YEGmann

Your premise is wrong. The government acted according to rules of the country. Thus, the rest is wrong.

The "timeline" is really funny! One can conclude that it is Gen. Hillier who arranged the detainee transfer to the govermnent of Afganistan and, further, it is PM Harper who signed the agreement! But yes, the real gem of this piece of s-t is Colvin "documenting" abuse of detainees... In my world "document" means something very different from what Colvin has presented.

For those who still do not know rules on aviation security. One more time. Slowly. Every person can bring through the airport security screening ANY NUMBER of containers with liquids, gels and/or aerosols. Two conditions must be met simultaneously: 1. EACH container must not exceed 100 ml. 2. All containers must fit in one closed and re-sealable plastic bag with a capacity of no more than 1 litre. Suitable bags are provided by security before the entrance to the security screening. Practically this means that every person can bring at least 750 ml of fluid with no problem. Milk and juice for two-year old or younger children are exempt from the size restrictions. Is this clear? If not I can elaborate further. Enjoy reading http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/aviationsecurity/liquidsban-43.htm

Not really, it is allowed to carry more than 100 ml of fluid through the security check. Up to 750, may be 850 ml would be completely OK.

American woman, You certainly did not get it. I'll try to explane you the process one more time, slowly. How it works. Simple case. 1. You arrive at an airport, obtain your boarding pass, check in your luggage and proceed to the security check. 2. Something not allowed to bring from outside into the airport security area is found on you. Note: alcohol and many other fluids is NOT forbidden to take with you inside the airplane passenger cabin. I might be a slow learner, but sometimes this happens on various reasons. Including different interpretation of the rules. 3. If the item is from the forbidden list, like explosives or corrosive substance, you are in trouble. If its not forbiden for air travel, including knives, hammers, harmless liquids, you have choices: a) cancel your flight; throw the item into the garbage c) leave it for storage (here you may be right, not all airports may provide for that, but many do. For me it was 100%. You will be surprised but in several airports you can even mail your item to you.) However it is not preferrable option, just theoretical one. and the most reasonable one d) place the thing into the cargo as a checked in luggage. The security guard may not offer all this options to you. In his/her interest is to put you into position of a violation of a rule, so that he/she can claim a prevention of the violation. Happyly, they cannot not to respond to your question "What I can do with the situation?" And usually, they are simply normal humans, not robots. If you, as 90% of normal people, select option d) you have to go the check-in counter. There can be some problems, but ones you have 35 - 40 minutes before the depature time you must be OK. Now you are dealing with the airline representatives and they will do everything to help you. The least will be asking you to pay for a couple of kilos of the item. Here you are probably confused. Yes, you need some container for the item in question. The simplest solution is to use your carry on bag to check in the item and place all you need during the flight in another bag, say, plastic one. If you do not have one, ask the nice girl who is checking in your new piece of luggage. She will gladly find a plastic bag for you. Here the cardboard box comes from if you need it. Nobody carries cardboad boxes on board. But the nice girl at the check-in counter will find it to you. She will also find a soft stuff to fill the box and scotch tape to seal it. You get an additional luggage sticker, drop the bag or box on the belt and return to the security check, pass it and proceed to your gate. It takes no more than 10 minutes and everybody's happy. I do not know what happened to Mr. Blackburn why he did not performed this simple operation, if he valued his bottle of tequila. Most probably he arrive at the security check too late, say, 15 minutes before departure. In this case he simply talked to the wrong person, i.e. security guard. But again, approaching the security check with the bottle was absolutely stupid. That's why I think he might be caught by surprise on a transfer from one flight to another with the bottle legally bought in the secure area of the airport of his previous flight and already kept inside the plane. Though it is speculations due to the press not telling us the whole story. It seems we have a very different view on human nature. You think both passengers and security guard must be machines acting without mistakes and with no minute deviations from minimum required procedures. I think that air travellers often, almost always are tired, confused people, making mistakes all the time. I would like to see the security personnel more helpful. Currently, my impression is that some (not all) security personnel abuses their priviledges. I am not saying they do not doing their job, but personally I do not like how they do it. In the case of Mr. Blackburn I think that the guards preferred a conflict over help. You are looking happy that a passenger was "caught for his wrong doing". That's it.

You are wrong. One can (and I have done that several times) put the bottle(s) in a carry-on bag or in a cardboard box and check it as a new baggage item. May be. I have been offered this "service" at least twice at Edmonton International and at Newport News Regional (VA). At the check-in counter, of course. Just have your boarding pass and photo ID. I do not think he's and idiot trying to pass the security inspection with over 100 ml of fluid in a single tare. I have an impression that the press story is not complete. Maybe the booze was from a duty-free shop. Do not fly is an option, but there is always options when you can fly with your booze on the same plane. You are complitely wrong. It is obvious you do not know the airport rules and I think you do not know details of the incident. You cannot claim Mr. Blackburn' "wrongdoing." It might be just funny specifics of the airport security system, it might be a mistake of Mr. Blackburn. The security did realy bad job. It is not surprising. Even if they may not be obliged to inform a passenger about his "rights", they definetly could have asked Mr. Blackburn to check the bottle in as a matter of help. It would have been the end of the story. However the security guard preferred a conflict, which is not surprising again.

That's not true. Although I do not know a precise formulation of the applicable law, but I do know that there is an option to place the unacceptable thing into checked baggage. I've been in the same situation many times. I've have problems with knives, scissors, some sharp objects, toothpaste and of course alcohol in Canada, the US and Europe. Not always I was ageed with the security personnel. But always I was offered at least two options, i.e., place the item into checked baggage or leave at the airport for storage and pick it up on return. Several times I left the secure area to check the item in and staff was helpful with packing. A couple of times I threw some small items into the garbage bin but security told me I don't need to that. Of course, I could not fly, but there was no question the airport personnel could confiscate something on departure. My point is that it seems the security did not do a good job and enjoyed Mr. Blackburn's embarrasment. They might have explained Mr. Blackburn his options. The spin about this routine airport event in the liberal mass media is absolutely understandable, expected and disgusting.

At cbc.ca forum people say that the transferred workers retain their seniority and have no interruptions in benefits. I cannot verify if this is true. The situation is similar to that when a company is bought by another one. This is not a case of losing job. Interestingly that the Ontario government had to explain these payments. These confirms that this is not a normal situation of terminating employment. This clearly shows the difference in job compensation between private and public sectors.

What cocaine? Are you dreaming?

Please add choice of "over 100 thousand trillion dollars (CAD)" so that I can vote.

Guys, Sorry, but as I undestood from the CBC (!) website (oh, yes, it's Kady O'Malley ) http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/hey-remember-richard-colvin.html this fella is asking for ADDITIONAL money! He has been paid. "The Department of Foreign Affairs continues to cooperate with Mr. Colvin. An initial amount of $20,000 in legal support was approved by the department in November 2009. Two invoices submitted by his previous counsel amounting to just over $21,000 have been paid in full. A third invoice has since been received which exceeds the amount approved in November. The department is reviewing this invoice and will make a decision about payment in the near future. Since changing counsel, Mr. Colvin has not submitted an application for more funding. " Now his second lawyer demands more money. What is going on?!

Nope, Riverwind's arguments are typical for ANTI-conspiracy. It's a voice of a common sense.

1. The topic starter should refer to a dictionary or avoid using words unfamiliar to him. 2. The guy, Rick Simpson I guess, is not mentally healthy. It would be better for Canada if he stays in Europe forever. CBC in Halifax, NS broadcast about him at least twice this month.

There are more benefits for Harper to have this detainee circus running. The Colvin's letter clearly shows that he is unable to provide any new facts and he has no first-hand evidence. And explicitly accusing respectful warriors and diplomats in lying to the commision of the parliament without a killer documents is silly. The more the opposition beats this dead horse the more disappointment from the common public it will receive. The senate made itself an easy target for Harper's critique (now it can be attacks) too.

Richard Colvin a whistleblower? Gimme a break! He's a typical lazy bureaucrat, now covering his ass with a dozen or two of e-mails. The e-mails contain lots of crap describing the situation . One can derive whatever he wants from those reports, all of them are essentially gossips. All detainees might be abused or conditions in the Afgan prisons are excellent. That's why his reports were neglected, they were of little use. He never tried to be heard. Just sent e-mail showing his concern over the situation. Regardless what the situation was. Just to have a paper trail. On the other hand, I think there is nothing politcal in the Colvin's stand. Inspection came - papers shown. Bureaucratic bisiness as usual.

You definitely cannot read. Please, read what Dave On wrote about (and I responded to) and detract your irrelevant comment.

You do not understand how the stuff works. The Conservatives is a ruling party. They told "our platform is our policy". They did not need to release any platform. A platform is required when you want to change something. The Conservative's slogan was "Stability".

I expected an answer from you precisely like this. 100% liberal demagoguery. Prisons take money from old citizens and students! There are other ways of sentensing - leave criminals in front of bars! As expected it is impossible to argue with you in a rational way in this regard. But at least you must know that the Canadian budget comprises many other expenditures, not only schools and OAS.

Unbelievable! Or, maybe, very typical for certain persons here. So, your point is that if building a new prison is too costly in your opinion, we should rather let a criminal go? Or you will say, that we should use exiting jails and next day you will be crying crocodile tears about inhumane conditions for those unfortunate who happend to get in the jails. Am I correct?

So he admits that he did hide this important information when he applied and received his entry visa to Canada in 1997. And again, he joined KGB in 1982. He quit in 1988, if I am correct. With a rank of captain. He must be very good in his job. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Before that Lennikov had no problems with KGB. He moved to Canada in 1997, again without any problems. Why will he have problems in 2009 returning to Russia? He is definitely a lier.

Are you serious?! How do you know he was not sent by KGB? How do you know he will face punishment in Russia? Have you ever dealt with KGB? Have you ever been to Russia? Can you give any examples of "severe punishment" or "death" for former KGB operatives after collapse of the USSR? Let me tell you, the ideas you posted and shared by many are complete, 100% bullshit. There is a saying in Russia "there are no former KGB operatives", they never change. KGB never force anybody to join them. To work in KGB one MUST have a special mentality. Russian military officers never shake hands with KGB officers. It's a Soviet gestapo. The guy did a dirty job, spying for citizens. He had a rank of captain! It is an equivalent of a major in the army. It is not low-level. He did not disclose this during his immigration process. The guy is not telling truth right now, hoping all Canadians are as ignorant as you are. And his logics fails. If he has nothing to do with KGB, why he cannot return to Russia? If he has something to be affraid, Canada cannot keep him, because it is direct invitation for KGB successor to blackmail and re-engage him. But there is a good indicator of all his lies. If he had some unsettled issues with KGB, he would never obtain a Russian foreign passport to leave Russia in the first place. That is how the Russian passport system works. He is not a defector for sure.

You expessed your opinion and you have all rights to do so. In my opinion PP's conduct is totally appropriate and should be encouraged in the HoC. He said nothing wrong. If somebody feels offended, sorry, you cannot say truth and be nice to everybody at the same time. It is impossible. People are different. So there must be a level of tolerance in the society. And if liberals say they are offended by this absolutely neutral "tar baby" statement, they just show their intolerance, i.e., they do not belong to the civilization. By the way, did the Speaker repremand Pierre for his this statement? I think, no - you again cannot make ends meet. And what I like to read in your last post is that the PP's statement is now not racist, just inappropriate (in your opinion).

You pointed out a very valid point that our liberals have no idea about. For your knowledge: Racism is not an action. Racism is a theory, i.e., a though or an idea. There are human races on the Earth and they are different. There is nothing wrong in the indication of those differences or even studying them. Racism starts when the social differences among the races are explained by racial differences exclusively. And still, while it is a theory, it is not a crime. Quite opposite, forbidding expression of thoughts is a crime. (But not in liberal minds). The UN has nothing against racism. The problem and the evil is a RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. The racial discrimination is an action and is a serious crime. The UN is (as all normal people are) strongly against any form of racial discrimination. In this light, claiming Pierre Poilievre made "racist' comments is ridiculous. Where is comparison of human races in his words?! The "Tar baby" term was related to the carbon tax, not to a person! There was nothing in his comment related to a possibly (in view of liberals) undergraded race of that figurative baby. Just a father refusing to admit the baby is his. Is the term "tar baby" insulting for some people? May be. In the Southern States it would certainly be. In Nova Scotia - no way, it is just name for people from a certain area. The bleeding heart liberals are extremely sensitive for Concervatives' words (and are absolutely deaf for Liberals' deads - see Dhala scandal). You cannot say a word now without a claim of insulting some group of liberals or their suporters. Should we maintain silence? Of course not. Imagenary insult is not a crime and not a racism. One may accuse Pierre in anything but not in racism.

Because exactly at that time Harper tried to present himself as "the best friend of Aboriginals". He needed acceptance of his advance by chiefs. Pierre's interview explicitly showed the chiefs as at least incompetent. Harper did not want any tensions with Aboriginals and forced Pierre to apologize, though everybody understood that he said nothing wrong. These are rules of the game, i.e. Canadian politics. This has nothing to do with racism. (By the way, does every apology mean that the person was a racist?!) How nice! You have no idea what racism is, you are not able to show what in the comment was racist, but in your opinion Mr. Poilievre is a pure racist! As a typical liberal you are changing your position. Now the "Aboriginal interview" is not racist, but intolerant. Can you show what is intolerant in presenting statistics on the govermnent spending and respective Aboriginal achievements? Why my question as a taxpayer "I gave you billions of dollars for certain tasks, how did you spend it?" is intolerant? Pierre is not very sophisticated in machiavelian environment of the HoC. He says truth. I would be happy if we had more such people like Pierre in our parliament.

In the "tar baby" quote, the figurative speech is about an illegimate child, as I understood it, in relation to the carbon tax plan. Where is racism there? The colour of tar? Is the expression "tar sands" racist too? Your ideas about what is acceptable for the HoC looks very much arbitrary to me. Equally I can say that expression "tar sands" is offensive to Albertans and should not be used in the HoC (because it is at least not true). And please, stand to your claim: "Poilievre's racist comments have come up before." This was not "before". Regarding the "radio interview on June 11, 2008", it is not a quote or citation, it is interpretation made, as I strongly suspect, by a liberal heck in Wikipedia where everyone can put anything. We have discussed this Poilievre's announcement on the first nation's issue in 2008. What he actually said was just a truth. Bare, politically incorrect, but truth. There was critisism, not racism. He was worried about taxpayer's money. Claiming there was something racist is at least irresponsible. On the other hand, hiding millions of dollars of mis-spent money under the cover of "racism" shouting is a typical liberal's behaviour. In reality he said "That gets to the heart of the problem on these reserves where there is too much power concentrated in the hands of the leadership, and it makes you wonder where all of this money is going. We spend 10 billion dollars -- 10 billion dollars -- in annual spending this year alone now, that is an exceptional amount of money, and that is on top of all the resource revenue that goes to reserves that sit on petroleum products or sit on uranium mines, other things where companies have to pay them royalties. And that's on top of all that money that they earn on their own reserves. That is an incredible amount of money.'' What is racist here?! All the rest Wikipedia's insinuations has nothing to do with "racism", even you admitted it. Thus, sorry, you have no proof of "Poilievre's racist comments" in the past.