Second Conservative Cabinet Member In Trouble at Airport

[nicky10013]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100318/minister_airport_100318/20100318?hub=TopStoriesV2

Yikes, what are these people on? This is unacceptable behaviour.

[Alta4ever]

bah.... If this is our biggest concern of the day, it was a quiet day.

[Smallc]

Alta4ever, I can only imagine what your response would have been had this been a Liberal cabinet minister.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

Alta4ever, I can only imagine what your response would have been had this been a Liberal cabinet minister.

I can I probably would have used meh, and then typed about the same.

[Smallc]

I doubt it.

[Alta4ever]

I doubt it.

It would not be a matter of consequence to the country.

[Wilber]

I think it was foolish for him to expect that he could take it on board but it is quite reasonable to demand the bottle kept for him or be emptied in his presence. The bottle did belong to him after all, not security. Just because they won't let you take something on board doesn't mean they own it. In the past I have asked UK customs to keep a bottle for me that they said I wasn't entitled to bring in. They did, gave me a receipt and I picked it up on the way out of the country.

[Smallc]

It's unreasonable that it escalated to the point where the Ottawa police were nearly called.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

It's unreasonable that it escalated to the point where the Ottawa police were nearly called.

Yes, so perhaps the idiots in security should have just poured the thing out instead of waisting police time indulging themselves in a power trip over something that doesn't belong to them.

[Smallc]

Right, security was being unreasonable. Law and order indeed. The rule is no liquid over 100ml. Security has a job to enforce that rule. The minister no longer owned the bottle, as long as he decided he was going to board the plane after brining it to the security gate.

[scorpio]

Yes, so perhaps the idiots in security should have just poured the thing out instead of waisting police time indulging themselves in a power trip over something that doesn't belong to them.

So now the airport security are to blame. Got it. So much for the Conservative party of accountability.

Edited March 19, 2010 by scorpio

[blueblood]

Right, security was being unreasonable. Law and order indeed. The rule is no liquid over 100ml. Security has a job to enforce that rule. The minister no longer owned the bottle, as long as he decided he was going to board the plane after brining it to the security gate.

This is the price of power and fame, entitled to their entitlements. They're all guilty of that little foible.

These types of threads are like leafs fans and habs fans bickering with each other.

[Bonam]

Right, security was being unreasonable. Law and order indeed. The rule is no liquid over 100ml. Security has a job to enforce that rule. The minister no longer owned the bottle

I guess that is the critical question here. Did he, in fact, no longer own the bottle, in a legal sense. Do the security have a right to confiscate an item such as a bottle of alcohol from you and do with it as they please, or are they obligated to offer you the choice of having it, for example, disposed of or stored for you for a fee.

I'm not sure that it makes sense to give security guards the right to confiscate items and then retain them for their own use or enjoyment. Rather, confiscated items should only be retained by security if they are pertinent to an investigation they must carry out. Otherwise, they should be disposed of or stored for the person if they agree to pay for such storage.

[Argus]

Right, security was being unreasonable. Law and order indeed. The rule is no liquid over 100ml. Security has a job to enforce that rule. The minister no longer owned the bottle, as long as he decided he was going to board the plane after brining it to the security gate.

I'm not aware of any rule which says that if you bring something to the counter they don't like they now own it. What if you bring a laptop and they say you can't carry laptops onto the plane? Do they get to confiscate that, as well? why couldn't the bottle be put with the loaded luggage? Are there adequate warning signs early enough at the airport to inform people of this? I bet the transport minister will get an earful from his colleage about dumbass rules which treat the travelling public like mindless cattle.

And btw, the security people at airports generally ARE morons. We are, as far as I know, the last country in the western world - perhaps in the entire world - who still contract out airport security to private companies - low bidders always. The security guards are thus your typical min wage rent-a-cops, barely literate, taking a job which is, to them, a last resort before welfare. Training is minimal, standards extremely low (can you sort of speak english and French? You're in), turnover extremely high.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm not aware of any rule which says that if you bring something to the counter they don't like they now own it. What if you bring a laptop and they say you can't carry laptops onto the plane? Do they get to confiscate that, as well? why couldn't the bottle be put with the loaded luggage? Are there adequate warning signs early enough at the airport to inform people of this? I bet the transport minister will get an earful from his colleage about dumbass rules which treat the travelling public like mindless cattle.

And btw, the security people at airports generally ARE morons. We are, as far as I know, the last country in the western world - perhaps in the entire world - who still contract out airport security to private companies - low bidders always. The security guards are thus your typical min wage rent-a-cops, barely literate, taking a job which is, to them, a last resort before welfare. Training is minimal, standards extremely low (can you sort of speak english and French? You're in), turnover extremely high.

Wow listen to these Conservatives fall all over themselves to make excuses for one of their own. It's like Rahim Jaffer all over again, or Helena Guergis all over again.

I can tell you that when I do security at socials and I catch people trying to smuggle in bottles of booze in their jackets, I confiscate their booze to and I 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. They know the rules forbid bringing your own alcohol into the event. Tough shit, if they want to come in they lose the bottle. Next time I go to a concert and the security finds my joints, I'll just ask them to hold them for me till after the show, or demand that they crunch them up into a garbage can in front of me. When they are done laughing at me maybe, just maybe they will still let me into the show.

Edited March 19, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[Smallc]

I guess that is the critical question here. Did he, in fact, no longer own the bottle, in a legal sense. Do the security have a right to confiscate an item such as a bottle of alcohol from you and do with it as they please, or are they obligated to offer you the choice of having it, for example, disposed of or stored for you for a fee.

They don't get to do with it as they please, it simply isn't yours anymore as long as you choose to go forward. They can't then take it home. If you want to check another bag, you often have to go back, and start the security process over again. He had several choices in the process, and he decided to make a big deal out of it when he didn't need to...and as a minister that flies often...of course, I hear he uses the Challenger a great deal...he should know.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Smallc

[Argus]

They don't get to do with it as they please, it simply isn't yours anymore as long as you choose to go forward. They can't then take it home.

Sounds like a really stupid rule to me. Is that even legal? "Oh, sorry, you didn't notice the sign? Tough luck. It's mine now. No, you can't just go away. Give it over. I want to see what my new bottle of tequila tastes like."

I'm happy to see government officials questioning a moronic, and probably illegal rule.

[Argus]

Wow listen to these Conservatives fall all over themselves to make excuses for one of their own. It's like Rahim Jaffer all over again, or Helena Guergis all over again.

I can tell you that when I do security at socials and I catch people trying to smuggle in bottles of booze in their jackets, I confiscate their booze to and I 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. They know the rules forbid bringing your own alcohol into the event. Tough shit, if they want to come in they lose the bottle. Next time I go to a concert and the security finds my joints, I'll just ask them to hold them for me till after the show, or demand that they crunch them up into a garbage can in front of me. When they are done laughing at me maybe, just maybe they will still let me into the show.

You can forbid people from taking booze into the event. You cannot confiscate anything from them. You are breaking the law. In effect, you are stealing from them. If any of them pushes it, you will be arrested. I am not surprised they'd have a stoner with no training doing security. I've worked security when in college. It's been my observance that if you can breath, you can work security.

As for your joints - they're illegal. You have no claim to illegal material. If you push it, they'll call the cops and the cops can decide to charge you.

[Moonbox]

I am not surprised they'd have a stoner with no training doing security. I've worked security when in college. It's been my observance that if you can breath, you can work security.

Aww Argus beat me to it. That's exactly what I was going to say. Sometimes I'm surprised the security guards at the building I'm working at aren't drooling.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Moonbox

[blueblood]

I can tell you that when I do security at socials and I catch people trying to smuggle in bottles of booze in their jackets, I confiscate their booze to and I 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. They know the rules forbid bringing your own alcohol into the event.

And you as a security guard should also know the rules concerning theft. The patron has to give you said booze if they want in the social, not you grabbing it. You as the security guard have the right to let into the social whoever you want and to make the demand if the patron wants in, leave your booze. Under no circumstances do you have the right to up and snatch somebodies booze and to deny that person the booze if they want it back (provided they say to hell with going to the social). The only people that can snatch open liquor legitly are the cops.

[nicky10013]

Sounds like a really stupid rule to me. Is that even legal? "Oh, sorry, you didn't notice the sign? Tough luck. It's mine now. No, you can't just go away. Give it over. I want to see what my new bottle of tequila tastes like."

I'm happy to see government officials questioning a moronic, and probably illegal rule.

Airport security isn't stupid. If it was a Liberal MP I'm sure half the conservative idiots on here would be linking them to Al-Qaeda.

[Keepitsimple]

Balackburn wasn't too bright for making a stink.....but really, where do you think that bottle of Tequila will end up?

[nicky10013]

Balackburn wasn't too bright for making a stink.....but really, where do you think that bottle of Tequila will end up?

Does it matter? At the end of the day he's no differen't than anyone else. On a flight back from Warsaw we had a layover in Amsterdam so some people went duty free shopping and wanted to bring it on the flight. Sorry. Confiscated. No exceptions.

[Shady]

OMG, a member of parlaiment being ornery at an airport. Stop the presses! Disolve the government!

[Wilber]

It is after all personal property they are confiscating. There is no law against owning it, just against taking it on the aircraft. The police or customs can't confiscate your legal property without giving you a mechanism to redeem it. A person has a right to at least know what will happen to it. Perhaps they should have the option of having it held for up to two weeks for a nominal fee that would cover the airport's expense. Then at least they would have the option of giving it up or redeeming it.

I think this is odd behavior for a Cabinet Minister who should know what he can take on an aircraft. On the other hand he didn't insist he be let on with it or have a tantrum, but it does sound like he was firm about it being held for him or destroyed. I think that is a reasonable request for anyone and I'm surprised at some of the people here who are willing to give airport security powers that they wouldn't stand being given to law enforcement. Partisanship couldn't have anything to do with that could it? Nah.