make the US a One Party System. The Idiocratic Teabagger Party.

Whether we like it or not, throwing our vote away counts as a vote for the worst outcome possible. Not voting never won anything. It just gives the opposition room to fill the gap.

[ixion]

64. The US is effectively a one party system.

That is, while there is a pretext of two or more parties, there is one group of people calling the shots, and that doesn't change.

[lunatica]

65. And you not voting will stop this somehow?

Your not voting allows teabaggers who would destroy the country while you sit it out get into power and destroy everything in their rage. You're a teabagger's dream come true. Democrats who sit it out thinking they're sending a scary message. Just like in the last election when so many of them were voted into office.

[ixion]

66. we're going in the same direction no matter who is in office. This is my point.

And I refuse to support endless war by proxy of my vote. Admittedly, it is a futile protest, but it keeps me in check with my ethics, if nothing else.

[harmonicon]

38. "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos," isn't really a tenable argument. nt.

[Devil_Fish]

43. Really? I voted for Obama because he was better then McCain.

That is the problem inherent in a two party system. The two parties are esentially the same, but the whole system give "We the People" the illusion that we have a say in what goes on when in reality, we don't.

[kenfrequed]

22. Uhm... Wrong.

The Democrats did not take the majority until 2006. The Patriot act was passed in 2001. I really am not sure where you are getting your information on that one.

[ixion]

26. LOL... my, what a short and selective memory you have.

The were in the majority from 2001 to 2003. Sorry, nice try at revisionism though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate

[Javaman]

33. That's a cool link. Thanks! :)

[kenfrequed]

35. Last I checked

Congress was comprised of both the Senate AND the House.

I could be wrong though. I will admit to being half wrong will you?

[ixion]

36. My premise is that BOTH parties have contributed to the implementation of the Corporate Police State

The whole 'two' party thing is all window dressing. There is only ONE party behind the scenes.

In the 107th Congress, there was a Democratic Majority.

June 6, 2001–2003 ← D Maj

Daschle, Gephardt, LIEberman... and the rest of the usual suspects. They were there, and they gleefully voted for the unPATRIOTic Act.

[99th_Monkey]

41. That is a very well-turned phrase ==> CORPORATE POLICE STATE

That's exactly what we have now. Who knew that someone could be labeled a terrorist
for attempting to uphold and embody the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, as We the
People. How dare anyone take our founding fatherse seriously, or our supposedly
"inalienable rights". God forbid.

Bush & Co. were at least being honest when they called constitution "just a damned
piece of paper" or some such.. little did we know then, what we know now: that the
Dems are every bit as corrupted by bribes as the Rethugs, esp on matters having to do
with the economy or finance, and especially anything having to do with the Fed Reserve.

I hope you don't mind if I steal that phrase, CPS in the header.

[ixion]

52. thanks, and feel free

the more people who hear the phrase, the better.

[kenfrequed]

55. Again

I was half wrong. Or is there little to discuss other than your mocking tone?

And there were a good deal more Democrats in the house that opposed the Patriot act or is that unimportant to you?

[ixion]

56. The vast majority supported it, and this is my point.

I'm not mocking you. I'm simply maintaining my premise. YES, there was a small minority of congress who opposed it, but the final vote shows it was, for practical intents and purposes, supported by BOTH parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

The Act was passed in the House by 357 to 66 (of 435) and in the Senate by 98 to 1 and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

...

It was vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold, who was the only Senator to vote against the bill. Senator Patrick Leahy also expressed some concerns.[12] However, many parts were seen as necessary by both detractors and supporters.

[kenfrequed]

59. Still haven't bother to correct yourself about the house

Even after taking your victory lap on the Senate. Again, I was wrong, wrong, wrong, about the Democratic party not having a majority 2001-2003 in the Senate. But you are oddly mute about the house still.

Is saying "I'm wrong" that hard for you?

Any premise based on misleading data is questionable.

[rainy]

57. Yep right after anthrax was mysteriously sent to dems nt

[kenfrequed]

60. I still have questions about that

The results of the investigation seemed to not have been given a lot of attention or scrutiny in the media.

[Tiggeroshii]

74. Barely. It wasn't until the middle of 2001 (May) that the Democrats had the majority in the Senate

It took the defection of Jim Jeffords in Vermont that tipped the balance to the Democrats. But that wasn't until May, which means that Democrats had control of the US Senate(by far from veto proof majority (51-50 on a full quorum; Any tie would go to the Republicans). I hardly think that counts as "controlling congress," especially when the presidency and the House without a doubt went to the Republicans, and many of those who made up the Democratic caucus were Blue Dogs or leaned conservative on most issues, which made any progressive legislation impossible to get through.

[ixion]

75. Yeah, there's always some excuse to "keep the powder dry"

and what it amounts to is a Corporate Police State brought about by corrupt and/or ineffectual 'leaders'.

[hughee99]

46. Well when a Spanish citizen flying out of a British airport

gets kicked off the plain by the pilot of an Irish airline, how can you not blame the "Patriot" Act.

[msanthrope]

63. That is a DUZY!!! nt

[SteveW]

10. With PermaWar comes the Unitary Presidency:

A ConstaState of Emergency, justifying the usurpation of Constitutional protections by the President. In other words, you have rights unless there is a national of emergency. And the national emergency is...... All the time.

[DissedByBush]

14. This is the UK

They've had some pretty wide-ranging police powers for a long time.

[SteveW]

17. True, but unfortunately the U.S. seems to be "catching up." nt

[vminfla]

21. No government was involved

He was booted by the pilot.

[ixion]

23. the pilot, using the unPATRIOTic Act as a rationale, so...

yeah, government was most certainly involved.

[vminfla]

27. Do you even know where Bristol is or where Ryanair is based out of

The Patriot Act has little relevance to an Irish airline flying out of a UK airport to a Spanish destination.

Yes, the government was most certainly *NOT* involved.

[ixion]

28. They most certainly were, US govt or other, one enabling act or another.

But hey, you obviously really enjoy a police state, so get on with your bad self.

[vminfla]

32. Sorry, I cannot help you

Between David Icke's Raelians and the US Patriot Act, I do not know how things are getting done.

[tooeyeten]

47. "ridiculous" is being polite

The banks are in charge of the world!

[libmom74]

48. Well at least he isn't

in a country with legislation that would allow him to be "indefinitely detained" without access to counsel or a trial for being a "suspected terrorist" until the War On Terror (described by the architect Bush II described as the war without end) is "over".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. The good thing is that OCCUPY is growing. The concept, the idea, it will not die until things

change.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Related Thread Yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100282861

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. "are you now or have you ever been ............"

While some of us are enough to vaguely remember McCarthyism, few of us were affected by it, and the blacklist.
It was truly terrifying, and aimed at artists and government critics, anyone who opposed the rightwing.

I find it frightening to watch airline personnel, bank personnel, blindly "following orders" to repress and suppress Constitutionally defined rights nowadays.
Makes repression all too easy, doesn't it?

[RKP5637]

9. It's happening all over again, many possibly have no idea who he was, but I

keep thinking we will see it all over again depending on changing PTB and congressional investigations to find the American terrorists who think the system is F'ed up and won't capitulate to the banking authority and the oligarchy.

And now with image recognition becoming so prevalent just being at an OWS event will be probably be enough to get one on the list as Un-American.

I feel like we're in replay mode.

[L. Coyote]

11. a liberal? Have we got a wall for you

and a nice blindfold

[SteveW]

12. 'Ol "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy. A real puker. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

53. A practicing alcoholic, plus he had that slimy Roy cohen as a henchman.

I am reading a bio of him now, and watched Pacino's mesmerizing role as Cohen in Angels In America.
( which I strongly recommend seeing, even if you saw it years ago...fresh insights abound)

[SteveW]

72. McCarthy illustrates how susceptible our culture is to bully politics...

It's nothing new. Now we have Gingrich who is a professional bully. He can lay down a stink with his personal life and self-aggrandizement, and only needs to ask forgiveness for his "passions," while he continues to condemn others for the same stuff. That is why the Far Right is culturally pretty immune to attacks of hypocrisy: They forgive themselves (as that puny appendage to their "religion" requires), but not anyone else.

And they know bullyism works when they have so cornered a corporate Democratic Party into either denying the Right's definition, or running away from it. Present Democratic Party mouthpieces can never punch back hard as doing so would call into question the Democratic Party's relationship with corporate power, which has been so carefully constructed since the mid-70s. The Right knows this weakness, and just keeps belly-punching -- to good effect.

Remember the schoolyard: A bully pounds an unresisting victim before a crowd. What does the crowd thing? The bully is disgusting. But the unresisting victim is even more disgusting. The Right knows this as well.

[Mojorabbit]

51. + 100 nt

[dipsydoodle]

8. Which Christmas?

If its the one just passed how is this lbn?

[Octafish]

13. That was the U.K. Don't worry, the U.S.A. has the Bill of Rights.

Oh. Wait a minute. I forgot that piece of paper was superseded by the USA PATRIOT Act.

[RKP5637]

16. Yep, "Bill of rights???" What's that, a receipt from a store or something??? n/t

[avebury]

18. I know that this happened in the UK but I do believe

that this type of thing will start to happen more and more in the US.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

19. I am proud of my little town of Port Orford on the southern Oregon coast.

This town of 1200 persons voted against the USA Patriot Act.
Over 100 people showed up for an Occupy event on highway 101.
So you can educate people, sometimes.

[mahina]

29. A scene from Idiocracy?

Plausibly.

[marias23]

30. This is how a police state operates

bin Laden won. We will be living increasingly with attitudes and restrictions like this. Since NO ONE has the courage to withstand a "soft on terrorism" charge it will only get worse. Democracy was fun while it lasted.

[PatrynXX]

34. well the anarchist lit is a problem

OWS is not anarchistic. the tea party wing is. not OWS. anarchist = no laws. corporations would love anarchists.

[sandyd921]

45. So it's OK as long as it's political views

you don't approve of? Really? Any chance you might want to rethink that stance?

[sandyd921]

70. You might also be interested to hear that anarchy

is not necessarily the same as libertarianism. Anarchists come in all stripes and some are actually left-wing advocating a kind of socialist society of government for and by the people (as opposed to corporations and capitalists owning everything). Not saying that's where I stand, just providing a bit more information.

[Shining Jack]

37. K&R

This is getting worse and weirder each day.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Because literature is as dangerous as terrorists

The thought police are on their way.

[99th_Monkey]

42. In a weird kind of way, this is GOOD news..

Because it illustrates how scared out of there f*ckin minds the 1%. are.

A cornered beast and all.

[Doc Holliday]

50. My thought exactly!

If they weren't scared spitless, they wouldn't resort to this sort of repression.

OCCUPY Earth!

[jberryhill]

49. WaPo Report With Statement From Airport....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/occupy-london-protester-detained-at-airport-for-distributing-leaflets-misses-flight-home-for-christmas/2011/12/29/gIQAEkiROP_blog.html

Bristol International Airport spokeswoman Jaqui Mills confirms that Culatto was detained in part because of the leaflets he carried:

“The passenger was observed behaving in an unusual way and was carrying a quantity of photocopied leaflets. Security staff were concerned that he may cause disruption by distributing the leaflets on the flight or in the departure lounge. Having agreed to travel without the photocopied leaflets in his hand luggage the passenger was allowed to proceed to the boarding gate. Unfortunately, by this point the flight had closed.”

Culatto says the posters in his bag were related to the anarchist collective Crimethinc. He also said police at the airport told him they had seem him “acting suspiciously” on the airport’s CCTV system while he stopped and spoke to other travelers.

Mills notes that the restriction on leaflets being distributed in the airport terminal applies regardless of the content and that any leafleting at the airport requires prior permission.

[vminfla]

58. Much ado about nothing

Well, crap.. All this fuss for nothing.

[dipsydoodle]

68. Don't you find it strange

that all links go back to a single feature in the Independent's Travel section and neither Occupy London nor Occupy LSX have even bothered to mention it on their sites at all.

[vminfla]

69. Dog bites Man story

When Alec Baldwin throws a hissy fit and gets booted out of a plane, it is news.

When someone with a stack of leaflets misses his plane, it is not really news.

So, no, I do not find it strange that the Occupy groups do not report a trivial, inconsequential non-event.

[rocktivity]

54. ...Mr Culatto said: "(I was told) that because of the very remote possibility

I could distribute leaflets on the plane and upset people, the captain had decided not to take me aboard..."

I am getting muthafuckin sick and tired of muthafuckin anarchists giving out muthafuckin leaflets on muthafuckin planes!


rocktivity

[grasswire]

71. what if a fundie wanted to pass out religious tracts

Would that be allowed?

Isn't this a free speech issue?

[jberryhill]

73. The airport does not permit any leafletting

It's a content neutral across the board ban on that activity at this airport.

[gopiscrap]

62. The only REAL way to change things is:

REVOLUTION...upset the status quo...civil disobedience if you have to....make all the rich fuckers (political and business) and ptb's scared to death to leave their own door step for fear of having to dialouge with angry folks and having their decieful, thieving ways exposed.

[Islandlife]

67. Why not boycott the airlines. Buy tickets on only those airlines that allow you on board.

If 99% of customers refuse to fly with them, they will soon go out of business.