Helena Guergis Air Rage?

[DrGreenthumb]

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.

I'll send her a link to it myself. I don't give a shit what she thinks about it. I don't care what you think either. There is nothing slanderous or libelous in my statement. I never said she was on drugs. I asked if she she acted like someone who was. I still say that I think she acted like someone who is coke raging. That it not a lie , or a slander it is my opinion. No matter how mad she was at having to be treated like any other citizen would be, a rational person in her position would NEVER have acted like that in the airport, especially knowing that her position as a minister could cause the incident to get a lot of attention. The behaviour was not brief, it lasted several minutes or longer. That leads me to suspect that she could have been on or coming down from cocaine. I am not saying she WAS on cocaine, only that I suspect it, due to the extent of her irrational behaviour. Throw in the fact that like it her not her association with a KNOWN COCAINE USER(her husband)makes her bhaviour all the more suspicious. Go ahead and tell me that Marc Emery's wife wouldn't be treated with more than normal suspicion when boarding a plane? People know her husband uses drugs and one might suspect she was transporting some for him, if not for her own use. You are the hypocrite for not holding Conservatives to the same standard they would hold others to.

[Alta4ever]

I'll send her a link to it myself. I don't give a shit what she thinks about it. I don't care what you think either. There is nothing slanderous or libelous in my statement. I never said she was on drugs. I asked if she she acted like someone who was. I still say that I think she acted like someone who is coke raging. That it not a lie , or a slander it is my opinion. No matter how mad she was at having to be treated like any other citizen would be, a rational person in her position would NEVER have acted like that in the airport, especially knowing that her position as a minister could cause the incident to get a lot of attention. The behaviour was not brief, it lasted several minutes or longer. That leads me to suspect that she could have been on or coming down from cocaine. I am not saying she WAS on cocaine, only that I suspect it, due to the extent of her irrational behaviour. Throw in the fact that like it her not her association with a KNOWN COCAINE USER(her husband)makes her bhaviour all the more suspicious. Go ahead and tell me that Marc Emery's wife wouldn't be treated with more than normal suspicion when boarding a plane? People know her husband uses drugs and one might suspect she was transporting some for him, if not for her own use. You are the hypocrite for not holding Conservatives to the same standard they would hold others to.

What standard am I not holding the Conservatives to? I want the harsher laws passed, I want them applied equally.

You would not suggest/support a pee test for yourself in an airport would you?

[Wild Bill]

What standard am I not holding the Conservatives to? I want the harsher laws passed, I want them applied equally.

You would not suggest/support a pee test for yourself in an airport would you?

I'm surprised you're supporting this position, Alta4ever, considering you seem to be a Harper supporter. While tougher drug laws may be popular in your province I'll bet you a bottle of 12 year old scotch that it can cost the CPC a LOT of seats in Ontario and Quebec! Certainly it would make a Harper majority an impossibility. The culture and attitudes in the East are just too different.

Is that your goal? It might help with Alberta separation.

[Topaz]

I think the problem with this minister is that PEI airport apparently, doesn't have a VIP room were VIP's go and wait to board the plane and because they are VIP's they don't have to go through security as we would. When she found out she had to then, because of her planning on getting back to hubby to celebrate her birthday, she freaked out!! I think we treat some politics more than they should get. Harper has closed the case on her but if there is an election, I doubt if she be part of the government, should sent to the mail room and start over.

[Sir Bandelot]

When she found out she had to then, because of her planning on getting back to hubby to celebrate her birthday, she freaked out!!

In that case sounds like she was "jonesing" for a fix after all. Thats what happens when they don't get their dope fast enough.

[Sir Bandelot]

Hey msj, she got the "bye" when they let her get on the plane, no more questions asked. Meanwhile your ass would have been slammed on the ground and in the detention centre before you could say "I want my mommy"!

[msj]

I know he is just another "self-entitled politician", but if Peter Stoffer, of the NDP, can say this:

"If you're going to lose your temper, you do it behind closed doors, not in public. We're all human, we all screw up and make mistakes, but hopefully she learns from this.” Link

then I think some people are blowing this way out of proportion.

Sorry guys, but there is just not enough evidence to support that she should have been carted of to jail, that she may have been on drugs, or that she got special treatment as compared to an average Jane.

We know there was a tantrum, some rude words spoken, and some other inappropriate "unprofessional" behaviour occurred.

That's it. Move on.

[msj]

Hey msj, she got the "bye" when they let her get on the plane, no more questions asked. Meanwhile your ass would have been slammed on the ground and in the detention centre before you could say "I want my mommy"!

Nope, not enough evidence to support this conclusion.

Stop making stuff up.

[Sir Bandelot]

Nope, not enough evidence to support this conclusion.

Stop making stuff up.

Oh I see, only you got the real "facts", eh. The rest of us are "making stuff up". Tell you what, why don't you go try it then, and let us know what happens.

[msj]

Oh I see, only you got the real "facts", eh. The rest of us are "making stuff up". Tell you what, why don't you go try it then, and let us know what happens.

Read the link already provided.

There is not enough there for any of us (well, unless one of us is an expert in airport security or other related field) to tell exactly what security should have done.

We weren't there, security was there, and they treated her in a way they thought was appropriate at the time.

We do know that the staff, despite being PO'd at the time, and are still PO'd, still allowed her on the plane.

Where's the evidence, please?

[Sir Bandelot]

Where's the evidence, please?

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/publications/tp185/3-05/zero.htm

[msj]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/publications/tp185/3-05/zero.htm

So when did she disrupt "crew members" that "jeopardizes the safety of the flight?"

Discretion was applied, rather than zero tolerance, because she, apparently, was being a beotch, and nothing more.

Provide proof of her jeopardizing or endangering the flight, please.

[Sir Bandelot]

So when did she disrupt "crew members" that "jeopardizes the safety of the flight?"

Discretion was applied, rather than zero tolerance, because she, apparently, was being a beotch, and nothing more.

Provide proof of her jeopardizing or endangering the flight, please.

Sorry but I think I've done more than enough to prove the policies. People who express rage at the terminal are just as likey to do so while in the air, where the situation will be much more critical as the security and safety of the plane in flight is jeapordized.

The transport Canada policy is pretty clear. I know you don't want to believe it, but thats the facts, there is your evidence. I don't feel like going on and on abiut thats already been said, and demonstrated. If you just want a pissing match, you'll have to find someone else to play with.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[William Ashley]

So when did she disrupt "crew members" that "jeopardizes the safety of the flight?"

Discretion was applied, rather than zero tolerance, because she, apparently, was being a beotch, and nothing more.

Provide proof of her jeopardizing or endangering the flight, please.

Yeah we all know most women have their period but there is no evidence this is the case. Fact is someone was taken into custody just for flying back and forth on the the same plane twice. I'll be headed back to Mexico via the US the end of march and my chances of getting arrested on entry are not imposible, I wouldn't even take the risk but my ticket expires in september, CBP states I need a visa, us consulate states I'm visa exempt - still going to attempt preclearance but they can board me for two weeks if I'm not going to get a refund for the flight. Security is WAY too paranoid, while most security stuff isn't a big deal being a free spirited individual and unique singles you out for flight delays and other crap, and that is just plain attacking weirdo's even if they arn't criminal, it isn't the type of society that I enjoy living in.

Edited February 28, 2010 by William Ashley

[msj]

Sorry but I think I've done more than enough to prove the policies. People who express rage at the terminal are just as likey to do so while in the air, where the situation will be much more critical as the security and safety of the plane in flight is jeapordized.

IOW, you can't demonstrate it but you can speculate about it because, like, you were there, and, like, you can link to a policy that doesn't necessarily apply to this specific incident.

The transport Canada policy is pretty clear. I know you don't want to believe it, but thats the facts, there is your evidence. I don't feel like going on and on abiut thats already been said, and demonstrated. If you just want a pissing match, you'll have to find someone else to play with.

Sure, I don't feel like going on and on, either.

But hey, I'm admitting that I don't know all of the facts since I wasn't there, that those who were present, so far, have not indicated that they thought she fit under the rules to warrant applying any type of zero tolerance policy, and, therefore, one should conclude that Helena has been rude and unprofessional but not a danger.

If the facts change, so will my opinion.

[msj]

Yeah we all know most women have their period but there is no evidence this is the case.

Some kind of sexist joke, I suppose?

Fact is someone was taken into custody just for flying back and forth on the the same plane twice.

And if this is supposed to be comparable somehow to the known facts to Helena's case, then by all means provide a link so that we can compare apples to apples.

[Sir Bandelot]

IOW, you can't demonstrate it but you can speculate about it because, like, you were there, and, like, you can link to a policy that doesn't necessarily apply to this specific incident.

Obviously you don't care about this enough to look into it yourself, but expect me to spoon feed you. Then when I bother to provide the evidence you insist on, you deny that evidence. It doesn't take me long to find these things, why can't you? Because, thats not your game.

But for the sake of putting you to rest, here is more specific information. I doubt it will keep you quiet, but my point has already been made.

From the same Transport Canada website, read the link and follow on to this report-

"While incidents of crew member interference on board aircraft was the focus of the Working Group’s attention, it was recognized that inappropriate behaviour could be demonstrated before boarding. Indeed, indications of behaviour which may jeopardize safety in flight may be present while passengers are being processed by airline personnel or while they await departure. It is appropriate, therefore, to include in the definition of the problem pre-flight situations where a person conducts themself so as to indicate with reasonable likelihood that they will be disruptive to good order on an aircraft or interfere with a crew member."

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce/cabinsafety/workinggroup/report/part2.htm#ii

nuff said

[msj]

Obviously you don't care about this enough to look into it yourself, but expect me to spoon feed you. Then when I bother to provide the evidence you insist on, you deny that evidence. It doesn't take me long to find these things, why can't you? Because, thats not your game.

It is not denying the evidence - it is applying the facts to the evidence as I do, again, below.

From the same Transport Canada website, read the link and follow on to this report-

"While incidents of crew member interference on board aircraft was the focus of the Working Group’s attention, it was recognized that inappropriate behaviour could be demonstrated before boarding. Indeed, indications of behaviour which may jeopardize safety in flight may be present while passengers are being processed by airline personnel or while they await departure. It is appropriate, therefore, to include in the definition of the problem pre-flight situations where a person conducts themself so as to indicate with reasonable likelihood that they will be disruptive to good order on an aircraft or interfere with a crew member."

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce/cabinsafety/workinggroup/report/part2.htm#ii

nuff said

Fair enough.

You do see the problem here, don't you?

You link to a "Zero Tolerance" policy.

Then you quote a section where clearly discretion is allowed.

So which is it? ZT or D?

Discretion has been applied by those who were the target of the abuse.

They implicitly deemed her to not be a threat in the air by allowing her on the plane.

I think the actions at the time speak much louder on this issue than a letter that was written after the fact.

Let's agree to disagree?

[Sir Bandelot]

Let's agree to disagree?

No. The situation is unambiguous. There is the report from the working group, and there is the policy. A zero tolerance policy, is unambiguous. Nothing to agree or disagree on here.

She was allowed to board the plane, and it was a breach of policy. There should be an investigation.

[msj]

No. The situation is unambiguous. There is the report from the working group, and there is the policy. A zero tolerance policy, is unambiguous. Nothing to agree or disagree on here.

She was allowed to board the plane, and it was a breach of policy. There should be an investigation.

We should be able to agree on the facts, at least.

So, here we go.

We agree that the policy you linked to a while back is ZT? Check.

The next policy you quoted clearly states:

It is appropriate, therefore, to include in the definition of the problem pre-flight situations where a person conducts themself so as to indicate with reasonable likelihood that they will be disruptive to good order on an aircraft or interfere with a crew member.

That is clearly discretionary.

Obviously Helena did not indicate, with a reasonable likelihood, that she would be disruptive on the airplane.

The policy is contradictory and that means the policy should be looked at.

In another thread today I wrote: It's the policy, stupid.

It rears its ugly head again in this thread.

Edited February 28, 2010 by msj

[Sir Bandelot]

The next policy you quoted clearly states:

That is clearly discretionary.

That is not a policy. The policy is in the first link. If you read the link you will see, that is the report from the working group. The observations made in the report were used to develop the policy. Thats how it goes.

Policies are often given in broad general terms, because they cannot describe every possible scenario. But when a policy is "zero tolerance", it leaves very little room for interpretation. Thats the idea behind zero tolerance. Ther eis no reason to let someone on a plane when they are shouting and throwing objects in the pre-boarding stage. The airline is not obliged to jeapordize the flight or other passengers for the sake of convenience of one person who is misbehaving. Clearly this was a breach of policy and the only reason it was done is, they knew she was an MP.

[msj]

That is not a policy. The policy is in the first link. If you read the link you will see, that is the report from the working group. The observations made in the report were used to develop the policy. Thats how it goes.

I've already commented on that policy and I did not see where it indicated ZT for pre-flight incidents.

In fact, you might want to recheck you link because maybe we're not looking at the same thing?

Policies are often given in broad general terms, because they cannot describe every possible scenario. But when a policy is "zero tolerance", it leaves very little room for interpretation. Thats the idea behind zero tolerance. Ther eis no reason to let someone on a plane when they are shouting and throwing objects in the pre-boarding stage. The airline is not obliged to jeapordize the flight or other passengers for the sake of convenience of one person who is misbehaving. Clearly this was a breach of policy and the only reason it was done is, they knew she was an MP.

What I see is a ZT policy that does not include pre-flight considerations.

Then you provide a link to a working paper that indicates that pre-flight needs to be considered. And clearly the working paper is demonstrating discretion should be used.

Helena's incident does not fit under the ZT policy because it was pre-flight.

Once again, maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing in your initial link?

[msj]

I will also point out that the only reference I found in the Criminal Code of Canada Aeronautics Act to air rage is this one (found under the search for "unruly" as in "that Helena is one unruly passenger"):

Prohibition — unruly or dangerous behaviour

7.41 (1) No person shall engage in any behaviour that endangers the safety or security of an aircraft in flight or of persons on board an aircraft in flight by intentionally

(a) interfering with the performance of the duties of any crew member;

( lessening the ability of any crew member to perform that crew member's duties; or

© interfering with any person who is following the instructions of a crew member.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both; and

( on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months, or to both.

Deeming — “in flight”

(3) For the purpose of subsection (1), an aircraft is deemed to be in flight from the time when all external doors are closed following embarkation until the time at which any external door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation.

Application

Please note that those cool looking smilies are really the letter "b" within brackets.

Edited February 28, 2010 by msj

[Sir Bandelot]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/managementservices/referencecentre/acs/700/700-010.htm

Please read section 4.1, refusal to transport. This section discusses what is considered to be unruly behavior. See paragraph 3. Unruly behaviour during pre-boarding inspection is considered a threat to the safety of the flight. If a person cannot follow orders given by the inspection team they are considered a threat to the flight. This includes very specifically "aggressive, loud, obnoxious behaviour during check-in or in the departure area". The general idea behind all this is, such persons may become a risk to the flight crew once they are on board. It may not be that the acts themselves are dangerous, but that they are disruptive and could impair the function of the crew in an emergency situation, or interfere with important tasks such as explaining emergency procedures. I don't know how more clearly I can explain it to you.

[msj]

Thanks for that, Sir.

So, lets quote actual policy now:

Section 602.46 of the CARs, Refusal to Transport, give air operators and private operators, the responsibility to refuse to board any person displaying behaviour that may present a risk to the safety of the aircraft, persons on board the aircraft, or their property.

To ensure procedures are effective, operators will need to consider all aspects of managing an incident, including the prevention, recognition and reporting of disruptive behaviour which may occur at any time during check-in, in the departure area, while on the ramp as well as on board the aircraft (for passengers continuing on to other flights).

Even though incidents where passengers exhibit unruly or disruptive behaviour often begin once on board or after take-off, early signs of a possible problem may arise before boarding and should, whenever possible, be identified at that time. For example, aggressive, loud, obnoxious behaviour during check-in or in the departure area, may lead to more significant problems on board. Generally, any behaviour that prevents personnel from completing their tasks is a good sign that a situation may deteriorate and affect the safety of a flight.

In order to implement this article adequately, operators should consider all aspects of a situation to properly evaluate the different conditions under which a passenger may be denied boarding. These considerations should include, among other things, the passenger’s attitude, possible triggers and attempts to solve the problem.

This particular regulation is not meant to be a way of banning a passenger for life, but rather a way to offer crew members a safe workplace, and passengers safe transport to their destination. When establishing conditions for the refusal of passengers, the operator should be clear as to when and under what conditions passengers will be allowed on board after an incident has occured.

My reading of this shows that discretion is allowed.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Edited February 28, 2010 by msj