I just copied this from a cruise site.
I think that our US government is so stupid in not taking all precautions to gusard our cruise ships from sabotage.

Lawyers from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit in a Honolulu federal court on Tuesday claiming that Miami-based Norwegian Cruise Line Inc (NCL) discriminated against several employees. According to court documents, the EEOC said it is representing seven or more Muslim employees of Middle Eastern descent who had worked aboard the cruise line's Pride of Aloha in July 2004

The lawsuit claims that the employees were fired by NCL because they were deemed a security risk by the cruise line. An EEOC attorney in Los Angeles, Anna Park said that the EEOC had investigated the matter in the past two years, and the suit was filed because it could not reach a resolution with NCL. In the lawsuit, the defendant are asking the court to issue a permanent injunction to prohibit the cruise line from engaging in unlawful employment practices and to order NCL to develop policies and programs to prohibit such discrimination. The defendants are also asking for back pay and damages.

NCL has not commented publicly on the lawsuit yet.

What difference is a persons religion whether Muslim, Catholic, or Jew? What difference is country of origin whether Lebanese, Israeli, or Irish? Although definitely not a supporter of ACLU, I have no problem interacting with Middle Easterners. I lived in Israel for a short while and, for the most part, Jew and Arab get along wonderfully.

Of course, NCL may be right in that these folks could have been security risks; just like any particular American, Brit, or Canadian could be a security risk.

Marc

PS I am probably the most pro-Israeli person around here; but it doesn't mean I hold anything against any individual that hasn't earned my dislike.

Here's a more complete story from the Miami Herald. David and Betty, I'm not sure what your point is. If you believe that, in the interest of feeling safe, we should we should give up some of our constitutional rights, then I disagree. Tom.

NCL accused of 7 race-based firings
By Amy Martinez, The Miami Herald
McClatchy-Tribune Business News
226 words
29 August 2006
The Miami Herald (KRTBN)
English
Copyright (C) 2006 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News
Aug. 29--Miami-based Norwegian Cruise Line violated the civil rights of seven Muslim crew members who were fired from their jobs aboard the Pride of Aloha during the past two years, a complaint by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges.

The complaint, filed Aug. 22 in U.S. District court in Honolulu, accuses NCL of firing the crew members beginning in July 2004 because of their nationality and religion.

The EEOC filed the complaint on behalf of Abdullah Yahva, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie and Samed Kassam. All are Muslim and of Middle Eastern or Yemeni origin.

The complaint seeks back pay and damages. It names NCL America and Norwegian Corp., in addition to Norwegian Cruise Line.

Lawyers for the EEOC's Los Angeles office, which oversees Hawaii, were unavailable for comment Monday.

NCL denied the allegations in a statement characterizing the firings as "probationary period dismissals."

"We are proud of our employment practices and record and do not discriminate in hiring," the company said. "Our employees come from a very broad range of ethnic and religious backgrounds, which provides a wonderful diversity among our staff."

First I feel the question is a loaded question with an obivous answer. Of course we'd all prefer to be safe than sorry. But, I don't feel I or anyone should be discriminated against based on our backgrounds. Have we forgotten Japanese internment camps as just one example? Or how about the Oklahoma City Bomber? The Irish terrorists?

While every ship should take measures such as vetting their crew to make sure their passengers are safe, outright discrimination is not the answer. It's so easy to lump groups of people together. Back in Germany in the 20's and 30's it was the Jews and Gypsys. When we start down that path then the terrorists have won.

My guess is the reason for it had nothing to do with those men being terrorists, and everything to do with NCL's passengers possibly being uncomfortable because of their own fears and biases.

BTW Marc: I'm probably right behind you when it comes to being pro-Israel.

I had a long response written and then lost my internet connection. :rolleyes: So I guess I'm saying I agree with Marc and Tom.

deleted

It's hard to tell, really, from the little information given, whether this is systemic discrimination or not. I mean, did NCL only have 7 Muslim employees from the Middle East on staff, and all were fired. Or do they have dozens and dozens of Middle Eastern/Muslim employees, and something indicated that these 7 were a security risk. That's what it really comes down to. Also, how many other people of various nationalities and religions were casualties of "probationary period dismissal" during that time frame?

Impossible to say one way or the other without any facts or stats!

That's true Charlene, and actually rereading my comments today, I want to say I was not meaning to imply one way or the other about NCL or those fired. I was just saying IF that was the case...

Charlene - you did a wonderful job of concisely summarizing the articles.

To get back to the OP's question, it reminds me of "decision making 301" in graduate school. They drilled us on the two kinds of errors we would make: the first is to make a decision to try something and get it wrong. Those show up easily in the measurement systems and went by the term "false positives" (ie, we thought it would work and it didn't). The second type, though, was to decide NOT to do something and miss a meaningful opportunity. These never showed up in the direct measurement system and went by the buzzword "false negatives". They showed up when compared to a competitor who figured out the potential and acted on it to their great benefit.

I was struck by the difference in the two reports. The first one focused on facts (lawyers for the EEOC had filed suit ...) and the second (NCL has violated the civil rights ..). For the millions of us, today, who must navigate multiple tasks, skimming articles is one way to get an overview. Therefore, the lead-in phrase is key in forming reader opinions. Newspapers and TV "news" sources know this and craft their stories accordingly.

When a respected news source reports, I think we are all better served if the "slant" of the articles reflect our tradition of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" for the defendant. The first article is closer to the mark than the second IMHO.

As a final point, what happens when the actual verdict is rendered? I hope it gets equal placement regardless of outcome. Appeals should also get the same attention. Otherwise, it causes us to question the balance between information and inflammatory rhetoric.

Cheers, Anne

You're so right. When I read the second article( very quickly!) I said to myself "Oh, this is old news, NCL was found guilty". But then I noticed , at the end of the paragraph the word "alleges".

If they're found guilty it'll probably be front page news, If innocent, it'll probably be featured in section B, page 17.

"were fired by NCL because they were deemed a security risk by the cruise line." (From the initial report.)

Does the cruise line have to wait till they find a bomb on board before they fire them?

We are in the hands of the cruise lines, we are in deep water and in deep something else if the cruise lines do not maintain their security.

David and Betty, NCL never said it fired the men because they were security risks. In fact, NCL denied it. The EEOC is alleging they we fired becuse they were wrongly considered security risks.

The complete quote you cite is, "The lawsuit claims that the employees were fired by NCL because they were deemed a security risk by the cruise line."

If you're going to fire someone for being a security risk, you don't have to wait until you find a bomb. But you must at least be able to supply some evidence, which in this case apparently was not done.

We shouldn't make our constitutional rights a casualty in the war on terror. I'm going to copy just a few paragraphs from Tuesday's Washington Post about a Canadian Muslim who was wrongly kidnapped and tortured because some people felt it was more important to be safe than sorry. Tom.

Canadian Was Falsely Accused, Panel Says
After Tip From Ally, U.S. Sent Muslim to Syria for Questioning

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 19, 2006; A01


TORONTO, Sept. 18 -- Canadian intelligence officials passed false warnings and bad information to American agents about a Muslim Canadian citizen, after which U.S. authorities secretly whisked him to Syria, where he was tortured, a judicial report found Monday.

The report, released in Ottawa, was the result of a 2 1/2-year inquiry that represented one of the first public investigations into mistakes made as part of the United States' "extraordinary rendition" program, which has secretly spirited suspects to foreign countries for interrogation by often brutal methods.

The inquiry, which focused on the Canadian intelligence services, found that agents who were under pressure to find terrorists after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, falsely labeled an Ottawa computer consultant, Maher Arar, as a dangerous radical. They asked U.S. authorities to put him and his wife, a university economist, on the al-Qaeda "watchlist," without justification, the report said.

Arar was also listed as "an Islamic extremist individual" who was in the Washington area on Sept. 11. The report concluded that he had no involvement in Islamic extremism and was on business in San Diego that day, said the head of the inquiry commission, Ontario Justice Dennis O'Connor.

Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.

This really needs to be shouted from the rooftops. By giving up our rights and freedoms in the name of "safety", what have we really gained?

Thanks for bringing this up. The Maher Arar case has been big news in Canada since it happened, as you can imagine. Glad he finally got vindicated, and that our governments shared the blame for the bungling and rush to judgement that scarred his life. I hope he can now get on with life, and I wish him well.

The problem is the news media. They will always put the sensational side of the story in the headlines, so you never get the full picture.
It is like the things that happen on cruise ships, lots of publicity about the Star and the Crown Princess because there were injuries, but nothing about the Mariner because there was nothing but inconvenience and loss of money for the passengers.
"If it bleeds, it leads"
Lynn

Lynn, there is a big difference in newsworthiness between the incidents on the Star and Crown, where there were terrified passengers and injuries, and what happened on the Mariner.

I was on the Mariner and passengers brought up whether our plight would make the news. There is just not a lot of news interest in luxury cruise passengers who are inconvenienced by having to spend an extra day on the ship.

I know a few of you have expressed opinions about the way the two stories on the fired Muslim crew members were written. Actually, the second story is not slanted against the cruise line. It is just written in a different way to grab the reader's attention. The facts in the two stories are the same.

Let's say, for example, the cruise industry studies websites and ranks LCT as the best. You could write "The cruise industry today released its study of websites and ranked Luxury Cruise Talk as the best one." Or you could write, "Luxury Cruise Talk is the best cruise website in the business, according to a study by the cruise industry." That's all those two stories were doing. Thanks. Tom.

When reading these news reports, it is very important to bear in mind that NCL has not apparently agreed that the dismissals were related to security issues. Rather, NCL stated that the separations were related to "probationary period dismissals", which are common in most companies. NCL has had a lot of problems with crews on the Hawaii ships and has had considerable turnover on them. Maybe, these employees were just lazy, or surly, or not willing to speak English. Also, we should bear in mind that the EEOC, depending on which office is involved, can make really wacky litigation decisions. Some EEOC offices have remarkably unbalanced decision processes, based on the personal agendas of the people in charge of each office. In my pre-retirement life as an in-house corporate lawyer, with lots of employment law issues on my plate, I dealt with a number of EEOC offices and officials, some of which and whom were rational and some of which and whom were certifiable. Thus, it is not probably practical at this point either to condemn NCL as a racist company or to compliment NCL for protecting us all from a terrorist threat ("better safe than sorry"). As a rather extreme social liberal and a long-time ACLU member (to the distress of my former corporate bosses), I try to take the broader view to such cases. We don't know enough about the NCL case to make any reasonable assessment. No flames, please. Just my not so humble opinion. Cheers, Fred

Fred - as always you have a way with words. Couldn't agree more.

Masaki

Well said Fred.

We are lucky to have Tom from the "news" perspective and Fred from the "legal" perspective to fill us in. Both of their posts really make so much sense, how could you argue?

I was tidying up my daughter's bedroom today, in anticipation of the ROAR 1.5 reunion of the solo ladies, and found a book in there "AP Guide to News Writing". Tell me, Tom, do you think I will get that advice in this book? There is LEADS: The Agony of Square One, and then there is PITFALLS: Attributive Verbs and Loaded Words!

I think I will go to bed tonight with this book!

Fred, as usual you make perfect sense. As you know, you have to read every little FACT, but then you are at the mercy of an EEOC office that may see things from their own perspective. I admittedly have an "employer" mindset, having been one, but never a subject of litigation. It is not like a criminal case, when the burden of proof is a lot more difficult. So much easier to condemn the employer in these cases.

I just happened to notice on CC that this incident has been resolved. NCL agreed to pay $485,000 to settle the suit while not admitting any wrongdoing. Tom.

Here's the link to the story:
http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=2600

deleted because I repeated myself.