Citing Modesty, Two Women Refuse Full-Body Scans
Two Muslim women boarding a plane in Manchester, England, last week became trailblazers in the debate over full-body scanners by refusing to undergo the scan, citing religious and medical restrictions. They forfeited their £400 airline tickets to Pakistan, as such scans became compulsory in the UK in February. The women are the first known passengers to refuse a scan under the new rule. Muslim scholars in the U.S. have already issued a fatwa against full-body scans as a violation of Islamic teaching on modesty.
More airports worldwide are installing full-body scanners after the Christmas Day bombing attempt by a Muslim Nigerian carrying explosives in his underwear on a Detroit-bound flight. The first round of 150 full-body scanners slated for major U.S. airports are being installed today in Boston's Logan International Airport.
The Times (UK) reports that full-body scans give security staff detailed images of passengers' nude bodies, which human rights groups decry as a "virtual strip search." According to the Associated Press, the images are viewed in a private room and conceal passengers' faces to protect identity. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has assured passengers that the scans are optional and that images are deleted. (This may not be true outside the U.S.; GetReligion's Mollie Ziegler Hemingway notes that one Indian celebrity has already said he received printed images of his nude body at Heathrow.)
All these assurances may not be enough to protect passengers' dignity, said Pope Benedict XVI at a meeting with airline staff February 20. "It is essential never to lose sight of respect for the primacy of the person," he said. While he acknowledged this would be challenging given "the economic crisis, which is bringing about problematic effects in the civil aviation sector, and the threat of international terrorism, which is targeting airports and aircraft," the Pope urged that "the primary asset to be safeguarded and treasured is the person, in his or her integrity."
At the Chicago Tribune's Seeker blog, Sister Anne Flanagan said her own objections to the scans stem from Catholics' sacramental view of the body, one that says it reveals spiritual truths about God's created intent for human sexuality and relationships. The sacramental view, expressed in Pope John Paul II's magnum opus, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, holds that the body is not a mere receptacle for the soul. Sister Flanagan explains:
It is not true that our body is just a sort of envelope for a sexlessly generic soul, or that it is a strange animal-like appendage to the "important," spiritual part, but that really doesn't matter in itself …. We ought to be alert to the tremendous significance of being "bodied persons": God became incarnate so he could relate to us in this very human way!
The Seminary Gender Gap
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Displaying 1–10 of 19 comments
See all comments
Heather
Perhaps we should look at what truly successful airports do for security - such as El Al Airport in Israel. They don't do pat-downs or body scanners, yet their airport is one of the safest in the world. I do have several concerns about these things - such as when small children are given these invasive pat-downs, which they would not understand as security, but as a physical violation. As for the body scanners, they 1) do not detect plastics or explosives, so would not have stopped the underwear bomber, 2) emit radiation which is physically harmful after a lot of exposure, and 3) have had images saved. Gizmodo.com posted 100 of the 35,000 images saved and kept on record at the courthouse in Orlando, FL, which they gained access to via a Freedom of Information Act petition. As long as I must have my modesty violated in one way or another, I will not fly.
Joe R.
It is sort of strange that we need these body scans because of Moslems, no wonder they complain. What about the millions of dollars everyone is paying to supply them. That money would have been better spent on helping the needy. The same could be said about all the extra funds being spent for security because of Moslem extremists.
Robert
Get scanned or take a bus.
nicki
i haven't an objection to the scanning, although i certainly don't agree with excessively intrusive government measures either. and when it comes down to it, the patriot act disturbs me much more than digital imaging. however, we need to remember that flights on airplanes and access to secured airport terminals are part of the purchasing and consumption aspect of the (air) transportation product. I hate standing in security lines, taking off my shoes, starting up my computer- but I know to be prepared for it. If you know you are flying through an airport with body scanners, choose a different airport, or take a greyhound or amtrack. If you do not like the product or services associated with the air transportation product, choose a different transportation product. like everything else in this preoccupied country, one must think of these things as products and consumption.
Paulette A.
Personally, I'm not comfortable with not knowing who's going to be looking at images of my naked body - features blurred out or not. I'd rather be patted down in private by a woman than have a scan done that could be viewed by goodness-knows-who, and (if the information above is correct) potentially stored for an unknown period of time and accessed by persons unknown. As for the question 'who would be interested in viewing anonymous and, for the most part, probably quite unattractive images of naked people?', I really don't want to dwell too much on the answer to that question. I would be interested in hearing how other non-Muslim (and, sorry, non-American) women feel about this.
Robyn Widmer
I'm more concerned about potential health effects of the scans. Supposedly they are harmless, but how many times being scanned is harmless? I certainly would not do it if I were pregnant, and would not allow my children to be scanned either. However, I also wouldn't allow my children to be "patted down," so I guess next time we fly, there will be some big choices to be made.
Helena Kam
Well we expected this from our shameless trashy society. At least the muslims stand up for what they believe. Our people have become trash no self respect or dignity. They just parade themselves naked whenever they get the chance. Iam actualy sick Iam part of this society
Leo
I think part of loving my neighbor in this case means: whether or not I am okay with being scanned (I'm okay with it - although I think it's not the solution) I stand with those who object. In my understanding of a free and democratic country innocent passengers should not have to feel degraded in order to make others feel safe. I think as long as we remember it, the events that led to 9-11 will never happen again... It was regular people who thwarted the plans of the hijackers on flight 93 once they heard about the towers and realized what was going to happen. The regular citizens are our hope for security - not its liability. Instead of making policies that make citizens feel degraded and alienate people who value modesty - God's people should really think of a better way.
Ann
I've been scanned, and it did not seem that much of a big deal to me. Perhaps procedures in other airports are different. In my case, the person who views the scan is in a different room, and does not even know what your name is, and does not see your face. And the shape they see is a little distorted by your clothes anyway -- they ended up needing to pat my down because they couldn't tell if I was hiding something under my shirt, or if it was simply my clothes or my stomach. So obviously it is not the same as looking at someone nude.
DOROTHY CULHAM
I will never ever forget watching the live footage of living human beings falling from the World Trade Center buildings as the buildings flamed uncontrollably behind them. People on fire, people jumping to their deaths, some holding hands -- don't tell me about full body scans being "evil" or "Satanic" or "objectionable". You want to see evil? Satanic? Objectionable? Go back and look at the film from 9/11. Now THAT is evil, Satanic, and objectionable. If you are offended by the full body scan, stay off the plane.
*