Second Conservative Cabinet Member In Trouble at Airport

[eyeball]

I didn't know they provided the drugs.

Yup, the government even has it's own chain of liquor stores. Go figure.

[Argus]

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.

My problem is not really with the fact that people choose to ingest drugs. It's their body. They can do whatever they want to it or with it as far as I'm concerned.

What I do object to is the crime they perpetrate to feed their habit, and the fact so many of them wind up on welfare, thus forcing me to subsidize their habit twice - through taxes to welfare, and through added insurance premiums and alarm company costs.

[blueblood]

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.

There is no right to confiscate. That's theft. The only thing a security guard can say is bottles are not allowed on the plane. It's then up to the passenger to decide what to do with it - turn around or hand it over willingly.

Smallc

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.

See above. There is a difference between the passenger handing over bottle of tequila willingly, and the guard forcing you to give it to him with no options.

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.

Oh yes you did,

DrGreenthumb, on 19 March 2010 - 06:00 AM, said:

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.

to

Posted Yesterday, 08:03 PM

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.

Still searching without asking permission, another no-no.

to

Posted Today, 10:20 AM

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.

Letting in minors while they check their booze at the door is a mistake. You just committed theft. Not only that, chances are said minor will get someone to pull for them at that social. Wouldn't want to be you when MLCC shows up. It's the same for fake ID's, do you "confiscate" those too?

I have also done security/bartending at socials, there is no way one person can control 500. One fight breaks out, all hell breaks loose. All you can do is deny entry and escort people out.

Looks like significant back peddling to me.

[Smallc]

There is no right to confiscate. That's theft. The only thing a security guard can say is bottles are not allowed on the plane. It's then up to the passenger to decide what to do with it - turn around or hand it over willingly.

And if they do neither...you call the police. Who do you think they're going to side with? I'll give you a hint...it won't be the unruly traveller. CATSA confiscates hundreds of thousands of items every day. It seems that the practice is completely legitimate. You do not have a right to property in the face of the state. CATSA personnel are operating on behalf of the state. You also don't have a right to travel by air if you don't follow the rules.

[blueblood]

And if they do neither...you call the police.

If its serious enough, off to court.

Who do you think they're going to side with? I'll give you a hint...it won't be the unruly traveller.

Why be unruly if that person knows they have a possible case to take to court.

CATSA confiscates hundreds of thousands of items every day. It seems that the practice is completely legitimate.

Wrong, people willingly hand over thousands of items every day if they want a plane ride. It's legitimate because CATSA follows protocol.

You do not have a right to property in the face of the state. CATSA personnel are operating on behalf of the state.

Oh really, isn't there that deal with unlawfull seizure in the Charter?

You also don't have a right to travel by air if you don't follow the rules

Correct, and Security Guards have rules of their own to follow.

[Topaz]

I'm sure Canadians are noticing that its must be mentally tough to be a Conservative, the government of Canada. Two ministers having problems at the airport and the other ex, drugs and booze. Funny now I think of it, Harper himself taking 2 cases of beer from that bet. Does politics drive politicans to drink??

[Smallc]

If its serious enough, off to court.

And?

Why be unruly if that person knows they have a possible case to take to court.

They don't. It's that simple.

Wrong, people willingly hand over thousands of items every day if they want a plane ride. It's legitimate because CATSA follows protocol.

Right....they are allowed to take things from people. People can say, you can't take that...and then they can't get on the plane. It isn't as if they can say, "no, I'd rather keep that," and go on through.

Oh really, isn't there that deal with unlawfull seizure in the Charter?

It isn't unlawful when it's the law.

Correct, and Security Guards have rules of their own to follow.

Yes, rules that allow them to take banned substances.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Right....they are allowed to take things from people. People can say, you can't take that...and then they can't get on the plane. It isn't as if they can say, "no, I'd rather keep that," and go on through.

We're not talking about that, its about whether or not they can forcibly seize something, which they cannot. All they can do is deny access, and request that you leave said bad item behind. It's like a drunk driving case, you have to dot your I's and cross your T's if you want a conviction.

It isn't unlawful when it's the law.

Cops have to follow procedures when going through with search and seizure, security guards do to.

Yes, rules that allow them to take banned substances.

There's no take, its handed over freely by passengers. If not its no plane ride. It's that simple.

[Guest American Woman]

The bottle of tequila was rightfully confiscated, even according to Blackburn:

"On February 23 I was at the Ottawa airport and a bottle of alcohol was confiscated from me because it exceeded the 100-millilitre limit," Blackburn said in a statement Friday.

link

[Smallc]

We're not talking about that, its about whether or not they can forcibly seize something, which they cannot.

Look, I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. If you want to get on the plane, you have to give the thing over. It's not like you have a choice in the matter if you wish to proceed.

[blueblood]

Look, I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. If you want to get on the plane, you have to give the thing over. It's not like you have a choice in the matter if you wish to proceed.

This is the point I've been making, person has to give the thing over freely. Or else it's no flight.

[Smallc]

This is the point I've been making, person has to give the thing over freely. Or else it's no flight.

But if you don't have a choice, it isn't free at all. If you want to believe it is, that's fine, but it isn't.

[blueblood]

But if you don't have a choice, it isn't free at all. If you want to believe it is, that's fine, but it isn't.

Choice 1 - don't ride plane keep alcohol, mail the damn thing later

Choice 2 - give alcohol to security and then ride plane.

Seems like free choice to me.

[Smallc]

Choice 1 - don't ride plane keep alcohol, mail the damn thing later

Choice 2 - give alcohol to security and then ride plane.

Seems like free choice to me.

No one is denying that that choice doesn't exist. There is no choice if you get on the plane.

[DrGreenthumb]

There is no right to confiscate. That's theft. The only thing a security guard can say is bottles are not allowed on the plane. It's then up to the passenger to decide what to do with it - turn around or hand it over willingly.

Smallc

See above. There is a difference between the passenger handing over bottle of tequila willingly, and the guard forcing you to give it to him with no options.

Oh yes you did,

DrGreenthumb, on 19 March 2010 - 06:00 AM, said:

to

Posted Yesterday, 08:03 PM

Still searching without asking permission, another no-no.

to

Posted Today, 10:20 AM

Letting in minors while they check their booze at the door is a mistake. You just committed theft. Not only that, chances are said minor will get someone to pull for them at that social. Wouldn't want to be you when MLCC shows up. It's the same for fake ID's, do you "confiscate" those too?

I have also done security/bartending at socials, there is no way one person can control 500. One fight breaks out, all hell breaks loose. All you can do is deny entry and escort people out.

Looks like significant back peddling to me.

"confiscate" or give over willingly, you are just nitpicking at words. It ammounts to the same thing. I say you can't come in to this social unless you turn over the bottle. I add that if I catch you drinking inside the social I will ban you from the venue for the next 2 months, and 6 months for the person that provided you with the drink. They want to come in so they turn over the bottle, or allow me to "confiscate it". They are still free to say no you can't check my coat, and then I tell them to run along and do not come back to the event. Its not theft, because they consent to it. If a minor gets caught drinking at a social it is the permit holder's problem, not mine. That is probably why the permit holder likes that I run a tight ship. YOU might not be able to control a crowd of 500, but I do it all the time. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. All it takes is to make fairly certain that nobody gets overly intoxicated, when someone starts to get too drunk you remove them, its simple. Only drunks become belligerant assholes at these events and if you follow the alcohol regulations and do not over serve, crowd control is usually NOT a problem. The kid could try and complain to the cops about losing their alcohol but something tells me that they won't. The cops would either laugh at them or charge them with drinking underage, open liquor in a public place, since the report would ammount to a full confession. 5 years, not one complaint. I think I know what I'm doing.

[Wild Bill]

Anyone want to take my bet that next cabinet shuffle this guy is left out in the cold?

I'm putting up a bottle of tequila, if there are any takers...

[DrGreenthumb]

Anyone want to take my bet that next cabinet shuffle this guy is left out in the cold?

I'm putting up a bottle of tequila, if there are any takers...

Make it vodka and you're on, lol. I have an overabundance of tequila in my personal wet bar because I've "stolen" a lot from the local teenagers. Got plenty of Lemon Gin and sour puss too, lol. Maybe I should stop pretending not to see their bags of weed, and steal that too, pot's pretty expensive these days.

[eyeball]

My problem is not really with the fact that people choose to ingest drugs. It's their body. They can do whatever they want to it or with it as far as I'm concerned.

What I do object to is the crime they perpetrate to feed their habit, and the fact so many of them wind up on welfare, thus forcing me to subsidize their habit twice - through taxes to welfare, and through added insurance premiums and alarm company costs.

Try objecting to prohibition instead, that's what the crime stems from.

[YEGmann]

Choice 1 - don't ride plane keep alcohol, mail the damn thing later

Choice 2 - give alcohol to security and then ride plane.

That's not true.

Although I do not know a precise formulation of the applicable law, but I do know that there is an option to place the unacceptable thing into checked baggage.

I've been in the same situation many times. I've have problems with knives, scissors, some sharp objects, toothpaste and of course alcohol in Canada, the US and Europe. Not always I was ageed with the security personnel. But always I was offered at least two options, i.e., place the item into checked baggage or leave at the airport for storage and pick it up on return. Several times I left the secure area to check the item in and staff was helpful with packing. A couple of times I threw some small items into the garbage bin but security told me I don't need to that. Of course, I could not fly, but there was no question the airport personnel could confiscate something on departure.

My point is that it seems the security did not do a good job and enjoyed Mr. Blackburn's embarrasment. They might have explained Mr. Blackburn his options. The spin about this routine airport event in the liberal mass media is absolutely understandable, expected and disgusting.

[Guest American Woman]

I've been in the same situation many times. I've have problems with knives, scissors, some sharp objects, toothpaste and of course alcohol in Canada, the US and Europe. Not always I was ageed with the security personnel. But always I was offered at least two options, i.e., place the item into checked baggage or leave at the airport for storage and pick it up on return.

By the time one goes through security, their luggage has already been checked. It's long gone. It's no longer an option at that point.

As for leaving it in storage, not all airports have storage lockers and I doubt most airports have special storage units for people who try to bring things on board that aren't allowed.

Several times I left the secure area to check the item in and staff was helpful with packing.

Check the item in where?

A couple of times I threw some small items into the garbage bin but security told me I don't need to that. Of course, I could not fly, but there was no question the airport personnel could confiscate something on departure.

"Of course I couldn't fly" are the key words there. Blackburn could have chosen to stay behind with his bottle of booze, that goes without saying (unless he's a complete idiot), but obviously his desire was to get on the plane, as I'm sure would be the case with everyone in that situation.

My point is that it seems the security did not do a good job and enjoyed Mr. Blackburn's embarrasment. They might have explained Mr. Blackburn his options. The spin about this routine airport event in the liberal mass media is absolutely understandable, expected and disgusting.

Security did a great job, and from all accounts, Mr. Blackburn was angry and/or frustrated, not embarrassed. If Mr. Blackburn wanted to get on the plane, he had no options other than to turn over the booze. Security acted as it should have. Blackburn was the one who was wrong. Knowingly wrong. He knew the rules and tried to bring the booze on board anyway. But yeah. Let's blame security for his wrong doing.

[YEGmann]

By the time one goes through security, their luggage has already been checked. It's long gone. It's no longer an option at that point.

You are wrong. One can (and I have done that several times) put the bottle(s) in a carry-on bag or in a cardboard box and check it as a new baggage item.

As for leaving it in storage, not all airports have storage lockers and I doubt most airports have special storage units for people who try to bring things on board that aren't allowed.

May be. I have been offered this "service" at least twice at Edmonton International and at Newport News Regional (VA).

Check the item in where?

At the check-in counter, of course. Just have your boarding pass and photo ID.

"Of course I couldn't fly" are the key words there. Blackburn could have chosen to stay behind with his bottle of booze, that goes without saying (unless he's a complete idiot), but obviously his desire was to get on the plane, as I'm sure would be the case with everyone in that situation.

I do not think he's and idiot trying to pass the security inspection with over 100 ml of fluid in a single tare. I have an impression that the press story is not complete. Maybe the booze was from a duty-free shop. Do not fly is an option, but there is always options when you can fly with your booze on the same plane.

Security did a great job, and from all accounts, Mr. Blackburn was angry and/or frustrated, not embarrassed. If Mr. Blackburn wanted to get on the plane, he had no options other than to turn over the booze. Security acted as it should have. Blackburn was the one who was wrong. Knowingly wrong. He knew the rules and tried to bring the booze on board anyway. But yeah. Let's blame security for his wrong doing.

You are complitely wrong. It is obvious you do not know the airport rules and I think you do not know details of the incident. You cannot claim Mr. Blackburn' "wrongdoing." It might be just funny specifics of the airport security system, it might be a mistake of Mr. Blackburn. The security did realy bad job. It is not surprising. Even if they may not be obliged to inform a passenger about his "rights", they definetly could have asked Mr. Blackburn to check the bottle in as a matter of help. It would have been the end of the story. However the security guard preferred a conflict, which is not surprising again.

Edited March 22, 2010 by YEGmann

[msj]

YEGmann,

Yes, at many airports (Amsterdam, Athens certainly) you can buy alcohol after you pass a secure area.

That purchase must be secured somehow at time of purchase (I don't know exactly how as I only have bought bulbs at the Amsterdam airport - all my liquor was safely packed in the checked-in suitcase because I - ahem - knew the rules about trying to bring more than 100 ml of liquid on the airplane with a carry on).

I assume that this also means that the purchase must also not be tampered with.

While I do think we don't know all of the facts of this story (the media is run by idiots) I find it highly doubtful that security would confiscate Blackburn's tequila had it met the conditions necessary to pass the final security area prior to boarding an airplane.

Given Blackburn's position, he should have know the rules and should have acted accordingly rather than embarrass himself and the CPC.

[Guest American Woman]

You are wrong. One can (and I have done that several times) put the bottle(s) in a carry-on bag or in a cardboard box and check it as a new baggage item.

Really. You just happen to have a cardboard box with you, that you were able to secure and check as luggage. I'm guessing that doesn't happen with many people, much less a box with enough packing to ensure a bottle wouldn't break during handling as checked luggage. Same with carry-on luggage. Most people are carrying it on because it contains items they don't want to check, but of course if someone has a carry on that is sturdy enough, with enough padding so a bottle wouldn't break, they certainly have the right to go back and check (and likely pay) more luggage. Doesn't mean Blackburn had a cardboard box or a carry-on he was willing to check, however.

But I have to say, the fact that you've "done that several times," gone back and put restricted items in a cardboard box or carry on and checked it as new luggage, makes me think you might be a slow learner regarding what you can or cannot carry on board with you.

May be. I have been offered this "service" at least twice at Edmonton International and at Newport News Regional (VA).

Those are two airports out of how many airports in the world? As I said, not all airports have storage lockers and I'm willing to bet that most don't offer 'storage facilities' for banned items.

I do not think he's and idiot trying to pass the security inspection with over 100 ml of fluid in a single tare. I have an impression that the press story is not complete. Maybe the booze was from a duty-free shop. Do not fly is an option, but there is always options when you can fly with your booze on the same plane.

There are no options if one's luggage has been checked already and one has no cardboard box with them or no carry-on that can be safely/securely checked. So no, there aren't "always options" to fly with one's booze on the same plane when one reaches the point in boarding/security that Blackburn had. Not by a long shot. Furthermore, whether he bought it at a duty-free shop or not is totally irrelevant, as it makes no difference in whether or not it was allowed to be carried on board.

You are complitely wrong. It is obvious you do not know the airport rules and I think you do not know details of the incident. You cannot claim Mr. Blackburn' "wrongdoing." It might be just funny specifics of the airport security system, it might be a mistake of Mr. Blackburn.

Whether it was a "mistake" on Blackburn's part or not, it was still Blackburn's "wrong doing." He was wrong to try to bring it on board, therefore it was his wrong doing. I would love to know how one carries a bottle of booze "by mistake," though. I repeat. If he didn't know the rules, he's an idiot, and likely not competent to hold the position he has.

But I think it's obvious that you are the one who hasn't a clue regarding airport rules if you think it was "just a funny specific of the airport security system" that he wasn't allowed to take the booze on the plane with him and therefore it was confiscated.

The security did realy bad job.

Security did exactly as it should have under the circumstances. Even Blackburn has acknowledged as much:

"......the rule is clear. The officers applied the rule."

It is not surprising. Even if they may not be obliged to inform a passenger about his "rights", they definetly could have asked Mr. Blackburn to check the bottle in as a matter of help. It would have been the end of the story. However the security guard preferred a conflict, which is not surprising again.

Obviously you'd rather blame security for doing it's job than put responsibility on the person who was wrongfully and knowingly trying to bring a bottle of booze on board.

[Sir Bandelot]

Just do what Jim Lahey would do, given the same circumstances.

Jim Lahey is a f*ckin drunk

[YEGmann]

American woman,

You certainly did not get it. I'll try to explane you the process one more time, slowly. How it works.

Simple case.

1. You arrive at an airport, obtain your boarding pass, check in your luggage and proceed to the security check.

2. Something not allowed to bring from outside into the airport security area is found on you. Note: alcohol and many other fluids is NOT forbidden to take with you inside the airplane passenger cabin. I might be a slow learner, but sometimes this happens on various reasons. Including different interpretation of the rules.

3. If the item is from the forbidden list, like explosives or corrosive substance, you are in trouble. If its not forbiden for air travel, including knives, hammers, harmless liquids, you have choices:

a) cancel your flight;

throw the item into the garbage

c) leave it for storage (here you may be right, not all airports may provide for that, but many do. For me it was 100%. You will be surprised but in several airports you can even mail your item to you.) However it is not preferrable option, just theoretical one.

and the most reasonable one

d) place the thing into the cargo as a checked in luggage.

The security guard may not offer all this options to you. In his/her interest is to put you into position of a violation of a rule, so that he/she can claim a prevention of the violation. Happyly, they cannot not to respond to your question "What I can do with the situation?" And usually, they are simply normal humans, not robots.

If you, as 90% of normal people, select option d) you have to go the check-in counter. There can be some problems, but ones you have 35 - 40 minutes before the depature time you must be OK. Now you are dealing with the airline representatives and they will do everything to help you. The least will be asking you to pay for a couple of kilos of the item.

Here you are probably confused.

Yes, you need some container for the item in question. The simplest solution is to use your carry on bag to check in the item and place all you need during the flight in another bag, say, plastic one. If you do not have one, ask the nice girl who is checking in your new piece of luggage. She will gladly find a plastic bag for you. Here the cardboard box comes from if you need it. Nobody carries cardboad boxes on board. But the nice girl at the check-in counter will find it to you. She will also find a soft stuff to fill the box and scotch tape to seal it. You get an additional luggage sticker, drop the bag or box on the belt and return to the security check, pass it and proceed to your gate.

It takes no more than 10 minutes and everybody's happy.

I do not know what happened to Mr. Blackburn why he did not performed this simple operation, if he valued his bottle of tequila. Most probably he arrive at the security check too late, say, 15 minutes before departure. In this case he simply talked to the wrong person, i.e. security guard. But again, approaching the security check with the bottle was absolutely stupid. That's why I think he might be caught by surprise on a transfer from one flight to another with the bottle legally bought in the secure area of the airport of his previous flight and already kept inside the plane. Though it is speculations due to the press not telling us the whole story.

It seems we have a very different view on human nature. You think both passengers and security guard must be machines acting without mistakes and with no minute deviations from minimum required procedures. I think that air travellers often, almost always are tired, confused people, making mistakes all the time. I would like to see the security personnel more helpful. Currently, my impression is that some (not all) security personnel abuses their priviledges. I am not saying they do not doing their job, but personally I do not like how they do it. In the case of Mr. Blackburn I think that the guards preferred a conflict over help. You are looking happy that a passenger was "caught for his wrong doing". That's it.