Second Conservative Cabinet Member In Trouble at Airport

[Molly]

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.

That's my take on mandatory minimum sentencing.

[Argus]

That's my take on mandatory minimum sentencing.

Unfortunately, I feel just that way about our judges - too unreliable to be given leeway on sentencing.

[Argus]

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 .

Most security guards have almost no knowledge of law, and that evidently includes you. You can frisk them only because they give you permission to. You cannot take anything from them without their consent. You can only legally deny them entry.

[DrGreenthumb]

Most security guards have almost no knowledge of law, and that evidently includes you. You can frisk them only because they give you permission to. You cannot take anything from them without their consent. You can only legally deny them entry.

which is exactly what I do. You can consent to having your jackets and bags checked for alcohol or you can leave. pretty simple. Alcohol we find is not given back, because the only ones sneaking in bottles are the ones who are underage and can't buy drinks at the bar. If we gave it back to them we could be charged with providing alcohol to a minor. We don't let the few people over 18 caught with a bottle in their coat into the event either unless they turn it over. If we let them come in after they go put it in their car or something, they will just drink in the parking lot and then we are back to the problem of over-consumption again.(and also the distinct possibility that that person will provide alcohol to minors in attendance)I certainly do not let the little punks give me orders about what to do with the booze I find. You have to always at least give the appearance of being firmly in control or the drunks will walk all over you. When you are trying to control a crowd of 4 or 5 hundred people on your own, you have to do something to ensure that things do not get out of hand, because once they do, you are screwed. Alcohol over-consumption makes people dangerous to others, not only to themselves.

[eyeball]

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.

They even have safe ingestion sites for these substance abusers. It's outrageous that the government allows these don't you think?.

Edited March 20, 2010 by eyeball

[DrGreenthumb]

They even have safe ingestion sites for these substance abusers. It's outrageous that the government allows these don't you think?.

Don't you know that ALL use is abuse Eyeball? There is no such thing as safe ingestion. These drug addicts should be thrown in jail for their own safety and the safety of the community.

[bloodyminded]

Don't you know that ALL use is abuse Eyeball? There is no such thing as safe ingestion. These drug addicts should be thrown in jail for their own safety and the safety of the community.

That would include, of course, all people addicted to prescription drugs--a more widespread and critical problem than addiction to illegal drugs. It would be interesting to see the reaction of our (legally) drug-addled middle and upper classes as they are tossed into prison for the "crime" of being addicted.

[eyeball]

That would include, of course, all people addicted to prescription drugs--a more widespread and critical problem than addiction to illegal drugs. It would be interesting to see the reaction of our (legally) drug-addled middle and upper classes as they are tossed into prison for the "crime" of being addicted.

I don't think addiction is actually a crime. Public drunkenness is a crime but what about 'unwinding'? And what about the act of becoming socially lubricated? It sounds downright immoral if not filthy.

Perhaps what we really need is to require people to have a clean bill of health to recreationally alter one's mind, a medical fitness certificate - a prescription of another sort - to take drugs recreationally might better cultivate a sense of responsibility amongst users. This would even let us preserve prohibition and the judicial-industrial complex that relies on it.

(sarcasm alert)

Edited March 20, 2010 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

I don't think addiction is actually a crime. Public drunkenness is a crime but what about 'unwinding'? And what about the act of becoming socially lubricated? It sounds downright immoral if not filthy.

Perhaps what we really need is to require people to have a clean bill of health to recreationally alter one's mind, a medical fitness certificate - a prescription of another sort - to take drugs recreationally might better cultivate a sense of responsibility amongst users. This would even let us preserve prohibition and the judicial-industrial complex that relies on it.

(sarcasm alert)

No, addiction is not literally a crime...but those lacking compassion, as well as a basic understanding of the processes and mechanics of addiction, certainly act as though it were.

[kimmy]

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.

"Not allowed beyond this point" and "subject to confiscation" mean two different things.

I would be interested to see any information that says they have the right to *confiscate* anything that's not allowed into the secured area.

I did see on Air Canada's website that any *illegal* items (they cite pepper spray as an example) found at the security check-in will not be returned to the passenger.

If the security check-in guy says "You can't take this inside the secure area," that's one thing.

I expect that if you replied with any of...

"Ok, give it back to me and I will put it in a locker and pick it up on my return trip"

or "ok, give it back to me and I will make arrangements with the airline to have it transported in checked baggage"

or "Ok, give it back to me and I will give it to my wife who is over there waving goodbye"

or "Ok, give it back to me and I will go pour it down a sink"

...he would have no option but to comply.

I think that if he said "Sorry, it's mine now" I think that's basically outright theft.

I am not sure that the demand that the security guy pour it out is as reasonable: unless there's a sink right there, what is going to do? Pour it on the floor? Leave his post to find a sink? I don't think that's realistic. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that the security guy had any right to take possession of the item just because it wasn't allowed into the secure area.

As with the prior thread, I am surprised at Canadians' enthusiasm for authoritarian conduct.

-k

[blueblood]

I did see on Air Canada's website that any *illegal* items (they cite pepper spray as an example) found at the security check-in will not be returned to the passenger.

Probably one reason why they have cops posted in Airports. One call on the radio to them will take care of the illegal items snaffoo.

This is where things get murky...

[Smallc]

I think you are taking people's words and twisting them...quite deliberately I might add. If you choose to go forward, you forfeit the ability to keep a prohibited item, and so you must turn it over to security. That is what is being said here, and nothing else.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

I think you are taking people's words and twisting them...quite deliberately I might add. If you choose to go forward, you forfeit the ability to keep a prohibited item, and so you must turn it over to security. That is what is being said here, and nothing else.

Kimmy has this dialed. There's protocol that security must go through conerning things. I have been at an airport had to give the security guards my deodorant and toothpaste. Being as I wanted to fly, I had no problem with that. The guards didn't say "You have to give me your deodorant and toothpaste", they instead said "Deodorant and toothpaste aren't allowed on the plane", I put them in the little bin, went into the secure area, and it was end of story.

It's the same with the scanners, you want on the plane, you walk through, but you do have the option of turning around (albeit you wasted money on your plane ticket).

We're talking about the fact that some security guards (Dr. Greenthumb before he backpedalled) don't give people that option.

[kimmy]

I think you are taking people's words and twisting them...quite deliberately I might add. If you choose to go forward, you forfeit the ability to keep a prohibited item, and so you must turn it over to security. That is what is being said here, and nothing else.

Yourself and Nicky have both been using the word *confiscate*, and apparently quite deliberately. You yourself even linked to an article supporting the security staff's supposed right to *confiscate* stuff. So how am I twisting words?

-k

[Wilber]

They even have safe ingestion sites for these substance abusers. It's outrageous that the government allows these don't you think?.

I didn't know they provided the drugs.

[DrGreenthumb]

"Not allowed beyond this point" and "subject to confiscation" mean two different things.

I would be interested to see any information that says they have the right to *confiscate* anything that's not allowed into the secured area.

I did see on Air Canada's website that any *illegal* items (they cite pepper spray as an example) found at the security check-in will not be returned to the passenger.

If the security check-in guy says "You can't take this inside the secure area," that's one thing.

I expect that if you replied with any of...

"Ok, give it back to me and I will put it in a locker and pick it up on my return trip"

or "ok, give it back to me and I will make arrangements with the airline to have it transported in checked baggage"

or "Ok, give it back to me and I will give it to my wife who is over there waving goodbye"

or "Ok, give it back to me and I will go pour it down a sink"

...he would have no option but to comply.

I think that if he said "Sorry, it's mine now" I think that's basically outright theft.

I am not sure that the demand that the security guy pour it out is as reasonable: unless there's a sink right there, what is going to do? Pour it on the floor? Leave his post to find a sink? I don't think that's realistic. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that the security guy had any right to take possession of the item just because it wasn't allowed into the secure area.

As with the prior thread, I am surprised at Canadians' enthusiasm for authoritarian conduct.

-k

I'm pretty sure the minister could have chosen to keep his tequila, as long as he turned around and did not get on the plane. The security guard pointed out the options, voluntarily turn over the bottle or keep it, and find another way to travel. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. That's the way it works, if you want in you follow the rules or else you can turn around and go do what you want.

[DrGreenthumb]

We're talking about the fact that some security guards (Dr. Greenthumb before he backpedalled) don't give people that option.

I havn't backpedaled on anything. Your assumptions just got the better of you. I have been doing security for events up to 500 people on my own for over 5 years and have not had a single complaint of over stepping my authority. That says a lot in itself. I very rarely have to "confiscate" any alcohol anymore anyway because the word has gotten out that trying to smuggle it into venues that I supervise is pretty much doomed to fail. There have been far less incidents of violence since I took over, and far less cases of underage girls being plied with alcohol by unscrupulous older men. People know that I will not turn a blind eye to this shit and have adjusted their behaviours accordingly. The parents and cops in my community have expressed their gratitude to me on several occasions. I have not had to physically restrain or remove anyone from an event for at least the last 3 year years, because I make sure that all the alcohol regulations are followed and that nobody is allowed to get overly drunk. If the permit holders break the rules by serving more than 2 drinks at a time, they know I will shut down their bar and they will lose money on their event, so they comply. I am not a fan of authority, so I am very careful how I exercise mine.

[kimmy]

I'm pretty sure the minister could have chosen to keep his tequila, as long as he turned around and did not get on the plane. The security guard pointed out the options, voluntarily turn over the bottle or keep it, and find another way to travel.

Did we establish that the security guard explain the options? All I saw in the news article is that the security guard refused to keep the bottle for him, and refused to empty it in his presence.

Your own statement on the subject was that you "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," so I'm skeptical of your new-found belief in the passengers' rights in this instance.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. That's the way it works, if you want in you follow the rules or else you can turn around and go do what you want.

Certainly. I'm just amused at the people-- yourself included-- who said that the security guard had the right to confiscate the bottle.

-k

[DrGreenthumb]

Certainly. I'm just amused at the people-- yourself included-- who said that the security guard had the right to confiscate the bottle.

-k

He DID have the right to confiscate the bottle if the minister wanted to proceed through the security check. Alternatively the minister could have obeyed the rules not to try and take prohibited items onto an airplane.

[Smallc]

Alternatively the minister could have obeyed the rules not to try and take prohibited items onto an airplane.

And that's the kicker. We have conservatives defending the minister who was caught breaking a rule and made a (big) fuss about it. There is no excuse for what happened.

[Smallc]

Yourself and Nicky have both been using the word *confiscate*, and apparently quite deliberately.

It was extremely deliberate. They have the right to take things (and do, to the tune of 40K items a day in Toronto alone) if they are against the rules. If you want to keep them, you say ok, I won't get on the plane.

[Guest American Woman]

He DID have the right to confiscate the bottle if the minister wanted to proceed through the security check. Alternatively the minister could have obeyed the rules not to try and take prohibited items onto an airplane.

Exactly. That's why I said earlier that Blackburn did not have to get on the plane. No one was forcing him to; he could have walked away with his bottle of tequila. But since his choice was to proceed boarding the plane, security had not only the right, but the requirement by law to confiscate it. All of which Blackburn should have been totally aware of.

[Smallc]

All of which Blackburn should have been totally aware of.

Especially when you consider that he was part of the announcement of the said rules a couple of years ago.

[Guest American Woman]

Especially when you consider that he was part of the announcement of the said rules a couple of years ago.

I just kind of shook my head in amazement when I first read that he was part of the announcement. He knew exactly what the requirements were, or there was something seriously wrong with him. Makes one wonder why he was still trying to get the booze on board. Perhaps he thinks that's a perk due government officials.

[Fortunata]

Exactly. That's why I said earlier that Blackburn did not have to get on the plane. No one was forcing him to; he could have walked away with his bottle of tequila. But since his choice was to proceed boarding the plane, security had not only the right, but the requirement by law to confiscate it. All of which Blackburn should have been totally aware of.

I'm quite sure that Blackburn was aware of the rules. I'm also sure that he thought since he was a cabinet Minister that security would let him get away with it. That they didn't must have come as a big surprise.

The sense of entitlement is growing among the Harper government. It usually takes about 5 years but the Cons seem very good at catching on to some things.