Discussions
Should celebrities be untouchable?
Posted by Rainhat • 8/15/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Celebrities, rules, Security
Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan expresses anger at being detained at a US airport for 2 hours, as India asks for an explanation.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8203696.stm
Last month former Indian president APJ Abdul Kalam was in a similar situation and got frisked by Continental Airlines and made to remove his shoes before being allowed to board the plane. This also caused quite the buzz in the media.
Personally, I think the rules should apply in equal measure to everyone, no matter who you are, be it Shah Rukh Khan, Brad Pitt or Queen Elizabeth.
What do you think? Should celebrities be allowed to stand above things like security checks and border controls?
User Comments
-
No. Unless I become one. Then my answer changes to yes.-
According to undisclosed sources, you are already something of a celebrity, at least here on BC.
-
Go on...
-
as in infamous! -
Infamous in the good way I hope
-
But of course
Bad reputations are all good right? -
But I don't have a bad reputation. I have a good reputation.
-
@Cathy
SNORT! lol ... you are a funny lady ...
-
-
@raingat
Question: Personally, I think the rules should apply in equal measure to everyone, no matter who you are, be it Shah Rukh Khan, Brad Pitt or Queen Elizabeth.
What do you think? Should celebrities be allowed to stand above things like security checks and border controls?
Answer: No. I'm with you on this. However, I think we need to recognize that celebrities attract nutbars and sickos, and among them are some very violent people, so I prefer that the celebrities not be in the same queue that I'm in. -
Good point...
-
-
I'd like to see how the "celebrity" list is determined. Does appearing in a film make one a celebrity? Which film? Does writing a book achieve that standard? Who would write this list?
As no one can really do this - equal standards for all.-
I agree. Although I think I would like to be a fly on the wall if someone decided to search the Queen of England before allowing her on a plane...
-
@Rainhat
If our leaders were subject to the same restrictions and bureaucracy as the rest of us, they might think twice about imposing it in the first place. -
Ah, what a wonderful world that would be...
With the recent laws imposed on the population here in Sweden, I get the impression that the people imposing them are fully expecting never to be subjected to those same laws themselves. It's rather infuriating.
-
-
If we are famous, that is the most problably to hapening --'. They are going to be always the same lol -
Celebrities are only celebrities if they are recognized, as Henry Louis "Skip" Gates recently found out. -
Celebrities and VVIP's are not one and the same.. Shah Rukh Khan and Abdul Kalam are different scenarios entirely..
In case of Abdul Kalam, it is Indian law and protocol that former Presidents are exempt from Frisking, and it is contempt of the Indin government to not adhering to this rule. The American airlines in question were given the license to operate in India only after agreeing to abide by the rules yet they decided to go against protocol.
What America does to Shah Rukh Khan on American soil is none of my business, though I condemn the nature of targeting based on religion.-
That's the sort of information that people ought to have before condemning someone's actions. In this case, if the folks who performed the action weren't aware of the former president's identity then it's a simple embarrassment fixed by education and identification. If they were and frisked him anyway, then they need to bear the consequences. Those would vary depending on whether they were ordered to do so by the company in question. -
FYI.. they did know Abdul Kalam.. and since they were operating on Indian soil, it would be highly unlikely if they didn't recognise him(he left office fairly recently)
and also, Kalam's bodyguards stepped in and explained(reminded, because everyone has the official memo) the protocol to the staff. -
So then it's a question of whether the security officers were acting under instruction, were ignorant of the law, or were simply being self-important asses.
-
-
The vast majority of celebrities are parasites on society and serve no useful purpose. I cannot understand the fascination and the admiration that the poor have with the rich. I personally feel that they derserve no special treatment anywhere, and I'd be quite happy if we, the poor, would stop supporting them and force them to contribute something useful to the world.-
There's a major contradiction here--if you don't understand the "fascination", how did you learn enough about the off-screen lives of each and every celebrity in the world to conclude that "the vast majority" of them are serving no useful purpose? That seems like a study that would take years, with a full staff, to complete. -
Yes, I shouldn't have said "the vast majority." I should have said "all." And no study was necessary to see that they do nothing to serve the common good.
My apologies to those who are obsessed with the famous, but take the queen for example. Knife crime is rampant on the streets of Britain, children as young as 10 are roaming around at night drunk, the elderly have to choose between heating their homes or buying prescription medications, and The New Labour Party has nearly bankrupted the country. And during it all, the queen responded by taking tax money to have her swans counted. -
Well, actors act in movies. Movies entertain a lot of people, so I wouldn't say they're completely useless.
I agree they shouldn't receive any special treatment, but if someone gets good enough at their job to become a celebrity, how does that make them useless parasites? -
Jealousy rainhat, jealousy.
-
Providing entertainment is fine, but I hardly think it's worth millions a year, especially considering that the families of police and soldiers are struggling to survive.
And as far as jealosy dbowles1017 . . . . . mmmm, well yeah, there may be a possibility that my opinion would change if I were financially secure
-
-
Well, as an egalitarian, I say if they frisk little old gray haired grandmothers, then they should frisk Brad and Angie and even their kids.
As a rationalist, however, I think there is an argument to be made that readily recognizable famous people...like Brad and Angie...are highly unlikely to be security risks...they lack the necessary anonymity to make good terrorists.
But, since "readily recognizable" is a wholly subjective criteria, it is probably best to err on the side of caution and strip search 'em all!-
I agree that they should be subject to the same security measures as anyone else, but it probably makes sense to handle the process differently. Not asking them to wait in line with 100 other people isn't all about making life easy because they're too important--it's about avoiding the chaos that their presence can ignite.
-
Hmm... But wouldn't people like Brad and Angie make the perfect terrorists? If they are rich, famous, moviestars and recognized everywhere, are considered highly unlikely to be terrorists, then wouldn't that just mean that it's that much easier for them to do stuff and avoid suspicion? People would go "Nah, it couldn't be them... " while they are sneaking out secret stuff in their backpacks.
-
-
If celebrities are "untouchable", should I stop trying to pet Alyssa Milano? I was getting soooo close! -
My general answer to this question is, "No." Celebrities are people and are vulnerable to the same sorts of craziness that other psychos and terrorists suffer. SW, what if Angie had a mental break because her postpartum depression and was concealing an AK in the diaper bag then used it to take down a plane full of folks? If you're flying on a private plane (especially if you own it) then the rules may be different but if you're a celebrity flying on United then you should have to follow the same rules as everyone else (but not in the same lines, per TT's excellent point above).
-
But United doesn't like celebrities. They break their guitars...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo -
Oh, yeah. Erm, on Northwest then. Wait, they got bought. Uh, Delta Airlines?
-
-
Regardless of someone "status" I think if you break a rule you should be held accountable for there actions. They shouldn't be put on a pedestal because they make tons of money or have political power. The rules are suppose to be universal for everyone.
-
WP [rolls eyes]
-
I am agree with you the rule should be applie in eugual misure. -
Everyone, including the ex-president of India should go through the same security measures. Even if they aren't security risks themselves, there's always the chance that they could be coerced into taking something on board; for example, if a family member were being held hostage.
-
WHO DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE?I WOULD HAVE EVERY "CELEB"BREAKING ROCKS IN A QUARRY.THE WORD "SHOWBUSINESS" WOULD BE SUPERFLUOUS AS WELL.
-
Peculiar point of view. Usually, it's not the celebrities who create the hype around themselves, it's the fans who go crazy over someone doing their job and the people trying to profit from the celebs being celebs.
-
-
UNTOUCHABLE?FOUR CENTURIES AGO WITCHES WERE CHASED INTO RIVERS AND BURNED AT THE STAKE.PEOPLE GOT DEPORTED OR HANGED FOR SWINDLING AND IMPERSONATING.SOME OF THESE CELEBS ARE GETTING AWAY WITH ANYTHING EVEN YOU KNOW WHO FROM SCOTLAND.WELL I DREAM A DREAM SHE IS BACK ON THE "ROCK AND ROLL" AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.AND THE REST OF THESE POXY CELEBS TAKE A ONE WAY TICKET TO A SWISS CLINIC.
-
caps lock fail
-
-
I want to smack some with a mallet.
-
What do you think? Should celebrities be allowed to stand above things like security checks and border controls?
Absolutely not, the way I see it, they have alot more money and pull/power/connections then I'll ever have ... Just imagine the things they could smuggle in.
Search everyone equally but with respect ... unless Bush Jr comes through, he gets a full body cavity search! -
This is not the correct news. I have listen to Khan interview.
I agree with dsriharsha -
I think celebrities should use chartered planes -
Everyone at the airport should get frisked. But by untouchable celebrities, do you mean like Michael Jackson? I know he's dead, but touching was his specialty. OK, comment junkies, let me have it! I can handle a bunch of------- remarks.-
I agree! Everyone at the airport should get frisky
-
-
WANTED! OPENINGS AVAILABLE FOR UNWANTED CELEBS,SHOWBUSINESS TYPES,VAUDIVILLE ACTS,CLAPPED OUT SINGERS,"CHARITY CHASERS",SO CALLED ROCKERS WHO SHOULD HAVE CALLED TIME ON THEIR "CAREERS" THIRTY YEARS AGO.
WE ARE NOW TAKING BOOKINGS FOR SWISS CLINICS-THE PLACE TO TERMINATE YOUR SAD SORRY CAREERS.EX BIG BROTHER "CONTESTANTS" WELCOME,SNOW SNIFFERS ETC WELCOME. -
untouchable means lower grades who are not touched by me.
-
"LETS PLAY A GAME OF SOLITAIRE-AND HERES WHAT YOU ARE TO DO WITH A CELEB-AFTER YOUVE TURNED OVER THE QUEEN OF DIAMONDS"-AH!ONLY A DREAM BUT SO WAS ORWELLS BIG BROTHER!MIND YOU A GOOD ONE AT THAT!
-
Dude, please stop writing in caps only. You're shouting.
-
-
No, they should not be untouchable. Especially because I'd like to touch Elisha Cuthbert. -
They have delicate hands. Prince once confessed that a fan-to show his appreciation-shook hands with the musician...hard. He wasn't able to play the piano for a week.-
Ouch... Maybe the fan secretly hated his music and did it on purpose?
-
LOL that got me into thinking Rainhat. Good one!
-
-
Well, you have to throw them a bone sometimes. Can you imagine not being able to walk outside of your house without being met with a mob of press, paparazzi, and fanatics? I'm glad I will never be a celebrity for that matter.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
