nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 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. Yet another case of "lets blame airport security!" It's partisan, just like elections canada, the inernational rights agency or any other organization that has made the Harper Government look bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Yet another case of "lets blame airport security!" It's partisan, just like elections canada, the inernational rights agency or any other organization that has made the Harper Government look bad. Get a grip, even though I don't think this Minister was very smart, I think he exposed a very big problem with airport security though I doubt he meant to. A problem which in fact doesn't make the job of security personnel any easier because people don't like being treated like criminals and tend to react accordingly when they are. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Get a grip, even though I don't think this Minister was very smart, I think he exposed a very big problem with airport security though I doubt he meant to. A problem which in fact doesn't make the job of security personnel any easier because people don't like being treated like criminals and tend to react accordingly when they are. You follow the rules and you aren't treated as such. It's a simple concept that's apparently a tough one to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 As a conservative supporter I expect Conservative Cabinet members to hold themselves to a higher standard than former Liberals cabinet members. The guy acted boorish and thinks there is laws and rules for the great unwashed but not for him. He might be happeir as a Liberal with his feelings of intitlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 As a conservative supporter I expect Conservative Cabinet members to hold themselves to a higher standard than former Liberals cabinet members. The guy acted boorish and thinks there is laws and rules for the great unwashed but not for him. He might be happeir as a Liberal with his feelings of intitlement. OK.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 You follow the rules and you aren't treated as such. It's a simple concept that's apparently a tough one to grasp. It's not tough to grasp at all. There is a very valid issue concerning the confiscation and disposal of private property. The issue of whether he should be able to take in on the aircraft is quite clear. He can't. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 You can forbid people from taking booze into the event. You cannot confiscate anything from them. You are breaking the law. They can keep it, but not if they're going in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 It's not tough to grasp at all. There is a very valid issue concerning the confiscation and disposal of private property. The issue of whether he should be able to take in on the aircraft is quite clear. He can't. And so he can either choose to go back and put it in his checked baggage, or he can give it to security. They aren't a concierge service, and I wouldn't want them to be troubled with having to keep track of everyones alcohol. They take it, and it's gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 And so he can either choose to go back and put it in his checked baggage, or he can give it to security. They aren't a concierge service, and I wouldn't want them to be troubled with having to keep track of everyones alcohol. They take it, and it's gone. He asked that they keep it for him or empty it in front of him. He has a very valid point actually. How are you supposed to know airport security doesn't just take your crap and use it at home for themselves? There should be SOME accountability for the airport security, just like there would be in any other profession. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) It's not up to him to hold them accountable. It's not up to them to oblige his requests. They shouldn't be opening alcohol in the security area, and they shouldn't be bothered with keeping it for him. He was the one in the wrong. End of story. I'm quite surprised to hear how many Conservatives don't respect the rules. Edited March 19, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 And so he can either choose to go back and put it in his checked baggage, or he can give it to security. They aren't a concierge service, and I wouldn't want them to be troubled with having to keep track of everyones alcohol. They take it, and it's gone. Why shouldn't they if they take something away of yours that isn't perishable? I'm not saying they should do it for free but it is after all, your stuff, not theirs so where does it go? The police have to itemize, bag, tag and enter every item they seize into their database, not just for evidence purposes but to hold them accountable for what happens to it. Why shouldn't airport security have to be accountable for what they seize from citizens? Why shouldn't you have the right to know what happens to your property when they take it? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 It's not up to him to hold them accountable. It's not up to them to oblige his requests. They shouldn't be opening alcohol in the security area, and they shouldn't be bothered with keeping it for him. He was the one in the wrong. End of story. I'm quite surprised to hear how many Conservatives don't respect the rules. Only when it comes to people they support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Only when it comes to people they support. Rules have to be followed, there is no rule that says they have to be respected and many don't deserve to be. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Why shouldn't they if they take something away of yours that isn't perishable? I'm not saying they should do it for free but it is after all, your stuff, not theirs so where does it go? The police have to itemize, bag, tag and enter every item they seize into their database, not just for evidence purposes but to hold them accountable for what happens to it. Why shouldn't airport security have to be accountable for what they seize from citizens? Why shouldn't you have the right to know what happens to your property when they take it? Because once you try and take things through airport security, if it's against the rules, it's no longer yours. End of story. If you've never been to an airport in 5 years, there are signs EVERYWHERE saying be prepared to have check on containers of liquid over 100mls confiscated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Rules have to be followed, there is no rule that says they have to be respected and many don't deserve to be. Clearly you don't fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Why shouldn't airport security have to be accountable for what they seize from citizens? How do you know they aren't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Clearly you don't fly. Not much any more, I'm a retired airline pilot. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 How do you know they aren't? That's just it, we don't, so what's the big secret? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Clearly you don't fly. Actually, I think he's a pilot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 That's just it, we don't, so what's the big secret? Who said it was a secret? Write a letter to the Minister of Transport. Ask him what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Actually, I think he's a pilot. Ahaha whoops. Foot in the mouth moment. Nevertheless, my argument remains the same, there are warnings everywhere that anything over 100mls would be confiscated, so why the sudden upsurge in people saying that people's property shouldn't be confiscated? Let's remember why the rule is in place to begin with. Some idiot trying to bring a bomb which was a gel onto a plane so now security agencies view anything over 100mls as a potential weapon. I don't think people would object having a handgun confiscated at the airport, so why is this any different? Edited March 19, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Correct me if I'm wrong but these politicans are considered VIPs and so they usually go to a VIP lounge were the wait among other VIPs. This is a minister who probably thought since he was a MINISTER HE could get the bottle through, even though, he KNEW the rules. This is also the same minister that had special plane for him when he first came to the Tories because he lived so far away from an airport in Quebec. Does he still have that benefit, which taxpayers pay for? I say, power corrupts and it only took four years for THIS party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Who said it was a secret? Write a letter to the Minister of Transport. Ask him what happens. Is it the Minister of Transport or the Airport Authority? Why don't they just make it public knowledge, it may save them a few scenes like this. To me there is a big difference between these two incidents. Guergis had a fit and abused a bunch of people. I have a real problem with that. I have no problem when someone is firm about sticking up for themselves in a non abusive manor, even if they may be wrong which is very debatable in this case. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 A Some idiot trying to bring a bomb which was a gel onto a plane so now security agencies view anything over 100mls as a potential weapon. And I would say that is just one reason that they shouldn't be opening it in the security gate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Is it the Minister of Transport or the Airport Authority? CATSA is responsible to the Minister of Transport. I have no problem when someone is firm about sticking up for themselves in a non abusive manor, even if they may be wrong which is very debatable in this case. How do you know it was non abusive? I mean, they nearly called the police. That suggests something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.