One size fits all

A letter in response to British Airways Chairman’s speech, in which he called for further profiling of people who pose ‘real threat’, such as Yemeni students (he actually mentioned us by name), to make it easier for Westerners to travel.

Sir,

At the beginning of my letter I would like to thank Sir Martin for calling attention to the absurdity of some security measures undergone at airports. I can only assume that his frustration stems from the challenges he faces when travelling. In his speech he proposed a solution to a problem all travellers relate to, but his suggestion makes me question a) if Sir Martin has forgotten that most of the UK’s terrorism troubles have been home-grown? b) if he knows what ‘Yemeni students’ go through in order to travel anywhere.

As a Yemeni currently studying for an MA in the UK, I feel it is my duty to share with you the difficulties a Yemeni goes through to travel. Just as Sir Martin so kindly shared his experiences with us on behalf of those ‘who should travel without hassle’. A Yemeni living in Yemen stands almost no chance of obtaining a visa to the West to study, work or visit for tourism. The reason being that all 24 million Yemenis are ‘terrorism risks’ or at least should be profiled as such. But that’s ok because as he put it, ‘we’ need a ‘risk-based approach to security’, and I can only assume by ‘we’ he meant westerners (i.e… not terrorist threats). So for the very fortunate and very grateful few of us who, by the grace of the Lord (we call him Allah), managed to obtain a visa to study or work in the west, the travel experience is akin to defending oneself in court.

I truly wonder if Sir Martin has any idea of what it feels like to constantly be in a defensive position to prove that you are not a ‘terrorist’, to always be ‘randomly selected’ at airports and questioned about your faith, to feel like a criminal when handing in your passport to immigration officers while always having to remind yourself that the questions that follow are not discrimination against you personally but simply against ‘your people’.

In your world, the inconveniences you speak of are a treat for the rest of us. To be able to travel with a bit of airport hassle is a luxury we only dream of. So in response to your speech, I must say that I think it desirable that insiders in positions of authority should undergo precisely the obligations and inconveniences that apply to mere mortals, if only to remind them how the other half lives. If Henry Kissinger is subjected to these attentions, as Martin Broughton suggests, it may at least encourage regular assessment of the necessity of such intrusion for all. It would be particularly useful to extend this egalitarian approach to the oppressive and expensive visa requirements imposed on foreign nationals with a perfectly legitimate desire to travel.

You can find a script of his speech on Financial Times website http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17051592-6b1c-11e0-9be1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1K9jDzTZm