airport see thru scanners

[taxslave]

I don't see the problem. My safety on a plane is far more important than some terrorists right to pack explosives on a plane. Remember the guy with the explosive shoes?
Anyone that does not like it has the option of not flying.

 

[TenPenny]

It is not a matter of time. Mainly because in this case the X ray is not compulsory, an alternative is offered (old fashioned search). That is why I don’t think the question of Charter challenge, exemptions etc. does not arise.

That's funny, coming from you.

I didn't think that watching the Olympics was compulsory (an alternative is to stay home and watch TV), but apparently that requires special accomodations for religions so they can carry weapons. Why is air travel different?

Which side of your mouth are you speaking from this time, the right or the left?

 

[Outta here]

Right to safety comes before everything else.

Except kirpans at the Olympics? :roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't see the problem. My safety on a plane is far more important than some terrorists right to pack explosives on a plane. Remember the guy with the explosive shoes?
Anyone that does not like it has the option of not flying.

It is good to see a kindred soul, taxslave. After they caught the shoe bomber (Richard Reid), they started the requirement that you must remove your shoes at the security checkout.

After they caught the terrorists in Britain who were trying to smuggle liquid explosives on to airplanes, they prohibited people from carrying liquids onto the planes. I remember I was in Buxton when that happened (in 2006, I think it was). When that happened there was a big confusion, for a day it was doubtful I if will be able to fly back to Canada.

So as there are more terrorist acts, there are more security measures; we give up a little bit of our rights. It is a necessary sacrifice to make sure that air travel remains safe.

And I suspect most people won’t have a problem with the new security measures. It is fast (you are done in a few seconds) and convenient (you don’t ah veto take off anything). There may be a few who will object (and go through the old security measures), but I expect most will take to it.

 

[gerryh]

Except kirpans at the Olympics? :roll:

Kirpans are not a safety risk when worn using the guidelines laid out by the RCMP....... unless one is paranoid, then it may be best, and safest for everyone, that one stayed home.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Except kirpans at the Olympics? :roll:

We have been through this before, Zan. I think safety considerations have been resolved to the satisfaction of most people (well, perhaps not to yours or a few others).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That's funny, coming from you.

I didn't think that watching the Olympics was compulsory (an alternative is to stay home and watch TV), but apparently that requires special accomodations for religions so they can carry weapons. Why is air travel different?

Which side of your mouth are you speaking from this time, the right or the left?

It is simple, TenPenny. For Olympics they had a blanket rule that no weapons were allowed. Then the question naturally arose, what do they do about the kirpan, which is a religious icon and is mandated for Sikhs to wear it at all times?

But here they don’t have a blanket rule; they are not saying that everybody must undergo this inspection. If they did, then the comparison with the kirpan case would be appropriate. But since they are not forcing anybody to undergo the inspection, I don’t think the kirpan case is appropriate here. Anybody who objects to it can still travel the old fashioned way.

 

[Francis2004]

Except kirpans at the Olympics? :roll:

It is good to see a kindred soul, taxslave. After they caught the shoe bomber (Richard Reid), they started the requirement that you must remove your shoes at the security checkout.

After they caught the terrorists in Britain who were trying to smuggle liquid explosives on to airplanes, they prohibited people from carrying liquids onto the planes. I remember I was in Buxton when that happened (in 2006, I think it was). When that happened there was a big confusion, for a day it was doubtful I if will be able to fly back to Canada.

So as there are more terrorist acts, there are more security measures; we give up a little bit of our rights. It is a necessary sacrifice to make sure that air travel remains safe.

And I suspect most people won’t have a problem with the new security measures. It is fast (you are done in a few seconds) and convenient (you don’t ah veto take off anything). There may be a few who will object (and go through the old security measures), but I expect most will take to it.

The point remains that terrorist use what is best known "allowed items" to pass onto aircrafts.

If kirpans are allowed onto certain aircrafts you can bet I will not fly that airline.

But this is beyond security measure as the scanners are used to look for objects that are then patted down anyway ??

There is no security that will be 100% fool proof because it is administered by people that can be bought. That is a reality of our world.

Again the terrorist have won..

 

[TenPenny]

Kirpans are not a safety risk when worn using the guidelines laid out by the RCMP....... unless one is paranoid, then it may be best, and safest for everyone, that one stayed home.

Shampoo isn't a threat when left in your carryon bag, either.

 

[Spade]

Dear Cousins,
It has been brought to my attention that professional boxers must register their hands in Canada and in the US of A as lethal weapons, yet professional boxers are still allowed to fly. This is an egregious lapse of judgement, in my honest opinion! There should be a scanner to check for martial artists!
Spade
PS
I know this is off topic, but why are boxers allowed to go topless in the ring in front of the unaware and unprotected?

 

[TenPenny]

It is simple, TenPenny. For Olympics they had a blanket rule that no weapons were allowed. Then the question naturally arose, what do they do about the kirpan, which is a religious icon and is mandated for Sikhs to wear it at all times?

But here they don’t have a blanket rule; they are not saying that everybody must undergo this inspection. If they did, then the comparison with the kirpan case would be appropriate. But since they are not forcing anybody to undergo the inspection, I don’t think the kirpan case is appropriate here. Anybody who objects to it can still travel the old fashioned way.

You bend in every direction to allow accomodations for your pet groups, while expecting everyone else to go along with whatever measures you personally agree with.

You're seriously stating that it's okay to allow a particular religious group to carry weapons into public events, because they're special in your opinion, while at the same time, actions of some of these same religious people have caused the general public in Canada all sorts of inconvenience due to 'security' measures imposed on everyone who 'chooses' to fly.

You're cute, you are.

 

[gerryh]

Shampoo isn't a threat when left in your carryon bag, either.

yup, that's right...... as long as it IS shampoo in the bottle. I guess the "powers that be" decided that it would be more cost effective to restrict bottled liquids to check in bags rather than spending the time verifying each bottle of liquid in a carry-on.

 

[TenPenny]

yup, that's right...... as long as it IS shampoo in the bottle. I guess the "powers that be" decided that it would be more cost effective to restrict bottled liquids to check in bags rather than spending the time verifying each bottle of liquid in a carry-on.

So everyone has to be restricted from carrying shampoo or bottled water onto a plane, because it's too hard to verify, but it's okay to allow a kirpan at the Olympics, because....

 

[AnnaG]

Sorry accepted. I might have been a bit thin skinned there, I am actually very shy about showing my body - well, to strangers at least...so I would be terribly uncomfortable in one of those scanners. But like Ron said, I don't think I'd let it stop me from going on a vacation... maybe I'd just have to down a couple or 7 rum n'cokes before I went through security. By then I might render the damn thing unnecessary! :lol::lol:

Seriously though I don't know what the solution is. Seems like people are getting more and more whacky in how far they'll take things, forcing us to find equally whacky solutions. I'm sure I sound like my grandparents now, but sometimes I do wonder what the hell is this world coming to.

mmmmm Rum (Appleton's and water) sounds good.
Frankie, I think people have ceased searching for wisdom, have been overwhelmed by technology and knowledge, and have become reactionary emoticons. (At least in North America and Europe). Bunch of nutty people on the loose with squirrel sense rather than horse sense.

 

[AnnaG]

There are some people who seem to view any encroachment on our rights as acceptable, as long as they're little nibbles. And, of course, as long as we let certain groups have an exemption on religious grounds. But for the majority to give up freedom is perfectly acceptable.

Me, I'm tired of it. And some of those religious groups who get a pass due to their rights, are the very groups behind some of Canada's worst aviation terrorism.

Go figure.

Paranoid?

 

[AnnaG]

I think it's what our betters think. Canada is an oligarchy.

Yeah. I think most of those dorks in Ottawa think that's what we want. I think lots of people in ON and QC think that's what we should have, too.

 

[AnnaG]

Isn't every country in the world?

No. But then I explained that a long time ago. You're just too dense to notice.

 

[AnnaG]

I don't jest, I know too many retired British cops who have moved here who can attest to this because they were part of the system. I don't know who the "they" are you refer to, if it is the UK, well, they have surveillance everywhere. As one fellow said to me, "you, on average, cannot go 400 metres anywhere in the UK without being photographed".

Terrorism is a handy excuse to suspend or eliminate freedoms. Sure surveillance may deter some random crime but doesn't stop terrorism, it only provides evidence in the aftermath, the victims are just as dead. Not only that but he British rendered its populace defenseless, they also outlaw self defense, even in your own home.

As for security, it was the States' lax security measures that allowed 9-11 to happen, and trust me, they were lax and targetted the wrong people. The same is still happening, here and abroad. Extraordinary security measures are merely window dressing and optics. A false sense of security is a dangerous thing, and that security becomes out last line of defense. At least now, in the US and Israel anyway, the last line of defense is armed pilots.



We have no such right. Believing so is dangerous because the state will put our safety in the hands of the state by eliminating out freedoms in the name of safety, safety they know is impossible to provide.

Pretty much. It's nannyism at its finest. People are like children, with the governments acting like parents and scaring people into behaving by using the fear of the boogeyman. It's hilarious in a sense. Rather pathetic in another sense.

 

[AnnaG]

So we have governments controlling us, pandering to our shallow wishes, corporations pilfering from our pockets, terrorists picking at us here and there making governments and people reactionary and panicky, religions messing with our minds, technology advancing faster than our abilities to comprehend it and its ramifications, etc.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I don't see the problem. My safety on a plane is far more important than some terrorists right to pack explosives on a plane. Remember the guy with the explosive shoes?
Anyone that does not like it has the option of not flying.

Except the ones who do it for a living, anyway, the likelyhood of Richard Reid, or anyone else getting caught simply by the random use of this scanner is pretty remote. Terrorists are one step ahead of technology and this is just another peice that will be circumvented. Good old fashioned intel, observation, and reporting are still needed. As I said, all this security hocus pocus is window dressing and optics because it targets the wrong people.