The No Fly List... Pass the puke bag.
Fri, 2007-06-15 02:47
#1
The No Fly List... Pass the puke bag.
Fri, 2007-06-15 02:47
#2
How do you raise a voice of concern over the exsistence of the "no-fly list" without actually ending up on it?
quote:
Yves Duguay, the security chief for Air Canada, told the Air India inquiry he's concerned that if someone is denied permission to board a plane, there's a potential for "unruly" situations developing at airport check-in counters.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/225638]Star Article - June 15 /07[/url]
Fri, 2007-06-15 17:16
#3
quote:
"Over the summer, we'll have a number of families who won't be able to travel because their children won't have the proper documents," he said after the meeting.
Sat, 2007-06-16 11:07
#4
this is the thin wedge......
Tue, 2007-06-19 03:04
#5
[url=http://www.tc.gc.ca/vigilance/sep/passenger_protect/Q&A.htm#1]Here's [/url] the juice.
Tue, 2007-06-19 04:18
#6
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
... Pass the puke bag.
It makes me throw up in my mouth every time I hear them call this the "Canadian" No-Fly list.
Can we have some honesty in the media, please? This is the No Fly list George Bush gave to his li'l buddy Steve.
Tue, 2007-06-19 06:36
#7
I agree that Harper is doing it because the US is. But it's obviously not the same list, as the American list has 70,000 names on it, and apparently the Canadian list only has something like 500 to 2000 names on it, if the report I heard on the news this morning is correct.
Tue, 2007-06-19 08:09
#8
It's based on the assumption that any legitimate hijacker will kindly provide their real name and real documents to the security staff, and quite possibly announce beforehand their intentions so as not to catch our oh-so-competent police forces off guard. How nice of them.
Why doesn't anyone in the media preface every report of this with latest example of powerpoint stupidity with the phrase "sham", or "useless", or the old standby; "fucking stupid"?
Every media report on this faithfully reports the government's claims without critical examination. Worthless.
Tue, 2007-06-19 08:14
#9
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[QB]
Why doesn't anyone in the media preface every report of this with latest example of powerpoint stupidity with the phrase "sham", or "useless", or the old standby; "fucking stupid"?[QB]
I'd settle for "illegal"
Tue, 2007-06-19 08:29
#10
It would be nice to see a court challange on this issue. Probably will happen after a few 'collateral accidents' and then the law suites start flying.
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:59
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:
[b]I'd settle for "illegal"[/b]
So would I.
What gives the government the right to deny citizens the right to fly (a public service so long as we're paying for Air Canada, I guess ...) when said citizens are not fugitives wanted for a crime?
And what are the criteria for landing (no pun intended) on the no-fly list? How are these decisions made? And by whom? And who is watching over these decision-makers and reviewing their work?
And I'd be interested in knowing the type of people on the list. Is the government racially profiling? Religiously profiling? Is it targetting folks with a criminal record that have served their time?
This sort of thing is of great concern to me, as it should be to all Canadians. Open question to you folks: have you heard anybody, anyone at all, in your private lives (an aunt, your mom, the teller at the bank, the Safeway cashier, etc.) clamor for a no-fly list?
Tue, 2007-06-19 20:12
#12
From the same article Ward posted, for those too lazy to click the link (like I usually am [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] ).
[b]While international passengers require a passport, the new rules will require even domestic flyers to show identification before boarding flights starting Monday.
Passengers will require one piece of valid government-issued photo ID that shows name, date of birth and gender, such as a driver's licence or a passport; or two pieces of valid government-issued non-photo ID, at least one of which shows name, date of birth and gender, such as a birth certificate.
Transport Canada is giving airline passengers aged 18 and under a reprieve from showing photo ID when its no-fly list takes effect. Until Sept. 18, they'll only need one piece of government-issued ID, with or without photo. [/b]
Great, more paper.
[b]New Democrat MP Joe Comartin predicted travel headaches, especially for families who arrive at an airport only to find they can't meet new rules that will require all travellers – including children 12 and older – to show identification documents to board domestic flights.
"Over the summer, we'll have a number of families who won't be able to travel because their children won't have the proper documents," he said after the meeting.
"We will have a few individuals who will be on the list improperly and they will have no way of getting off the list," said Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh), calling the review mechanisms "totally ineffective."[/b]
He's probably right.
[b]A senior Transport Canada security official tried to downplay concerns, saying the list will be "focused" only on people who pose a serious threat to aviation security.
"Not many people would actually match these guidelines," Allan Kagedan told the Commons committee on public safety and national security. "We're talking about an individual who is or has been involved in a terrorist group, who can reasonably be expected will endanger the security of any aircraft." [/b]
Do we even have a working definition of a "terrorist group"?
So ... if Michelle's figures are right, the government says we have 500 to 2,000 persons walking the streets today that are too dangerous to be allowed to board an aricraft because of their burning desire to murder civilians. And themselves, apparently. Yet these folks, whom we know of, can do anything else despite this vast threat to the public safety they present.
If these folks are so dangerous, perhaps there are more appropriate and effective steps to take against them than merely barring them from aircraft.
[b]"In terrorism, there are no second chances," he said.[/b]
Yes, and three strikes and you're out too. And you are what you eat. And ... it takes one to know one.
Honestly, what has happened to this country? You cannot bar people from public services because you think they "might" commit a crime they've never committed.
I thought the principle of our legal system was innocent until proven guilty.
Wed, 2007-06-20 14:35
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
[b]It would be nice to see a court challange on this issue. Probably will happen after a few 'collateral accidents' and then the law suites start flying.[/b]
Good luck that is why they got rid of the court challenge program, to ram through bullshit like this.
Wed, 2007-06-20 17:05
#14
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000646]This thread[/url] suggests some sanity. (NDP rejects no fly list)
Wed, 2007-06-20 17:26
#15
TemporalHominid
This is a great way for the government to pretend they are doing something about security, but actually accomplish nothing and create a load of problems for people of colour. I understand the U.S. version has a colour code...disturbing.
if I was a "terrorist" I wouldn't use my own passport and I.D.
some odd things happen with these lists... oh the irony
Steve Baker[url=http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2007/06/19/4271850-sun.html] head of the London International Airport[/url] is on the U.S. no-fly security list
Wed, 2007-06-20 22:51
#16
At work our major [i]National Post[/i] reader was happy that Canada's New Government was not bowing to pressure from bleeding heart civil liberties hacks, and was instead forging ahead with plans for a no-fly list to foil Al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers. He and his friend are planning a big trip this summer and they don't want terrorists ruining their holidays.
When I asked, "How many Christians and Jews will be on this list", he readily agreed that the likely number is zero. And he made it abundantly clear that he's quite happy with that. When I suggested to him that this meant that the list was about prejudice, not protection, he was just as happy! He doesn't want the Government pissing around with politically correct weiners, he wants them to cut the BS and do whatever it takes, etc., etc.
The punch line is that up to and including the election of 2006 this particular voter was a 101% Liberal supporter.
Mon, 2007-07-02 06:55
#17
[url=http://www.thecaribbeancamera.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view... upset about No Fly list[/url]
quote:
Canada's new "No Fly List" has come in for stinging criticism from an Islamic leader, who says it will make life more difficult for Muslim passengers. "We feel as a Muslim community we have been profiled, targeted, looked down upon and seen to be guilty before any proof is presented. So I think that this 'No-Fly List' will compound matters even more," respected community leader Sheikh Faisal Abdur-Razak, President of the Islamic Forum of Canada, told The Camera on Tuesday. On June 18, the Canadian federal government implemented a no-fly list to strengthen air travel security on domestic and international commercial flights. The list includes the name, date of birth, and gender of anyone the federal government considers an immediate threat to aviation security.
Mon, 2007-07-02 10:42
#18
Interestingly, it may be that the no fly list is not even playing well with a part of Harper's base. I almost felt sorry for James Moore when he tried to defend the policy. Amongst his supporters (unscientific as they are only the people I know) most were not in the least impressed. The divide seemed to have been the tory vs. the reform elements.
It would be nice if it was a "wedge" issue - a wedge within the Conservatives, that is...
Tue, 2007-07-03 09:01
#19
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]This is a great way for the government to pretend they are doing something about security, but actually accomplish nothing and create a load of problems for people of colour. I understand the U.S. version has a colour code...disturbing.if I was a "terrorist" I wouldn't use my own passport and I.D.
some odd things happen with these lists... oh the irony
Steve Baker[url=http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2007/06/19/4271850-sun.html] head of the London International Airport[/url] is on the U.S. no-fly security list[/b]
Well they are doing something about security...Their own security. I don't think they give a rats ass about our security. If they did their would be no drive lists ..no train lists..no bus lists...no cars allowed lists... and they would check airline luggage.
The fact is these pathetic paranoid chicken shit leaders are only concerned about their very own ass and they are using my money and your money to protect it. Even the anti terror laws are a contradiction as there are some instances where they fit the definition of terror organization, or at the very least facilitate what would be considered terror activity. Howcome the CIA isn't on the terror list?
Consider ..has your government allowed a company or corporation to poison,kill or contaminate..or place peoples lives in danger..have they allowed conditions where peoples safety is in geopardy..like uranium or tar sand developments, perhaps gas storage facility's in populated areas.
What about drug companies that are allowed to market the raw ingrediant for crystal meth .."no drowse formula" what the hell is that? There is not enough bandwidth on the internet to list all activity but just listen to the news and periodically you will see and hear many examples.
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-07-17 21:23
#20
M. Spector
quote:
According to the American Civil Liberties Union....there are now one million names on the “terrorist” watch list.One of them is that of former Assistant US Attorney General Jim Robinson, whose top security clearances are current. Every time Mr.Robinson flies away on business, he is delayed by a totally incompetent “terrorist” protection racket that cannot tell a person named Jim Robinson, who served in the highest echelons of the US government, from a Muslim terrorist.
What confidence can we have in a regime that is incapable of differentiating an Assistant US Attorney General from a terrorist?
Mr. Robinson said: “If I were convinced that America is a safer place because I get hassled at the airport, I might put up with it, but I doubt it. I expect my story is similar to hundreds of thousands of people who are on this list and find themselves inconvenienced.”
“Hundreds of thousands of people” on a watch list that they have no business being on?
Yes. “Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other ‘suspicious characters,’ with names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
And this is America, not Nazi Germany?
[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07172008.html]Source[/url]
Sun, 2008-07-27 21:16
#21
Sky Captain
This is why I'm not flying anywhere, [i]anymore[/i].
Even if I won the lottery next day, and could travel where I wanted to, I'm not putting up with this bullshit as a person of colour (Afro-Canadian, 40 years old.) I'd be detained for some stupid reason, and for what? So that some 60-year old silly bitch from Alabama can feel safe when she's on the plane, or some Yuppie asshole from Toronto? Forget it.
George Carlin talked about this at length many years ago, and he was equally vitrolic on the subject (the [i]You People Are All Diseased![/i] album). No one else has discussed it, mostly because now they be in peace from all of the 'undesirables' who might want to fly. Well, they're welcome to the paranoid skies-I don't give a shit anymore.
Mon, 2008-07-28 11:54
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]It's based on the assumption that any legitimate hijacker will kindly provide their real name and real documents to the security staff, and quite possibly announce beforehand their intentions so as not to catch our oh-so-competent police forces off guard. How nice of them.Why doesn't anyone in the media preface every report of this with latest example of powerpoint stupidity with the phrase "sham", or "useless", or the old standby; "fucking stupid"?
Every media report on this faithfully reports the government's claims without critical examination. Worthless. [/b]
I hear ya, Jingles.
If I were planning a terror attack, I'd avoid anything to do with aircraft. Doing so would [i]really[/i] frighten those people who thought that all these baloney security measures were effective.
Mon, 2008-07-28 12:07
#23
I agree with the jist of M. Spector's article, but there's something about it that makes me kind of go hmm...and that's remarks like this:
quote:
Yes. “Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other ‘suspicious characters,’ with names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
I think the war on terror "no-fly" lists are ridiculous, of course. But I see this sort of argument often - the proof that it is stupid is that names like "Gary Smith" and "Robert Johnson" are on it, or that people from an elite class of professions are on it. The underlying assumption to such a criticism is that it's ridiculous to think that people with such European-sounding names, or such high-status professions, could possibly be considered terrorist.
Not a great argument.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2008-07-29 08:09
#24
Nice catch Michelle on privilege becoming a right. I remember years and years ago my housemates had a party and the next day a neighbour complained. The reaction from the girlfriend of one of my housemates was: "The party had young lawyers, journalists (including arse around town Andrew Coyne) and producers and its SCARY that someone would complain about their behaviour" I still cringe when I think back to it and it is amazing how oblivious people can be to privilege.
Tue, 2008-07-29 09:31
#25
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Sky Captain:
[b]...I'd be detained for some stupid reason, and for what? So that some 60-year old silly bitch from Alabama can feel safe when she's on the plane, or some Yuppie asshole from Toronto? [/b]
Though I understand where you are coming from, I would ask in future that you not utilize sexist and ageist rhetoric as examples.
Tue, 2008-07-29 09:44
#26
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I think the war on terror "no-fly" lists are ridiculous, of course. But I see this sort of argument often - the proof that it is stupid is that names like "Gary Smith" and "Robert Johnson" are on it, or that people from an elite class of professions are on it. The underlying assumption to such a criticism is that it's ridiculous to think that people with such European-sounding names, or such high-status professions, could possibly be considered terrorist.Not a great argument.[/b]
I agree. Sometimes the ACLU needs to grab "a clu".
It's similar to the criticism I have of some advocates for the repatriation of Omar Khadr who argue, in effect, that the fact he is a citizen of a "Western" country is an additional reason, if not the main reason, that he should be released from Guantanamo Bay.
Tue, 2008-07-29 10:49
#27
Maybe choosing that argument is a rhetorical device, and it's used because it's thought to be the most convincing tactic on a certain audience.
Isn't it possible that one can use the wrong argument to achieve the right goal?
Tue, 2008-07-29 11:10
#28
M. Spector
Maybe you just proved your point. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]