Helena Guergis Air Rage?

[Alta4ever]

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, but merely pointing out that if you are asked to remove them, you must, even if you are a big time MP.

If security asks you must obey, if you don't your not getting on the aircraft. I agree it doesn't matter who you are.

[Sir Bandelot]

This event demonstrates the hypocrisy of our system, where the elite get a "by" on breaking the rules. My vote is she should be removed, but maybe thats a bit harsh for a single incident that didn't get totally out of hand. Reprimanded, suspended, I don't know. Voters should remove her at the next opportunity. It also depends on how well she does in her job as an MP.

Greenthumb, I think you hit the nail on the head about her husbands hypocrisy over drug laws, and that he was caught drunk and probably stoned, in possession of cocaine. Coke is the drug of choice for the rich, and could be the reason why people who are arrested for coke possession are often treated more leniently by the legal "justice" system (quotes added...), while pot smokers and those who do crack (poor man's coke) often get harsher penalties.

BUT... I do not support your assertion that SHE should be drug tested in this case, as I oppose mandatory or random drug testing as an infringement of the rights of the individual, where there is no implication of drug involvement. In my view, everybody takes drugs to deal with their personal problems, whether that be illegal drugs, booze, cigarettes, prescription mood stabilizers, etc. I do not want to live in a police state where everyone gets tested for drugs that are outside of the definition of what somebody arbitrarily states should be allowed.

[msj]

This event demonstrates the hypocrisy of our system, where the elite get a "by" on breaking the rules. My vote is she should be removed, but maybe thats a bit harsh for a single incident that didn't get totally out of hand. Reprimanded, suspended, I don't know. Voters should remove her at the next opportunity. It also depends on how well she does in her job as an MP.

If I did the same thing that she did it likely wouldn't have even made the local newspaper, never mind the national media. No one would be screaming for my job (or, at least, I doubt I would lose many, if any, clients over doing the same thing - be embarrassed as hell if word got out, though).

Can anyone tell me how Helena is getting a "by" on this?

Yes, she has demonstrated a sense of entitlement, if you will, but she's not getting a bye.

Is it because they didn't taser her? Well, I think that has more to do with her being able to speak the language. How good for those of us who can speak English and how terrible for those who can't.

Is it because she didn't get thrown in jail or was allowed on the plane? Well, do we really know exactly what procedures and what discretion is allowed on a day to day basis?

What's that? The answer is "no, we don't have stinkin' clue." I thought so.

[Oleg Bach]

Drug testing? How about checking for stupid juice that flow though the veins of some people.

[Guest American Woman]

His post doesn't explain anything it just shows his vitriol.

He does explain it. Whether you agree with his views or not, whether you like him as a poster or not, his question wasn't hypocritical.

As for the Her reaction to the the request, it was unwarrented and wrong. I have posted this several times in the thread. It has been addressed, now I am demanding that Green thumb retract the accusation and apologize.

He didn't make an accusation; he asked a question. Here's the thing: her behavior was totally out of line, and not the norm. So as a public figure, do citizens have the right to question why she would behave in such a way, and question if there are reasons? I would say so. Again, he's never accused her; simply questioned it. He has that right.

[Oleg Bach]

looks like we all have the right to say "what are you nuts?"

[Guest American Woman]

Your quotes says you maybe ask and your are required to comply when you are. Flying in the US it is automatic everyone takes off their shoes at security

Her boots set off the metal detector, so I think when that happens, it's pretty standard procedure to be asked to remove them.

[Oleg Bach]

Her boots set off the metal detector, so I think when that happens, it's pretty standard procedure to be asked to remove them.

She has metal boots? DON'T want to upset this person..might kick the crap out of you--I bet that any boot that has a metal inlay in the soul is expensive. How do you know it was the boots--it might have been the stainless steel teeth.

[Guest American Woman]

If I did the same thing that she did it likely wouldn't have even made the local newspaper, never mind the national media. No one would be screaming for my job (or, at least, I doubt I would lose many, if any, clients over doing the same thing - be embarrassed as hell if word got out, though).

Of course it wouldn't have made the news if you did it. I doubt if anything you do does. You're not a government official.

As for people screaming for your job:

....former Progressive Conservative housing minister Alan Redway was forced to resign in 1991 after he was charged for joking about having a gun while boarding a flight. link

There are generally different standards for government officials than there are the average Joe, and with good reason.

But if you had done it, I doubt you would have even been at your job the next day:

Once she cleared security, Guergis allegedly tried to force open a locked door from the pre-boarding area on to the tarmac, where her plane was waiting. Told to wait for an Air Canada representative, Guergis and her aide instead began "screaming and hammering on the soundproof tinted glass that separates pre-board from airside," apparently hoping to catch the attention of an airline representative. link

You honestly believe they would have let you on the plane after doing that? And you'd be lucky if being denied boarding was all that happened to you.

[Smallc]

Can you provide me with a link to that information? I never read that they were "airport cops;" from what I read, the RCMP was called to the scene.

You are correct. They were normal RCMP officers. I don't think there is a lower class of RCMP officer.

[Oleg Bach]

You are correct. They were normal RCMP officers. I don't think there is a lower class of RCMP officer.

There is a former RCMP officer that I know is a recovering herion addict..actually quite a stupid simple man...he means well- doubt if he was the best on the force and maybe there is a class or cast system within the RCMP?

[msj]

Of course it wouldn't have made the news if you did it. I doubt if anything you do does. You're not a government official.

So, government officials don't get byes then, do they?

After all, I wouldn't be nationally shamed by such antics.

Oh, and love the tone there AW.

As for people screaming for your job:

There are generally different standards for government officials than there are the average Joe, and with good reason.

So, she isn't getting a bye, then is she?

Thanks for proving my point.

But if you had done it, I doubt you would have even been at your job the next day:

Once she cleared security, Guergis allegedly tried to force open a locked door from the pre-boarding area on to the tarmac, where her plane was waiting. Told to wait for an Air Canada representative, Guergis and her aide instead began "screaming and hammering on the soundproof tinted glass that separates pre-board from airside," apparently hoping to catch the attention of an airline representative. link

You honestly believe they would have let you on the plane after doing that? And you'd be lucky if being denied boarding was all that happened to you.

I honestly don't know.

And that's the point.

If Joe/Jane average does this and gets away with it then we don't hear about it.

If Helena does it and gets away with it (at the time) then we do hear about it.

She isn't getting a bye on it since she is being publicly humiliated and she is expected to resign her position, which is something that would not happen to Joe/Jane average.

[Guest American Woman]

So, government officials don't get byes then, do they?

After all, I wouldn't be nationally shamed by such antics.

Oh, and love the tone there AW.

"Tone?"

And no, evidently government officials don't get byes, as I cited.

Again, of course you wouldn't be nationally shamed by such antics. You wouldn't be nationally shamed over an affair, either. That's the difference between being a public official and being Joe Citizen.

So, she isn't getting a bye, then is she?

Thanks for proving my point.

You'll have to explain what you mean by that. I'm not getting it. She's getting a bye if there are no repercussions for her actions, so I'm confused as to what you're getting at.

I honestly don't know.

And that's the point.

If Joe/Jane average does this and gets away with it then we don't hear about it.

Generally we do hear about it even when Joe/Jane average tries to break into locked airport security doors; I recall hearing about such incidents at airports. It generally holds up security for hours, and the people weren't allowed on the plane; they were detained. Quite frankly, she was lucky to be let on at all after arriving so late, even without the screaming, yelling, and banging.

If Helena does it and gets away with it (at the time) then we do hear about it.

As we should.

She isn't getting a bye on it since she is being publicly humiliated and she is expected to resign her position, which is something that would not happen to Joe/Jane average.

She isn't being "publicly humiliated;" what she said/did is simply being reported. If she's humiliated by it, she did that to herself, and she has no one to blame but herself. If she doesn't resign/isn't forced to resign, of course she got a bye on it. She was even allowed on the plane.

Edited February 27, 2010 by American Woman

[William Ashley]

Guys... come on. She shouldn't be treated like a pleb,she's an MP for Pete's sake. She's entitled to her entitlements, just ask her.

She got onto the flight.. most people who freak out on airline staff get banned from flying for life.

Edited February 27, 2010 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

"Tone?"

And no, evidently government officials don't get byes, as I cited.

Again, of course you wouldn't be nationally shamed by such antics. You wouldn't be nationally shamed over an affair, either. That's the difference between being a public official and being Joe Citizen.

You'll have to explain what you mean by that. I'm not getting it. She's getting a bye if there are no repercussions for her actions, so I'm confused as to what you're getting at.

Generally we do hear about it even when Joe/Jane average tries to break into closed airport doors; I recall hearing about such incidents at airports. It generally holds up security for hours, and the people weren't allowed on the plane; they were detained. Quite frankly, she was lucky to be let on at all after arriving so late, even without the screaming, yelling, and banging.

As we should.

She isn't being "publicly humiliated;" what she said/did is simply being reported. If she's humiliated by it, she did that to herself, and she has no one to blame but herself. If she doesn't resign/isn't forced to resign, of course she got a bye on it. She was even allowed on the plane.

Reminds me of the events that led up too Obama's beer summit- key phrase might have been "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"

[msj]

"Tone?"

Sorry, just poking some fun at your little comment about me never doing anything that would make the news.

You know nothing of me and yet you speak, just like on this and so many issues, like you have complete grasp and authority over the facts. Just poking some more fun at you and some others with this comment, nothing more.

And no, evidently government officials don't get byes, as I cited.

Again, of course you wouldn't be nationally shamed by such antics. You wouldn't be nationally shamed over an affair, either. That's the difference between being a public official and being Joe Citizen.

Oh, I appreciate that difference.

I think it is others here who don't appreciate it and feel that we must tear apart our public officials at every little misstep and mistake they make.

You'll have to explain what you mean by that.

Methinks I deleted too much and forgot to add something to that line. Can't remember what I meant to say... hey, it happens to us nobodies.

I'm not getting it. She's getting a bye if there are no repercussions for her actions, so I'm confused as to what you're getting at.

What I'm getting at is that she is facing consquences for her actions.

Are they too late? Probably.

Would joe average still be in the news and talked about on message boards? No way.

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it and share in her humiliation.

I just think that people do go overboard on it like the good Dr. and the good Sir.

Generally we do hear about it even when Joe/Jane average tries to break into closed airport doors; I recall hearing about such incidents at airports. It generally holds up security for hours, and the people weren't allowed on the plane; they were detained. Quite frankly, she was lucky to be let on at all after arriving so late, even without the screaming, yelling, and banging.

Sure, we do hear about incidents and that's great anecdotal evidence.

But do we about about cases where discretion is used (whether properly or improperly)?

No, we don't.

For all we know, a case like this comes up every once in a while with some nobody like me and the attitude is to process the twit quickly to get him/her out of there.

Yes, I do believe that that happens.

I also believe that sometimes a public official does get special treatment at times based on the people dealing with that person at that moment in time.

IOW, it is split decisions being made (poorly perhaps) by individuals which is not the same thing as systemic favoritism.

The extent that people feel that we must make this a top "news" story and carry it on and on also shows the opposite - the fact that she is a public official means that she is getting far more scrutiny where the media and spinmeisters will make a mountain out of a molehill.

It is the degree that you and I are disagreeing about, if you will.

She isn't being "publicly humiliated;" what she said/did is simply being reported. If she's humiliated by it, she did that to herself, and she has no one to blame but herself. If she doesn't resign/isn't forced to resign, of course she got a bye on it. She was even allowed on the plane.

To the extent that a story that really should be at the very back of the newspaper is being splashed about, is one of the top stories on the radio, etc... no, I don't think it is simply being reported as news.

The story is not that remarkable given that we all have bad days and, for some of us, they happen at unfortunate public moments that the media then spin relentlessly.

She has had her shame flogging, she hopefully has learned a lesson or two here, so let's move on to some real news that really matters.

[eyeball]

She isn't getting a bye on it since she is being publicly humiliated and she is expected to resign her position, which is something that would not happen to Joe/Jane average.

I think Joe and Jane could expect at the very least a charge of disturbing the peace and given the sensitive nature of the setting, a conviction with a correspondingly high sentence or fine. Road rage is certainly no laughing matter to anyone who's been subjected to it and given the disturbed times we live in airplane or airport rage is probably more disturbing because of it. If this was any other politician than a Conservative I would expect Conservatives to be calling for a heavy application of the law in the name of public order and deterring anyone from un-necessarily upsetting it at an airport.

If there is a drug analogy anywhere in this story to exploit I'd point out that selling drugs within 2 blocks of a school warrants a higher sentence because of the perceived danger or threat, perhaps disturbing the peace in an airport should too for the same reason.

Airport check-in screeners say they have won the backing of Qantas chiefs to refuse to let on board unruly passengers who insult security workers.

The Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union said it had held lengthy meetings with the airline, and were now hoping for a similar commitment from other airlines.

The union's assistant national secretary, Joanne Schofield, said "airport rage" at the screening barrier was an increasing problem, with members being physically threatened.

The union is lobbying for charges to be laid against a female passenger for a "particularly ugly incident" with a screener. The row led to a 45-minute staff walkout.

Airport officials say that while in-cabin rage incidents are on the decline, incidents in airport terminals are increasing.

Link

[Oleg Bach]

To much talk - taze her taze her taze her~ A jolt of reality never hurt anyone...well maybe that big oaf Pole..seems that big strong men are smacked down because of their sex and size while brass and elite females get to rule the hen house.

[kimmy]

I don't believe anyone's saying that what happened to Robert Dziekanski was "reasonable;" just pointing out the huge discrepancies between what happens to some in comparison to others, because the fact is, not detaining Guergis, not holding her accountable for her outburst in an airport, isn't reasonable, either.

I agree that Guergis should have been held accountable for her behavior.

However, I can't accept people saying "she's lucky she didn't get tazered, like that other guy". Because what happened to that other guy was a complete and total abomination. If Canadians have started thinking that they're lucky each time they encounter the RCMP without getting tazered and stepped on, there is something profoundly wrong with this country.

I will say this, though; if Dziekanski hadn't died, which is hardly the norm with tazing, I'm guessing a lot more people would say it was "reasonable" to taze someone who was out of control in an airport. Nothing like hindsight vision to be able to determine what was, or wasn't, reasonable in a given situation.

I realize that you probably have not followed this issue closely. However, if you do some reading about the Dziekanski incident, and the findings of the Braidwood inquiry, I think you'll probably agree that there's nothing remotely reasonable about the RCMP's conduct before, during, or after the death of Robert Dziekanski.

The four officers involved:

-discussed using the tazer before they arrived on the scene.

-used the tazer even though Dziekanski made no physically threatening gestures at all

-failed to provide first aid once they realized he was in medical distress

-conspired together to get their stories straight

-provided testimony blatantly false to a judicial inquiry

The RCMP itself:

-knowingly issued false statements to the media regarding the incident

-seized the video of the incident and only returned it when forced to by court action

-cleared the four officers of wrongdoing and had them back on the street with no consequences

-opposed the inquiry with every legal means at their disposal

-concealed key evidence from the inquiry

I don't think I can find words to express how abhorrent I find all of this. I can't recall anything that has been more disgusting to me as a Canadian citizen than the conduct of the RCMP in this incident, and I can't think of anything that has done as much to undermine my trust in our law enforcement officials.

AW, You seem to be very interested in events in Canada, so I'd invite you to read about it for yourself... on the surface this might look like an unfortunate accident, but I think it has significance that goes far beyond the death of one man.

We've had some threads about this here and here if you're interested in some of the prior discussions.

-k

[kimmy]

The RCMP officers who tazed Robert Dziekanski were not "line officers". They were lower paid "airport cops". They were indeed within the RCMP organization but not subject to the same hiring standards or frankly, expectations of intelligence.

That's simply not true. These were regular RCMP constables called in by airport officials.

You'll be happy to know that not only is Constable Millington, the guy with the tazer, on active duty keeping Toronto safe, he's also suing the CBC because the CBC's reporting of the Dziekanski incident was "embarrassing" and "stressful" for him.

If anyone thinks that any organization is perfect, ie: any set of employees is perfect, then they are delusional. More often than not, however, they are capable and competent and the stats would prove that, because if If they weren't, there would be a lot more incidents like Dziekanski, as well as successful terrorist attempts, than there are.

There ARE a lot more incidents like Dziekanski... few result in fatalities, and even fewer are captured on video, so there's little coverage.

While I in no way place them on a 'totally competent' pedestal, I believe for the most part they are keeping us safer than we would otherwise be.

For the most part they're fine people. However, a fine organization would not go to such lengths to cover up for some "bad apples" in their ranks.

-k

[Alta4ever]

He does explain it. Whether you agree with his views or not, whether you like him as a poster or not, his question wasn't hypocritical.

It is because he would be screaming bloody murder if he was asked to submit to a drug test because he got a little cranky in an airport, and his spouse has a pending drug charge.

[Wild Bill]

That's simply not true. These were regular RCMP constables called in by airport officials.

-k

No argument! I guess you missed the end of my post:

"Post Script: This link proves what I had read in the papers about the officers is wrong! Here it is:

http://www.cpc-cpp.g...2-eng.aspx#toc3

The link plainly shows they were regular RCMP officers. Still, that's even more reason they should have known better! "

No need to keep at me! I'm not like some of the posters here who can never say he was wrong!

I do feel that I have the right to point out that the original error came from a newspaper reporter. I didn't make it up! I had thought that by avoiding the CBC and the Toronto Star I would've been safe from such things but I guess I wasn't.

[DrGreenthumb]

It is because he would be screaming bloody murder if he was asked to submit to a drug test because he got a little cranky in an airport, and his spouse has a pending drug charge.

No it isn't hypocritical for me to say that because nowhere have I ever endorsed any government having the power to do drug testing. I simply asked if she should be tested. If it was Tommy Chong freaking out in an airport, conservatives would be lining up in here saying that he should have been drug tested. I only wanted to see if Conservatives would apply the same standards to themselves, and they obviously don't. Since her party takes a "tough on drugs" stance, and advocates harsh penalties for drug use including mandatory prison time, she shouldn't mind providing a hair or cup of pee at the whim of agents of the state should she?. Her husband is currently plea bargaining his cocaine possession charges away, something he decried when he was a Conservative MP. He attacked Jack Layton for taking a decrim stance on cannabis, yet he was a drug user himself. That is a hypocrite. All I'm saying is that those people that advocate tough on drugs policies for the rest of us should be first in line to have their rights violated in the name of the drug war.

I also don't think that my suspicion that cocaine or alcohol use was involved in this incident is totally unfounded. Her husband has already been caught with cocaine, and while driving drunk. It is not a stretch to suspect that these are habits they share. Most often married couples indulge in these things together. Behaving irrationally and flying into a rage is typical cocaine -user behavior. If I was an airport security officer, or cop and part of my job was to try and make sure drugs did not get trafficked on their planes, she would be a prime suspect for a search. Especially because she seemed determined to bypass normal security protocols. I would think hmmm is this lady's husband is accused of cocaine possession, she thinks she can breeze through security, and gets really distraught when she can't. A regular citizen would be damn lucky not to end up getting a strip and body cavity search in simalar circumstances. I don't like that, but its not my drug war, its the Conservative's drugwar.

[Alta4ever]

No it isn't hypocritical for me to say that because nowhere have I ever endorsed any government having the power to do drug testing. I simply asked if she should be tested. If it was Tommy Chong freaking out in an airport, conservatives would be lining up in here saying that he should have been drug tested. I only wanted to see if Conservatives would apply the same standards to themselves, and they obviously don't. Since her party takes a "tough on drugs" stance, and advocates harsh penalties for drug use including mandatory prison time, she shouldn't mind providing a hair or cup of pee at the whim of agents of the state should she?. Her husband is currently plea bargaining his cocaine possession charges away, something he decried when he was a Conservative MP. He attacked Jack Layton for taking a decrim stance on cannabis, yet he was a drug user himself. That is a hypocrite. All I'm saying is that those people that advocate tough on drugs policies for the rest of us should be first in line to have their rights violated in the name of the drug war.

I also don't think that my suspicion that cocaine or alcohol use was involved in this incident is totally unfounded. Her husband has already been caught with cocaine, and while driving drunk. It is not a stretch to suspect that these are habits they share. Most often married couples indulge in these things together. Behaving irrationally and flying into a rage is typical cocaine -user behavior. If I was an airport security officer, or cop and part of my job was to try and make sure drugs did not get trafficked on their planes, she would be a prime suspect for a search. Especially because she seemed determined to bypass normal security protocols. I would think hmmm is this lady's husband is accused of cocaine possession, she thinks she can breeze through security, and gets really distraught when she can't. A regular citizen would be damn lucky not to end up getting a strip and body cavity search in simalar circumstances. I don't like that, but its not my drug war, its the Conservative's drugwar.

There is no evidence of drug use by her it is a completely unfounded claim. What her Husband did is not a different matter and the conservatives have neither sought or asked for special treatment for her husband. (he needs to pay for the crime alleged if found guilty)

You need to stop this child like behaviour suck it up and apologize.

This is not about Jaffer it is about Helena, it is garbage that you attribute his actions to her when their is no evidence.

I hope she manages to find this thread and sues your ass for liable.

[capricorn]

It is not a stretch to suspect that these are habits they share. Most often married couples indulge in these things together.

DrG, if serial killers can hide their crimes from their wives, it's not a stretch to conclude cocaine users can hide it from their wives.

A couple of examples but there are many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Glover

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/serialkillers/olsonstory.htm

Add to this the accused killer Russell Williams who has yet to be tried. All indications are his wife was in the dark about his double life.

I would think hmmm is this lady's husband is accused of cocaine possession, she thinks she can breeze through security, and gets really distraught when she can't.

How do you know the security staff involved was even aware about Jaffer's cocaine alleged crime? If they did not know, why would they be prompted to test or search her for drugs?