kimmy

You seem to be doing your level best to be disingenuous. First off, Shady referenced the Flickr photoset in response to the claims by the CBC writer that there were 20-50 vocal protesters, and you insist on having Shady prove that he himself was in Ottawa, as if Shady's presence on the scene were relevant to anything. Then when confronted with the photos and the narrative provided by the protester, you ask what was actually illegal. Well, falsely pulling a fire alarm is illegal. As is trespass. The protesters boast that they infiltrated the building through side entrances and evaded security guards, so certainly it was trespass. But that's completely beside the point. The point was, Kady O'Malley's claim as to the well-behaved nature of the protesters was refuted. The protesters themselves explaining that they'd infiltrated the building, and at one point over-ran the security staff, and documented the whole episode with photos. And with the evidence the protesters have provided, it appears that the cancellation of the event is entirely reasonable. Clearly the security had been compromised by people hostile to the event. We don't have proof that they intended any violence, but assuming their intentions to be completely peaceful would have been a big assumption that could have put peoples' safety at risk. -k

My hunch is that if Coulter had really expected violence, she'd have done the talk. Nothing would have been more beneficial to her pocketbook or more damaging to her opponents than if chaos had broken out. -k

oh come on. That is ridiculous. Nobody is saying that the cops shouldn't defend themselves, or that the guys they were innocent, or that the fight shouldn't have been broken up. The video starts with the guy in the yellow coat delivering kicks to the back of a guy who is already on the ground and restrained. The same guy goes and does the same later on. There was no justification for it. -k

The idea that the federal government had Nortel "disappeared" so that they could move into the Carling campus is utterly ludicrous, even by Topaz standards. My daddy worked for Nortel back in the heyday. Our family was among the thousands affected when Nortel slashed its ranks about 10 years ago. Funny accounting caught up with them... revenues were never what was claimed... the stock crashed to 2% of its former value within a few weeks... but by then the key executives had sold their stock options for tens of millions of dollars and made themselves scarce. I feel most badly for the thousands upon thousands of Canadian retirees whose financial portfolios depended on those Nortel stocks that proved to be all but worthless. There was a widely circulated e-mail about two people... one who invested in Nortel stocks and another who wasted his money on beer. The beer ultimately proved to be the better financial investment, as the empties were worth more than Nortel stocks. Dad was philosophical. Even though he'd relocated the family for what turned out to be just a couple of years of work, he got paid very well for it. He remains surprised that some of the people involved haven't seen jail time, however. -k

I heard on the news that this occurred after an 8-man brawl that the police had broken up. I still can't see any reason for the police to kick the man who appeared to be doing as ordered. He voluntarily sat down on the grass where the policeman said. Then as the one officer is cuffing him the other guy delivers a soccer kick to his ribs and a knee to the back. To me the fact that the guy had been complying makes the kicks completely unjustified. -k

No, the point of security is to keep those items off the plane. Again, I have yet to read anything affirming their right to take your property, except in the case where that item is illegal in Canada. You really want to live in a country where the authorities can arbitrarily seize your property? -k

I can't recall Coulter ever saying anything worth hearing, and I think she's all sizzle and no steak. It's all showmanship and no substance. The circus is in town. That said, those of you crying "hypocrite!" are out to lunch. Abusing a shoddy process is an ideal means of pointing out the inadequacies of that process, a legitimate form of protest. I don't actually see how she has a case, but I don't think that matters in the least. I'm sure that she's hoping and praying for such a thing to happen during this tour. It would exceed her wildest expectations. The letter from Francois Houle was a tepid start, the cancellation due to "fears for her personal safety" helps things a little, but an outright arrest would be off the charts, from her point of view. Alas, the Supreme Court disagrees with you... charter.whut?? -k

People voluntarily leave thousands of items at airline security each day, because the cost of replacing a pair of nail-clippers or a bottle of shampoo is not worth the time spent arguing about it. Now, suppose there was traveller with a $150 dollar bottle of Scotch, who didn't realize there was a 100mL limit. That traveller IS going to say "ok, give that back to me so that I can have the airline send it in checked baggage." You really think the security guy can say "no, this could be threatening. You can't have it back." How about a laptop? If he decided the laptop looked threatening, could he keep that too? How about if he decided that your wedding ring could be used as a weapon? -k

The idea that Quebecers are funding Albertans is pretty funny. -k

You seriously think the security staff have the right to just take stuff if it's not allowed on the plane? -k

If a bottle of tequila is dangerous, do you think the airport security guys should storm the duty-free shop? Have they been alerted to the grave threat just past the magazine shop?? He had to give it up (or make some other alternate arrangement), or they had to bar him from proceeding. If they'd taken it, they'd probably have been committing a crime. -k

Yeah? How about: "Ok, give it back to me and I will put it in a locker and pick it up on my return trip" or "ok, give it back to me and I will make arrangements with the airline to have it transported in checked baggage" or "Ok, give it back to me and I will give it to my wife who is over there waving goodbye" or "Ok, give it back to me and I will go pour it down a sink" Do you believe the security guy would have had a right to say no if Blackburn had opted to make one of these requests? -k

I think you already agreed that he had a number of choices. -k

I'm aware that historically there was a need to prove that "we're here" (as the slogan goes). But hasn't the need for "outrageous, confrontational, and over-the-top imagery" kind of disappeared? Hasn't the "enforced social invisibility" completely evaporated? It seems to me that the biggest issues facing gays right now aren't invisibility and legal issues, they're prejudice and bigotry and the views of people like Mr C... and I think the feather boas and dongs act does more harm than good. I'd also suggest that considering the promotion of Pride as a family event, an invitation to straight Canadians to participate and express their support (I think the word "allies" was mentioned...) I think that yeah, it does seem kind of like Pride is intended as a way of gathering mainstream support. That might not have been the historical reason for it, but it seems like that's the current reason for it. -k

There is a difference between "confiscated" and "voluntarily surrendered". If you go through an airport security station and they find pepper spray, that is *confiscated*. It's no longer your possession. You no longer have any say in what happens to that item. That is *confiscated*. If you go through the security station and they find a bottle of tequila, they don't *confiscate* it. Nothing I have read indicates that they may *confiscate* anything other than items that are *illegal* to possess in Canada (ie, the pepper spray.) That they will not allow you to proceed with the item in your possession does not mean that they have any right to *confiscate* the item. The item remains your property and you have a number of options (including voluntarily surrendering the item to the security desk, as MP Blackburn did.) The item was not *confiscated*, and MP Blackburn had a number of options. We know that he made two requests concerning his property: -please store this for me so I can retrieve it later. -please destroy this for me. Which are entirely reasonable requests. The fact that the airport security station was unable (or unwilling) to comply with those requests does not make them inherently unreasonable, it just means the security station was unable (or unwilling) to comply. -k

So your saying that immigrants are not necessarily traditional opponents of environmental causes, but the environmentalists have to get to them quick before the other side does? That interpretation rests on the assumption that immigrants are easily impressioned people who have no existing opinion on the subject. Also, I have to point out that he says "racial minorities", not "immigrants", and the two are hardly synonymous. -k

Did we establish that the security guard explain the options? All I saw in the news article is that the security guard refused to keep the bottle for him, and refused to empty it in his presence. Your own statement on the subject was that you "would laugh in their face if they asked for it back or started making demands of me to pour it out in front of them," so I'm skeptical of your new-found belief in the passengers' rights in this instance. Certainly. I'm just amused at the people-- yourself included-- who said that the security guard had the right to confiscate the bottle. -k

wooooow.... The pro-Israel group can't have an event, because they can't afford to pay for heavy security, because of a possibility that anti-Israel activists will create violence? That's just jaw-dropping. To think that people can silence speech in Canada by using the threat of violence, is absolutely stunning. I would love to see a news piece about this instead of just an editorial. If true, that's despicable. -k

Yourself and Nicky have both been using the word *confiscate*, and apparently quite deliberately. You yourself even linked to an article supporting the security staff's supposed right to *confiscate* stuff. So how am I twisting words? -k

I'm just skeptical of the premise that dressing up in hot-pink leotards and brandishing dongs at people is going to accomplish anything-- anything at all-- that's of benefit to the gay community in the 21st century. -k

"Not allowed beyond this point" and "subject to confiscation" mean two different things. I would be interested to see any information that says they have the right to *confiscate* anything that's not allowed into the secured area. I did see on Air Canada's website that any *illegal* items (they cite pepper spray as an example) found at the security check-in will not be returned to the passenger. If the security check-in guy says "You can't take this inside the secure area," that's one thing. I expect that if you replied with any of... "Ok, give it back to me and I will put it in a locker and pick it up on my return trip" or "ok, give it back to me and I will make arrangements with the airline to have it transported in checked baggage" or "Ok, give it back to me and I will give it to my wife who is over there waving goodbye" or "Ok, give it back to me and I will go pour it down a sink" ...he would have no option but to comply. I think that if he said "Sorry, it's mine now" I think that's basically outright theft. I am not sure that the demand that the security guy pour it out is as reasonable: unless there's a sink right there, what is going to do? Pour it on the floor? Leave his post to find a sink? I don't think that's realistic. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that the security guy had any right to take possession of the item just because it wasn't allowed into the secure area. As with the prior thread, I am surprised at Canadians' enthusiasm for authoritarian conduct. -k

HAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! I honestly hope one of you people does file a complaint with the RCMP over this, and I honestly hope it makes the news. Because that would be awesome. -k

Wouldn't that be a more useful objective than the ongoing shock-and-outrage theme that many still seem intent on? -k

I get business, labor, hook-and-bullet groups, and commercial fishermen... but why does he mention racial minorities among nontraditional supporters? I'm honestly baffled. Any clue what he's trying to say there? -k

(Globe and Mail) So, uh, so much for the claim that these rugged individualists have no expectation of people coming to rescue them when they undertake these activities. Other bits of comedy sprinkled in there as well. I liked the part where Mr McDonald is blaming the Revelstoke Snowmobile Society (which manages the parking lot and groomed trails), even though he himself later explains that they got the warnings and ignored them. -k