Second Conservative Cabinet Member In Trouble at Airport

[Smallc]

Of course, we could always use google:

http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=867191

[Wilber]

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?

For one thing, a handgun is a restricted weapon and unless you were taking it to or from a range it would be illegal for you to have it anywhere except your home, a bottle of booze isn't. I agree that he should have known better, I've said it several times. I also believe that a person is entitled to know what happens to their property if it is seized by any agency operating under the government. Don't you?

[Wilber]

Of course, we could always use google:

http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=867191

Great. So why don't they post that at the airport? I doubt a pissed passenger who is in the process of losing something is going to crank up their laptop to do a Google search on the spot. Do they really give booze to "incurable alcoholics"? That's bizarre.

[Smallc]

Great. So why don't they post that at the airport?

Because it doesn't matter. It's a rule, and that's the end of it.

[nicky10013]

For one thing, a handgun is a restricted weapon and unless you were taking it to or from a range it would be illegal for you to have it anywhere except your home, a bottle of booze isn't. I agree that he should have known better, I've said it several times. I also believe that a person is entitled to know what happens to their property if it is seized by any agency operating under the government. Don't you?

Not when there are signs clearly posted saying that it's a restricted item and subject to confiscation. If a cop stops me, goes into my trunk and takes a bottle of my liquor, that's one thing. It's completely another to expect to fight back on where something goes when you've seen signs at the check in desk, been asked at the check in desk and have seen signs in the line-up to security that all liquid over 100mls isn't allowed beyond a certain point.

[Wilber]

CATSA is responsible to the Minister of Transport.

How do you know it was non abusive? I mean, they nearly called the police. That suggests something.

Yet according to your link there is no standard procedure for the disposal of goods across the country.

It suggests nothing other than he wouldn't back down. I do have a bit of a hard time with this because let's face it, he should have known better but I spent too many years biting my tongue over security idiocies that did little to enhance security and a great deal to aggravate people, not to accept everything they do without question.

[Wilber]

Because it doesn't matter. It's a rule, and that's the end of it.

Maybe one of you guys should tell that to Marc Emery.

[nicky10013]

Maybe one of you guys should tell that to Marc Emery.

Nothing he did made people potentially less safe in terms of security. Just made people more susceptible to the munchies.

[Wilber]

Nothing he did made people potentially less safe in terms of security. Just made people more susceptible to the munchies.

"Doesn't matter, it's a rule and that's the end of it." Or do you choose which rules you will or will not obey based on your own perception of their importance?

[Shady]

Just made people more susceptible to the munchies.

And potentially more susceptible to harder illegal drugs. Other than of course breaking the laws of another nation.

But he gets a big pass from the leftwing. However, don't act rudely at an airport, or they'll demand your scalp!

Priorities.

[Wilber]

Nothing he did made people potentially less safe in terms of security. Just made people more susceptible to the munchies.

I doubt a Cabinet minister with a bottle of Tequila is much of a potential threat to security unless he drinks it but it is a rule and they have to enforce it.

[Argus]

Airport security isn't stupid.

Do you have a cite to prove that? Cause my observation of security guards and companies is that they can be quite, quite stupid.

[Argus]

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.

I've never been in favour of rules which have "no exceptions". In my experience they're normally made by pinheads, or made to be enforced by people so cloddish and unreliable that their superiors dare not allow them to ever make decisions of any sort.

Who does he think he is? Realistically? He probably thinks he is someone that airport security must be well aware is beyond suspicion as a terrorist suicide bomber.

Nevertheless, from what i've seen, he didn't raise hsi voice, didn't threaten, didn't simply asked that the stuff be stored or, suspicious, perhaps, that it be destroyed then in front of him. When they refused he gave in. What, you can't argue with authority in this country?

[Argus]

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.

I suppose this hasn't occured to you, but if airport security is operating under idiotic rules then, in effect, we ARE criticising the government, as those rules are under its jurisdiction.

In fact, I have criticised them before on this issue. I think leaving in place the minimum wage, united nations rent-a-cops was and is a dumb move which could come back to bite them on the ass if there is a terrorist incident. This was a Liberal decision, so they can certainly claim no high ground on it, but it's been long enough for the Tories to have changed it, so they can't claim anyone's fault but their own.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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

Well said.

[Argus]

You follow the rules and you aren't treated as such. It's a simple concept that's apparently a tough one to grasp.

Unthinking obedience to authority, you mean? Yes, I've always had a problem with that.

[ToadBrother]

Nevertheless, from what i've seen, he didn't raise hsi voice, didn't threaten, didn't simply asked that the stuff be stored or, suspicious, perhaps, that it be destroyed then in front of him. When they refused he gave in. What, you can't argue with authority in this country?

Not with airport security anymore. We're rapidly turning them into Gods on Earth, but to what end I do not know. I've heard a lot of what goes on in airports now is being termed as Security Theater. Having big angry dogs and machines that can image your nards sure looks good, but as to how much safer it makes anybody is unknown. But make no mistake, that guy getting paid $10 an hour to harass you can cause just about anyone grief over the most mundane or irrelevant of regulations.

[nicky10013]

And potentially more susceptible to harder illegal drugs. Other than of course breaking the laws of another nation.

But he gets a big pass from the leftwing. However, don't act rudely at an airport, or they'll demand your scalp!

Priorities.

The gateway theory is as big a myth as there ever was. There's also a difference between smoking a little grass and compromising airport security.

[Smallc]

Maybe one of you guys should tell that to Marc Emery.

I think Marc Emery should go to jail. I question whether or not we should update our drug laws, but I still think that he shouldn't be extradited. I never said that he shouldn't be.

[DrGreenthumb]

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.

The folks I'm frisking for booze are underage so their booze is just as illegal for them as my joints are for me. Let them try to call the cops, the cops would laugh in their faces just as hard as I would. I've worked this job for over 5 years with no complaints so fuck you and your "stoner" with no training. Don't try to tell me how to do my job .

Edited March 20, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[groupeii]

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.

I once had alchohol confiscated from me - and I requested the exact same thing. But this was at a camp ground not an airport.

I thought that they would just keep the liquor for themselves, so requested they empty it out in front of me.

You'd sort of expect people to know the rules of the country they are suppose to be running. Of course if I was in a position I would be hard pressed to expose anything I consumed to a third party.

I can identify with how blackburn must have felt. BRING THE SYSTEM DOWN MANG!! YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.. ITS THE GOVERNMENTS FAULT!!!! DONT GIVE INTO THE SYSTEM MR. BLACKBURN!

For once I'm not upset that they are charging me an extra 10$ for more security at the airport. Bad bad joke. Honestly it must have sucked, but tequila is generally pretty cheap even for the good stuff. You can get tequila in tequila for like 4$ a litre.

Geuss that is what those small hotel bottles are for.

Although I thought you could take unopened liqour on the plane with you in checked carryon? no?

Edited March 20, 2010 by groupeii

[Guest American Woman]

Blackburn could have stayed behind with his booze and made other arrangements if having to give up a bottle of tequila was that big a deal to him. No one was forcing him to get on the plane, so no one was forcing him to give up anything. Rules are rules, and he had to have known what they were before boarding; I can't imagine otherwise. Security owed him nothing.

Edited March 20, 2010 by American Woman

[blueblood]

The folks I'm frisking for booze are underage so their booze is just as illegal for them as my joints are for me. Let them try to call the cops, the cops would laugh in their faces just as hard as I would. I've worked this job for over 5 years with no complaints so fuck you and your "stoner" with no training. Don't try to tell me how to do my job and I won't come down to low track and knock the dicks out of your mouth.

You are not the cops, you cannot confiscate sweet f*** all. All you can do is tell the underagers to beat it, that's it. If the cops see you confiscating things, you and the little kiddies are getting fines. Do you "confiscate" fake ID too?

Then there's frisking, you have less right to frisk than the cops do. All you can do is ask to empty their bag/pockets, you cannot search them. Those kids can tell you to pound sand. All you have the right to do is refuse entry, that's it.

For someone who is defensive about their "job" in something law related, it's quite a stretch for you to be after someone telling you how to do your job, while you seem quite insistent on telling everyone how police should do theirs.

Edited March 20, 2010 by blueblood

[blueblood]

Blackburn could have stayed behind with his booze and made other arrangements if having to give up a bottle of tequila was that big a deal to him. No one was forcing him to get on the plane, so no one was forcing him to give up anything. Rules are rules, and he had to have known what they were before boarding; I can't imagine otherwise. Security owed him nothing.

Agreed, Blackburn should have Fed Ex'd the bottle of tequila. However if he had a bottle of Patron (apparently the grand daddy of tequila), I can understand his frustration.

[DrGreenthumb]

You are not the cops, you cannot confiscate sweet f*** all. All you can do is tell the underagers to beat it, that's it. If the cops see you confiscating things, you and the little kiddies are getting fines. Do you "confiscate" fake ID too?

Then there's frisking, you have less right to frisk than the cops do. All you can do is ask to empty their bag/pockets, you cannot search them. Those kids can tell you to pound sand. All you have the right to do is refuse entry, that's it.

For someone who is defensive about their "job" in something law related, it's quite a stretch for you to be after someone telling you how to do your job, while you seem quite insistent on telling everyone how police should do theirs.

They are free to not come in if they don't want to take off their jacket so it can be patted down for micky.. Same with the girls with purses large enough to conceal bottles. They can turn it over and still be allowed in or keep it but not be allowed in for the evening. The police are happy that less 16 yoear olds are cruising around drunk because of lax enforcement of alcohol regulations. Famiilies are happy that less of their daughters are getting taken advantage of when they have been allowed to get drunk. The people holding the liquor liscence can be held responsible if there is an alcohol related incident. That's the main difference between pot and alcohol's users. Large crowds of stoned people aren't dangerous like drunk crowds are. Alcohol abusers are a danger to OTHERS.