Helena Guergis Air Rage?

[kimmy]

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.

He enumerated a tasering as among the options the RCMP could have used to deal with the situation, which clearly implies acceptance. Ditto the forum members who've said she was lucky to not get tasered.

Sir Bandelot didn't just imply acceptance, he outright stated that he thinks they should have slammed her on the ground.

And I'm just fascinated that Canadians are apparently so accepting of excessive force by our peace officers.

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.

As Morris points out, these are subjective descriptions, and further to that, these are subjective descriptions being provided by the terminal staff who were on the receiving end of the tirade. I think there is more than a fair chance that these descriptions are less than objective and may contain some amount of hyperbole. For example, one of the eyewitnesses claimed that she "slammed her boots into the bin" while the other claims that "She took her boots off and she threw them". So clearly, there's some element of hyperbole here.

So, until I see the video I am not prepared to accept descriptors like "shouting" or "hammering" as objective fact.

My suspicion is that when the video becomes available, we are going to see a rude, angry, stressed out woman behaving badly, not a violent drug freak-out-type episode that would have people fearing for their physical safety. We shall see, hopefully.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

He enumerated a tasering as among the options the RCMP could have used to deal with the situation, which clearly implies acceptance.

He enumerated among the actions the RCMP has used to deal with such a situation. That's in no way implying acceptance any more than saying 'he could have gotten the death penalty' in a murder trial implies acceptance of the death penalty. It's merely stating a fact.

Ditto the forum members who've said she was lucky to not get tasered.

Ditto the statement 'he was lucky not to get the death penalty.' It in no way implies acceptance of the death penalty.

Sir Bandelot didn't just imply acceptance, he outright stated that he thinks they should have slammed her on the ground.

No he didn't. He said, "....your ass would have been slammed on the ground and in the detention centre before you could say 'I want my mommy'!" Where does he say, much less "outright," that he thinks they should have slammed her on the ground? He didn't say that at all. He said he thinks if it would have been someone other than a VIP that's what would have happened. He doesn't say he thinks it's what should have happened. Two very different things.

And I'm just fascinated that Canadians are apparently so accepting of excessive force by our peace officers.

And I'm wondering just where they said they accept it? I think they are angered that people other than VIPs are subjected to such actions while she was allowed to board the plane.

....these are subjective descriptions, and further to that, these are subjective descriptions being provided by the terminal staff who were on the receiving end of the tirade. I think there is more than a fair chance that these descriptions are less than objective and may contain some amount of hyperbole.

It seems logical to me to go by the letter of complaint since that's what all the reports are based on. You yourself referred to the "play by play" provided in the letter, and the letter clearly says "screaming" and "shouting," which are beyond "raising one's voice."

For example, one of the eyewitnesses claimed that she "slammed her boots into the bin" while the other claims that "She took her boots off and she threw them". So clearly, there's some element of hyperbole here.

Again, the letter said "slammed," so that's what I'll stick with, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between "slamming" and "throwing," while there is a huge difference between merely "raising one's voice" and "shouting" and "screaming." But again, I find it odd that you would take the descriptions, even if they are varied, and reduce them to merely raising her voice as you overlook the fact that she tried to get through a locked door and banged on the glass separating her from the boarding area. Obviously she did more than "raise her voice and swear." But not only do you ignore these things, you falsely accuse people of thinking she should have been tasered for much less than she actually did.

So, until I see the video I am not prepared to accept descriptors like "shouting" or "hammering" as objective fact.

Fine, but don't go accusing other people of basing what they say on what you choose to believe.

My suspicion is that when the video becomes available, we are going to see a rude, angry, stressed out woman behaving badly, not a violent drug freak-out-type episode that would have people fearing for their physical safety.

And you're entitled to your "suspicion," but in the meantime, I'll place more trust in what the person who wrote the letter had to say than your suspicions.

Quite frankly, I see your suspicions as completely biased. And I say that because of how you downplayed the incident along with this:

Quote kimmy: ....[i'm] 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.

That's a pretty bizzare comparison and I think your "suspicions" fall way short of unbiased.

[kimmy]

He enumerated among the actions the RCMP has used to deal with such a situation. That's in no way implying acceptance any more than saying 'he could have gotten the death penalty' in a murder trial implies acceptance of the death penalty. It's merely stating a fact.

Ditto the statement 'he was lucky not to get the death penalty.' It in no way implies acceptance of the death penalty.

If one was in a death penalty state, then saying "he could have gotten the death penalty" would be acknowledgment of a fact. It might not imply approval of the death penalty, but it certainly indicates acceptance of the fact that it's within the state's power to do so.

If Canada were some kind of stormtrooper state, then saying "she could have got the taser" for shouting and kicking a door would be acknowledgment of that fact. It doesn't imply approval of tasering people for minor misbehavior, but it certainly indicates acceptance of the fact that it's within the state's power to do so.

Except this isn't some kind of stormtrooper state, and I don't accept that it's within the state's power to do so, and I think that people who believe this would be a legitimate response to the situation need to spend some time reflecting on what this country is supposed to be.

No he didn't. He said, "....your ass would have been slammed on the ground and in the detention centre before you could say 'I want my mommy'!" Where does he say, much less "outright," that he thinks they should have slammed her on the ground?

Right here:

Ok, so now that we've had a chance to read the play-by-play waldo linked to, which part would you say that they should have slammed her on the ground?

I'd say it would be the part where she started screaming and hammering on the glass.

And I'm wondering just where they said they accept it? I think they are angered that people other than VIPs are subjected to such actions while she was allowed to board the plane.

I see nothing at all to support that interpretation.

And further, I think people are taking it as a given that average Joe would be barred from flying, detained, charged, or beaten up or tasered in the same circumstance.

It seems logical to me to go by the letter of complaint since that's what all the reports are based on. You yourself referred to the "play by play" provided in the letter, and the letter clearly says "screaming" and "shouting," which are beyond "raising one's voice."

The point, and I'm sorry you missed it, is that these reports are subjective claims coming from one side of the confrontation.

Again, the letter said "slammed," so that's what I'll stick with, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between "slamming" and "throwing,"

There might not be much difference between "slamming" and "throwing". There is, however, considerable difference between the two accounts that you overlooked: one story claims she threw her boots in the bin, and the other story claims she threw her boots at the staffer.

So obviously at least one and probably both of these stories contain an element of hyperbole.

I don't consider the side that says she was "screaming" to be any more trustworthy than the side that says she "spoke emotionally".

And yes, I'm biased against these people. I put that on the table and shared my own airport security story and I simply find it hard feel sorry for them. And I think it's hilarious that these poor little kittens were still crying about their terrifying encounter with the scary woman a whole week later.

-k

Edited March 3, 2010 by kimmy

[Guest American Woman]

If one was in a death penalty state, then saying "he could have gotten the death penalty" would be acknowledgment of a fact. It might not imply approval of the death penalty, but it certainly indicates acceptance of the fact that it's within the state's power to do so.

Wrong. You're implying acceptance where there isn't necessarily acceptance just because it's within the state's power. You may accept that something is within the state's power, but it's people who don't accept it that get things changed.

Right here:

You were the one who said "should be," while mis-speaking what he originally wrote. I take it he was just responding to his original statement and pointing out where he thinks it could have, not should have, happened if it weren't a VIP.

I see nothing at all to support that interpretation.

Why am I not surprised?

And further, I think people are taking it as a given that average Joe would be barred from flying, detained, charged, or beaten up or tasered in the same circumstance.

And I think you're wrong because the average Joe most definitely would have been detained under the same circumstances, as past news reports have verified.

The point, and I'm sorry you missed it, is that these reports are subjective claims coming from one side of the confrontation.

The point, and I'm sorry you missed it, is that the original letter of complaint refers to "shouting" and "screaming."

I don't consider the side that says she was "screaming" to be any more trustworthy than the side that says she "spoke emotionally".

Of course not. The side that said she was screaming just decided to pick on her and write a letter of complaint.

And yes, I'm biased against these people. I put that on the table and shared my own airport security story and I simply find it hard feel sorry for them.

Yes. They "humiliated" you. And I'm sure there's no hyperbole there.

Quite frankly, I'm beginning to think you come across as someone who has a victim/persecution complex.

But bottom line: a biased opinion is not an opinion based on fact.

Edited March 3, 2010 by American Woman

[kimmy]

Wrong. You're implying acceptance where there isn't necessarily acceptance just because it's within the state's power. You may accept that something is within the state's power, but it's people who don't accept it that get things changed.

Which is why I am upset that people, including an MP, seem to accept that it's within the state's power to taser someone in an incident when nobody's physical safety was in any danger.

The taser was supposed to be a safer alternative to night-sticks, bullets, and judo. Not a replacement for attempting to resolve situations without physical violence.

You were the one who said "should be," while mis-speaking what he originally wrote. I take it he was just responding to his original statement and pointing out where he thinks it could have, not should have, happened if it weren't a VIP.

I asked where he thought she should have been slammed on the ground, and he said "the part where she started screaming and hammering on the glass." Seems pretty clear that he thought she should have been slammed on the ground at that point. If he thinks I've misrepresented his comment, he can speak up for himself. He doesn't need you to act as his attorney.

And I think you're wrong because the average Joe most definitely would have been detained under the same circumstances, as past news reports have verified.

So, if somebody becomes angry at the security staff and they calm her down and they let her fly anyway, does that make the news?

The point, and I'm sorry you missed it, is that the original letter of complaint refers to "shouting" and "screaming."

These are subjective terms coming from a biased party to a confrontation. They're not objective facts. I'm sorry you're determined to be obtuse about this.

Of course not. The side that said she was screaming just decided to pick on her and write a letter of complaint.

Everybody agrees there was a confrontation. The fact that one side decided to write to an opposition MP doesn't make their account magically more factual or free from bias.

I already pointed out where one of the injured parties claimed she threw her shoes at a staffer, which is contradicted in the other letter, so the hyperbole aspect of the complaint is already an established fact.

Yes. They "humiliated" you. And I'm sure there's no hyperbole there.

I explained the incident. I feel that my resentment of the treatment I received is more than justified. If you think you'd have been so much better with it, well, good for you I guess.

Quite frankly, I'm beginning to think you come across as someone who has a victim/persecution complex.

Out of respect for Charles, I'll decline to comment.

But bottom line: a biased opinion is not an opinion based on fact.

So far the only objective facts that have been agreed to by all parties is that Guergis was late, was rude, made offensive remarks to the staff, and made a disparaging remark about Prince Edward Island.

-k

Edited March 3, 2010 by kimmy

[bjre]

If Helena Guergis thinks she's entitled to special treatment because she is a 'VIP', put her on the 'no-fly' list. I'm sure that would make her feel special.

Obviously, she has little knowledge of what average citizen suffered each day. How can such kind of MP know what people really need? I wonder why such kind of people can be elected in a "democratic" nation? Why many people "supported" them. This is the reality of "democracy" -- a system driven by media lies.

[msj]

My gawd, Kimmy is good!