Helena Guergis Air Rage?

[waldo]

Because YOU say so? Irrational rage is a classic symptom of coke use.

of course, simply because the Hon Conservative Minister, Ms. Gergis' husband (former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer) is accused of cocaine possession, one should not, by association, assume Ms. Gergis would be aware of her husband's (alleged) cocaine use. Similarly, one should not, by association, assume that even if Ms. Gergis knew about her husbands (alleged) cocaine use, she would similarly partake. (I certainly trust I've not said anything that would have Altaboy suggesting defamation/litigation is warranted).

[kimmy]

I wonder to what extent my reaction to this story is more relaxed than others because of my restaurant experience.

Well, you might think my experience in the service biz would make me sympathetic to workers who got crapped on by an irate customer.

But instead I find myself sitting here snickering at the crybaby security staff who are apparently still "reeling" because the mean woman yelled at them and finding it somewhat satisfying that at least somebody is yelling at the security people. And most of all wishing that I were a "very important person" or even a "slightly important person" so that I could have stood up to the security scumbags who humiliated me when I went through LBP airport last year.

I mean, I know I'm supposed to feel appalled at Ms Guergis' behavior, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for the poor abused airport security staff... but you know, I guess it's kind of like hearing that some notorious criminal got beat up in prison. You know what happened is wrong, but it's hard to find a whole lot of sympathy for him.

My wife had worse experiences (likely because she's a she). At one place she was the only server who never cried despite serving the golf ladies on a regular basis (golf ladies are from hell and make Helena look like a cupcake - by far the biggest beotchs I have every met in my life).

And yes, if you are a table of ladies going out and you are being served by a female, you are likely being discriminated against because the odds are you and your lady friends are being catty beotchs (and that's paraphrasing my wife in a nice way).

Well, in my experience, when I have problem customers they're almost always female.

To touch on something Oleg mentioned a little while ago, I think men tend to realize that if they get aggressive, they're going to be treated like a threat. (ie, a bouncer is probably coming over.) By contrast a lot of women seem to think they can do whatever they feel like because they're just not used to being confronted for their behavior.

-k

[Wild Bill]

Well, in my experience, when I have problem customers they're almost always female.

-k

If you've worked as a waitress I'll bet you could say more about female customers, Kimmy. I've heard from many, many, many waiters and waitresses that women are almost always the very worst of tippers!

Perhaps you could confirm...

[Sir Bandelot]

If you've worked as a waitress I'll bet you could say more about female customers, Kimmy. I've heard from many, many, many waiters and waitresses that women are almost always the very worst of tippers!

Perhaps you could confirm...

Comparing the problems of a waitress or some other such service when dealing with irate customers, to the responsibilities and risks implied for airline staff when dealing with a beligerent passenger?

Oh the banality...

[msj]

Comparing the problems of a waitress or some other such service when dealing with irate customers, to the responsibilities and risks implied for airline staff when dealing with a beligerent passenger?

Oh the banality...

I take back my award to you earlier for being the "most helpful poster."

Instead, you have been Knighted "Sir Intellectual Dishonesty of the Helena Guergis thread."

Thank you, Sir ID!

[kimmy]

Comparing the problems of a waitress or some other such service when dealing with irate customers, to the responsibilities and risks implied for airline staff when dealing with a beligerent passenger?

Oh the banality...

Yeah? You make it sound like you're under the impression that these people might end up in gunfights with terrorists on any given day.

I deal with drunk young adults constantly, belligerent drunk young adults frequently, often threatened with physical violence, occasionally involved in physical altercations, and have even had customers wait around for me to leave work because they wanted to confront me.

These guys? These guys work with the safety of a heavy police presence nearby, and they deal with a public who is so scared of them that most people won't even say boo. A woman swearing at them and angrily slamming her boots into the x-ray tray is, apparently, the worst thing that has ever happened to them, and it has apparently scarred them so badly that they were still crying about it a week later. What a bunch of crybabies.

Having the power to say "you're not flying today, and if your not careful the RCMP are going to stomp your ass" guarantees that almost nobody who passes through their terminal is going to object to anything they say. In what other situation could workers treat people the way I was treated and not have people object?

-k

Edited March 1, 2010 by kimmy

[eyeball]

Having the power to say "you're not flying today, and if your not careful the RCMP are going to stomp your ass" guarantees that almost nobody who passes through their terminal is going to object to anything they say. In what other situation could workers treat people the way I was treated and not have people object?

-k

Many situations. I'm sure it happens all the time. If workers do put their foot down in these situations I think it's reasonable to conclude that customers will get the message and they'll think twice before stepping out of line. If workers are not putting their foot down when they're supposed to they're not really doing their jobs. There's no smoking allowed anywhere on the passenger boats I drive and I announce that as were leaving but every so often there's someone who doesn't care or understand English. If you don't do something about it you can soon expect other passengers to either give you a WTF look or they start lighting up themselves.

In this case I think there's good cause for both Helena Guergis and the airport staff to bear a dressing down for the action and inaction that transpired.

[DrGreenthumb]

The real story here is that Helena Guergis feels that she should not be subjected to the same rules and regulations she and other Conservative MP's expect the rest of us peasants to put up with. How would she have reacted to a request to enter John Baird's naked scanner? SHe freaked out over being asked to remove her shoes. These Conservatives think they are above the law, or that the laws are only meant to apply to the peasants and common folk. Just like her husband who ran attack ads critisizing Jack Layton for suggesting cannabis decrim, all the while being a drug user himself. Mr Jaffer and Helena Guergis advocate harsh prison sentences for us peasants but feel that their own behaviour is acceptable. Rahim Jaffer, a coke user, railed against stopping the practice of criminally charging those who use cannabis, a much safer, less addictive substance. His wife, Helena Guergis felt she had the right to freak out and act abusively to airport staff when she was asked to remove her friggin shoes, meanwhile her party is introducing scanners that us peasants will be expected to walk through while they take naked pics of us. Why does she feel that she is above the rest of the Canadian population?

Did she have something on her that she was afraid of security finding?

[Wild Bill]

These Conservatives think they are above the law, or that the laws are only meant to apply to the peasants and common folk.

You keep doing this! Man, are you blinkered!

Another News Flash! Lots of politicians from ALL parties think they're above the law! Were you asleep through all the Chretien years?

And don't get me started about the NDP! I have first hand knowledge of one of their most respected members carrying on an affair with my friend's sister when she was under age.

As long as you think that only one party can do evil you are going to spend your life being led around by the nose...

[Smallc]

And don't get me started about the NDP! I have first hand knowledge of one of their most respected members carrying on an affair with my friend's sister when she was under age.

She was under 16? Or if this was a few years ago, 14?

[Wild Bill]

She was under 16? Or if this was a few years ago, 14?

It was in the early 70's. She was 14. In those days reporters didn't publish such stories. Nowadays of course, everything is fair game.

He had her set up in an apartment in Ottawa. Strung her along for a few years, then dumped her and went back to his wife.

[Smallc]

It was in the early 70's. She was 14. In those days reporters didn't publish such stories. Nowadays of course, everything is fair game.

He had her set up in an apartment in Ottawa. Strung her along for a few years, then dumped her and went back to his wife.

Well that's gross. Seriously though, people of all political stripes break laws.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

Well that's gross. Seriously though, people of all political stripes break laws.

Obviously! That's why I get so frustrated with one-note Tommies like our Dr. Greenthumb, who make sweeping generalizations of how "Conservatives do this!" and "Conservatives do that!"

Some people seem to pick their politicians like they would pick a Billy Graham or a Jim Baker. Their church can do no wrong and any one from another church must be evil.

I've noticed over the years that the more Left someone is the more likely and the more intensely they seem to think in this way. I have no cites to support this premise. Just my personal observations. Still, they've served me well. Some folks are more logical and some are more intuitive. Some have confidence based on evidence and reason and others have "faith".

[Smallc]

I would say that what you're talking about can be seen from all partisans or ideologues. Whether you see it more from one side or another probably depends on where you sit on the spectrum.

[kimmy]

I think a couple of the comments from opposition members bear mention as well:

Liberals call for inquiry

The Liberal Party has filed an Access to Information request for copies of the security video tapes of the February 19th episode involving Minister Guergis’ attack on airport personnel and her inappropriate attempts to force open locked gates. The Liberals have also asked for copies of any incident reports filed by CATSA or any other airport authority.

Liberal Status of Women Critic Anita Neville, who called for Minister Guergis’ resignation on Friday, said the government cannot simply sweep this incident under the rug. Ms. Guergis – who is Minister of State for the Status of Women – could have violated Canadian Aviation Regulations with argumentative, belligerent, and disorderly conduct that could have put passenger safety at risk.

While the intent is obviously to further embarrass Guergis, I think it's worth pointing out that the stated intent is actually an investigation into whether the airport security staff are competent. Neville is alleging that allowing Guergis to fly may have violated regulations and placed passengers at risk, so the real claim here is that the airport security staff failed to do their job. Perhaps she should apologize to the ground staff as well, or change the language of her claim.

Pat Martin speaks out

"She acted like a petulant child. I think she should be forced to resign because she showed such contempt for ordinary Canadians and the people of that province (Prince Edward Island) that I think she has lost the moral authority to be a minister of the Crown," said NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre).

Martin said if anyone else displayed that kind of behaviour they would at least have been taken aside and probably not allowed to board the airplane, and, at worst, arrested and possibly Tasered.

I did not care for MLW forum members suggesting that a tasering would be an appropriate response to someone who raised her voice and swore. But I'm quite appalled to hear an MP echoing that view.

-k

[DrGreenthumb]

I think a couple of the comments from opposition members bear mention as well:

Liberals call for inquiry

While the intent is obviously to further embarrass Guergis, I think it's worth pointing out that the stated intent is actually an investigation into whether the airport security staff are competent. Neville is alleging that allowing Guergis to fly may have violated regulations and placed passengers at risk, so the real claim here is that the airport security staff failed to do their job. Perhaps she should apologize to the ground staff as well, or change the language of her claim.

Pat Martin speaks out

I did not care for MLW forum members suggesting that a tasering would be an appropriate response to someone who raised her voice and swore. But I'm quite appalled to hear an MP echoing that view.

-k

I don't see him suggesting that tazering is an appropriate remedy to the situation kimmy. Quite the opposite. All he is pointing out is that MRS Guergis expected special treatment, and got it. He is as much critisizing the hyper sensitivety at our airports security for regular folk as he is critisizing Mrs Gueris' expectation of speciaol treatment, and her getting it.

[Alta4ever]

I don't see him suggesting that tazering is an appropriate remedy to the situation kimmy.

No but apparently accusing her of drug use is.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm not accusing her, I'm saying her behaviour begs suspicion. Those people who advocate harsh drug policies should be the first to face scrutiny. Her husband being caught in possession of cocaine and her irrational rage problem beg the question.

[M.Dancer]

Those people who advocate harsh drug policies should be the first to face scrutiny.

I have never heard her advocating harsh drug policies.

[Sir Bandelot]

Liberal Status of Women Critic Anita Neville, who called for Minister Guergis’ resignation on Friday, said the government cannot simply sweep this incident under the rug. Ms. Guergis – who is Minister of State for the Status of Women – could have violated Canadian Aviation Regulations with argumentative, belligerent, and disorderly conduct that could have put passenger safety at risk.

it's worth pointing out that the stated intent is actually an investigation into whether the airport security staff are competent. Neville is alleging that allowing Guergis to fly may have violated regulations and placed passengers at risk, so the real claim here is that the airport security staff failed to do their job.

Well well well. Seems that "Sir ID" is not that far off base after all. Because there's the facts, as in the policies and guidelines from Transport Canada, and then there's the opinions of the partisans. See, when you have the facts, you don't need to argue. Just wait for the truth to come out.

[msj]

Well well well. Seems that "Sir ID" is not that far off base after all. Because there's the facts, as in the policies and guidelines from Transport Canada, and then there's the opinions of the partisans. See, when you have the facts, you don't need to argue. Just wait for the truth to come out.

Well, Sir ID, you continue to live up to your new dubbing! Good for you, you keener!

Anyway, I look forward to any investigation to see if it will lead to changes so that the policy truly becomes "zero tolerance" since, as per the rules you have provided links to, it clearly is NOT ZT right now.

Read your own links, again and again, if you want evidence.

It would be funny that such a little incident would be responsible for this review but better it's a small, harmless, incident than a big, harmful, one.

Edited to add:

And one more thing, SID:

For a Liberal to call for an investigation is clearly partisan.

Just because you happen to agree with the partisan doesn't make it any less partisan.

I do note, however, that even Liberal critic Anita Neville is using words like:

"I am calling on Minister Baird to look into these potential violations,..." and

"though Canadian regulations say that her level of verbal abuse and disorderly conduct could result in a criminal record, hefty fines or even imprisonment."

Edited March 2, 2010 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

I did not care for MLW forum members suggesting that a tasering would be an appropriate response to someone who raised her voice and swore. But I'm quite appalled to hear an MP echoing that view.

As has already been pointed out to you, no one on the forum has suggested that tasering would be an appropriate response. Fact is, Martin didn't in any way suggest tasering would be an appropriate response, either.

Furthermore, Guergis did more than "raise her voice and [swear]." She was shouting, which goes beyond 'raising one's voice,' and she tried to gain entry to the boarding area through a locked door and she "hammered" on the glass separating her from the boarding area.

I find it odd, at best, that you would reduce her behavior to 'raising her voice and swearing' while accusing people of saying tasering would be an appropriate response.

Edited March 2, 2010 by American Woman

[PIK]

Do the liberals really care about anybody but themselves. Why not come up with a plan to run the country instead of this constant gottcha politics.

[Smallc]

Why not come up with a plan to run the country instead of this constant gottcha politics.

Why not come up with an argument rather than just spouting talking points.

[M.Dancer]

Furthermore, Guergis did more than "raise her voice and [swear]." She was shouting, which goes beyond 'raising one's voice,

It is a boon to the entire forum that we have someone who is able to make picayune distinctions between raising ones voice and shouting. I for one didn't even know that there was one.

|for the record, what is the decibel cut off point between raising your voice, shouting, screaming, shrieking, screeching bellowing, clamouring, caterwauling and of course vociferating?

I trust you will grace the bvoard with an answer.