A MUSLIM woman was barred from boarding a flight to Pakistan after refusing to go through a new ‘naked’ full-body scanner at Manchester Airport on religious grounds.
Her companion also declined to be scanned for ‘medical reasons’.
The women were travelling together to Islamabad when they were selected to pass through the controversial security screen after checking-in at Terminal 2.
Both told airport staff they were not willing to be scanned. They were warned they would not be allowed to board the Pakistan International Airlines flight if they refused.
The pair decided they would rather forfeit their £400 tickets and left the airport with their luggage.
They are the first to refuse to pass through the £80,000 scanner, introduced by the government at Heathrow and Manchester airports last month.
The X-ray machines allow security staff to see a ‘naked’ image of passengers to show up hidden weapons and explosives.
Manchester Airport confirmed the passengers had refused to be scanned but said it had received no complaint from the women.
Test case
However, civil liberties campaigners say the incident could form the basis of a legal test case to challenge the use of the Rapiscan device in airports.
Alex Deane, director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, said the organisation would represent the women if they wished to challenge the decision in court.
He said: “People shouldn’t have to sacrifice their health, their faith, their dignity, or their privacy in order to fly.
“People with health and religious concerns shouldn’t be forced to go through these scanners if they have good reason not to. Foolishly, the government has ignored both issues and ignored privacy concerns to boot – they are in the wrong on this.”
There is one Rapiscan scanner in use in a trial at Manchester Airport’s Terminal 2, which has seen 15,000 people pass through it. A further two devices – one each for Terminals one and three – have been delivered and are set to be operational within the next month.
The scanners have been criticised by the human rights group Liberty and also the government’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Only selected passengers are scanned. Security staff say they are chosen at random and not according to race, religion or ethnicity.
Councillor Afzal Khan, who was Manchester’s first Asian lord mayor, said the vast majority of Muslims believed that any privacy concerns should be outweighed by ensuring they are safe when flying.
Concerns
He said: “Hundreds of Muslim passengers have gone through without a problem. While I appreciate people’s concerns for privacy, these steps are necessary for our safety and security.”
A Manchester Airport spokesman said: “Two female passengers who were booked to fly out of Terminal Two refused to be scanned for medical and religious reasons.
“In accordance with the government directive on scanners, they were not permitted to fly.
“Body scanning is a big change for customers and we are aware that privacy concerns are on our customers’’ minds, which is why we have put strict procedures in place to reassure them that their privacy will be protected.”
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
poc (03/03/2010 at 10:30)
I know a lot of people will be banging on about privacy but I'm all for the scanners and quite frankly if somebody refuses then the police should be called and they should be searched. If you don't like it then don't bother buying the plane ticket in the first place, we'll all be safer for it.
Sarcastion Nastyface (03/03/2010 at 10:36)
Terahertz radiation has a wavelength of equal to, or less than, 0.3mm, i.e. nearly 1000 times longer than visible light.
X-rays have a wavelength much SHORTER than that of visible light.
Di Hulme (03/03/2010 at 10:41)
Black Flag (03/03/2010 at 10:44)
Let's all hope, as suggested by Big Brother Watch, that this forms the basis for a legal case.
Dave Page (Manchester NO2ID) (03/03/2010 at 10:49)
I am proud of these women standing up for their rights. If more people took their principled example, we wouldn't be wasting millions of pounds on scanners that do nothing other than strip you of your fundemental rights.
Anne Coates, Jersey Street (03/03/2010 at 10:57)
I bet your 'friend' was similarly exasperated at being stopped at road blocks on Deansgate during the IRA campaign - just before bomb exploded.
Hope your 'friend' isn't eventually a victim of terrorist who see Newcastle as a soft target.
mogan97 (03/03/2010 at 11:00)
Dougal D. Doggy, Deland,Downunder. (03/03/2010 at 11:02)
Tarby, South Manchester (03/03/2010 at 11:03)
The Rockchick, Withington (03/03/2010 at 11:03)
In 76 oh it is true..., Mancunia (03/03/2010 at 11:03)
Well said! All these numpties banging on about breach of privacy and how they won't use them, how would they feel if one of their relatives was a victim of terrorism. Sure they'd change their mind then.
Some people just like to moan for the sake of it.
CTID_2010 , Manchester (03/03/2010 at 11:03)
"I wouldn't want to go through the scanner either to be honest. If its out where everyone can see that is. If you are called into a side room and u still refuse, then that's different."
Di Hulme
3/03/2010 at 10:41
Only 1 or 2 people see the scan thats it it wouldnt make a difference if you were in a private room or not other passengers dont see the scan only 1 or 2 airport workers thats it and you dont have to get undressed!
Stevedore, Quayside (03/03/2010 at 11:11)
From an engineer (ex-NASA project director) on Airport Security:
Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body
scanners at the airports. Have a booth that you can step into
that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device
you may have on you.
It would be a win-win for everyone, and there would be none of this
**** about racial profiling and this method would eliminate a long
and expensive trial. Justice would be quick and swift.
Case Closed!
St_JJ, Widnes (03/03/2010 at 11:12)
Anne Coates, Jersey Street (03/03/2010 at 11:12)
Frankie Balboa (03/03/2010 at 11:15)
Well done to the Airport security staff.
Dev_Monkey (03/03/2010 at 11:17)
All of them.
Mike S, Manchester (03/03/2010 at 11:18)
Ran Droid, Manchester (03/03/2010 at 11:24)
If you enjoy watching large sums of money being spent for the illusion of security, then I have an invisible wand guaranteed to stave of attacks by rabid smurfs. Bargain at ten thousand pounds.
d1v1s1onby0, Wigan (03/03/2010 at 11:25)
Are you saying that all 1st and business class are being scanned?
Thats intersting as the rest of us lowlifes are scanned at random.
How did you find out about tis - its potentially a bigger story than the one published here.
Unless of course you dont have a clue what you're talking about?
Black Flag (03/03/2010 at 11:34)
You'll probably find a buyer. Somebody managed to sell dowsing rods as bomb detectors to be used in Iraq, so an anti-smurf wand is probably only a slight stretch:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/22/bomb-detectors-iraq-arrest
Anne Coates, Jersey Street (03/03/2010 at 11:39)
Sorry but your assertion that the scans are taken to "satisfy the odd tastes of pervs and paedophiles" is just silly and emotive. You know it isn't true which somewhat undermines your usually very logical and sensible approach. Very foolish. Have you had your tablet today?
Do you feel the same about medical photographs? How about marketing photographs for underwear? Are you a subscriber to the Littlewoods catalogue?
You have gone over the top again and exposed your own reactionary steak which you are always criticising in other people.
Audenshaw Bob (03/03/2010 at 11:43)
Let me counter that with 'people should be able to fly safely without somebody with no regard for their saftety, faith, or dignity blowing them to smitherines for their own religous beliefs'.
As theese woman refused the scan were they then arrested as potential terror suspecrs ad searched properly? If no what is the point of the sacnner.
Imagine a would-be terrorist with a bomb on him 'excuse me sir, would you please step aside and go through the scanner'. 'Er, no'. 'Ok, you can't fly' and off he ges home to try again another day, the bomb still on him.
Anybody who refuses it should be treated as though they have something to hide. Otherwise what if they had bombs on them, refused the scanner, went back through security and let it off in the Arrivals Hall. 'Oh they refused a scan so wished them well and sent them on their heels'.
J smith (03/03/2010 at 11:46)
PAH , Manchester (03/03/2010 at 11:47)