Canada's No Fly List...

[shortlived]

Ok, this suprises me since it is a constituitonal right to enter and leave Canada, so in denying air travel, it seems an escape from the ever more totalitarian Harper Government by land will be met sourly to the south, leaving boats as the only way for Canadians to enter and leave Canada...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/first-man-on-canadas-no-fly-list-denied-legal-funding-for-court-fight/

What no legal funding to oppose being put on a no fly list?

Why can the government arbitrarily without judicial process deny mobility rights to Canadians? Isn't that clearly unconstitutional?

Come on why wasn't Al Telbanni allowed on that plane?

I think we can clearly see someones rights were being infringed here. Does Mr. Telbanni seem like someone that would pose a security risk due to flying on a plane?

These are real people being effected by these totalitarian and arbitrary measures.

Where is the plot? Where is the means to disrupt aircraft security?

Did they search him that day, how the hell can someone pose a risk to aircraft safety after getting an anal search?

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest]

Come on why wasn't Al Telbanni allowed on that plane?

...tracked Mr. Al Telbani as the administrator of a defunct, password-protected Internet forum frequented by militant Islamists and used by al Qaeda to spread messages from Osama bin Laden.

Seems reasonable. I wouldn't want him to marry my daughter.

As to another of your questions, about the only time I would ever pose a risk to aircraft safety would be after getting an anal search.

[shortlived]

...tracked Mr. Al Telbani as the administrator of a defunct, password-protected Internet forum frequented by militant Islamists and used by al Qaeda to spread messages from Osama bin Laden.

Seems reasonable. I wouldn't want him to marry my daughter.

As to another of your questions, about the only time I would ever pose a risk to aircraft safety would be after getting an anal search.

It didn't say he organized for Al Qaeda, it said they frequented his website. Do you see the makers of Youtube and google staff the owner of youtube on no fly lists? Notice how there is no criminal charges on aiding terrorism? hmm? If he was actually helping them as opposed to them using his website, there is a clear difference. Any criminal record for terrorism, if not, where is the evidence linking him to terrorism. Anyone can pop up on any web forum and link information. Where are the terrorists. There were major news networks posting videos of Osama too.. are they all on no fly lists?

What I see is absolutely no criminal charges, and a whole bunch of hearsay. How did the government know it was Al Qaeda and not a CIA false flag?

Meanwhile this guy who has not broken any Law in Canada is prohibited from traveling by air.. see the problem here. No crime committed and his ability to fly is removed, pretty obvious injustice.

Will Omar Khadr be on a life long no fly list when released from prison? What about former members of the FLQ? Who exactly is going on this list.

this guys "crime" was having people visit his website and post stuff on it.

Where are the charges? Criminalizing people who have not committed crimes is problematic.

It seems ridiculous that you would have this foreign student not be able to fly due to being a security risk on flights, yet not so great a security risk to Canada that he is deported, where is the plot, where is the terrorism?

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

It didn't say he organized for Al Qaeda, it said they frequented his website. Do you see the makers of Youtube and google staff the owner of youtube on no fly lists?

Why would they be on Canada's no-fly list ?

[shortlived]

well they host terrorist videos... they must all be terrorists right

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=al+nusra+messages

Look they are aiding terrorism! Just like that American guy who posted on facebook, we can't forget facebook too.

Peoples facebook pages are private, and and.. you know there are private youtube videos, so you know they are hosting privae terrorist imformationes.

the same as this guy ..

so yeah they should all be on a no fly list too...

oh but their name isn't al talebani is it?

Oh no I just realized, I just posted a link to terrorist youtube videos!!! now Charles will be put on a no fly list!!! ooops.

Sorry Charles Anthony, I hope that trip to Bermuda isn't ruined for you.

No fret though, BushCheeney knows just what you need.

Twitter even gave Fidel Castro a twitter account.. doesn't that break the embargo? you know aiding the enemy.

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm pretty sure that no one has the right to fly, not even in Canada. This was true long before any no-fly lists were created.

Tell him to take a cruise instead.

[shortlived]

I'm pretty sure that no one has the right to fly, not even in Canada. This was true long before any no-fly lists were created.

Tell him to take a cruise instead.

Uhm sure Canadians have the right to enter and leave Canada, in a free country the absence of something being illegal makes it lawful thus something that should not be infringed.

Same as the us, those powers not held by the federal government or states are held by the people.

In a free society you cannot deprive people of their freedoms without fundamental justice providing reason there to.

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

Uhm sure Canadians have the right to enter and leave Canada, in a free country the absence of something being illegal makes it lawful thus something that should not be infringed.

Same as the us, those powers not held by the federal government or states are held by the people.

No, it's different...Canada is not a republic. No matter, as there is no right to conveyance by aviation. Maybe horses, but not airliners.

[shortlived]

No, it's different...Canada is not a republic. No matter, as there is no right to conveyance by aviation. Maybe horses, but not airliners.

You are wrong.

Even commercial law requires non discrimination in providing services. Depriving someone of rights and access to services without cause is contrary to the law of commerce.

There is no law saying people who host websites that Islamic people use to host videos is illegal, so denial of service on arbitrary grounds is discrimination.

Canada is a country of equals, so all common rights are held equally and free of discrimination. One of those is to transact commerce without prejudice.

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

You are wrong.

Even commercial law requires non discrimination in providing services.

No, common carriers can deny ticketing and/or boarding for all kinds of equally applied reasons. You have no inalienable right to fly the friendly skies.

You'd think these guys would have learned from the Maher Arar case.

[shortlived]

No, common carriers can deny ticketing and/or boarding for all kinds of equally applied reasons. You have no inalienable right to fly the friendly skies.

You'd think these guys would have learned from the Maher Arar case.

You are quite wrong.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/FullText.html

Arar was awarded tons of money because the mounties F-ed up. He was also abducted by Americans, that has nothing to do with how things are suppose to be done in Canada.

Arar is also an odd example because of his "secret" past, which the public isn't aware of. He is one of many stage shows conducted by CSIS and their partners, to create media stir on terrorism.

Actually I do have inalienable rights to fly if I so choose. As far as businesses go, and the government, they are in the wrong if they deny me equal access or justice. I'm not saying government and businesses aren't corrupt, but I am saying they arnt' right when they are. There actions do not effect my rights, they effect our relations.

These sorts of situations are all about bending the rules and the government swaying public opinion to allow them to deprive innocent people of their rights illegally, and create a norm in the public perception that the government can do anything it wants to anyone with impunity, and that is ok. It isn't.

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

You are quite wrong.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/FullText.html

Arar was award tons of money because the mounties F-ed up. He was also abducted by Americans, that has nothing to do with how things are suppose to be done in Canada.

That's fine by me....do as you please in Canada...pay him the guilt tax. But you can't logically transfer such legal aspects to Google / YouTube.

[shortlived]

CHRA

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

• (a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

• (b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Sure there is a google in Canada, google owns youtube.. why is it that these same activities aren't applicable to google but are applicable to Mr. Al Talebani..

They are doing the same thing on a larger scale.

Fact is here that there is no "private communication" on the internet. Only a very very small group of people are truly private those using hot spots, and ham radios to communicate and the like. Everyone else is not anonymous.

Its the exact same thing, only this guys name is Al freaken Talebanni, any bloody moron can see that.

Sure if he had a plot planned on that flight etc.. makes sense but lets get bloody serious... in 2013 12 years after 911, if some dude can do anything to an aircraft after being under a strip search, something is wrong.

It is total bs and just political discrimination. it is total bs. but ney there is no reason for the guy to be on a no fly list without information indicating he is an actual threat to airline security, I havn't seen anything indicating that.

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

CHRA

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

• (a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

• (b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Irrelevant...you do not have the right to fly unless you have wings.

Sure there is a google in Canada, google owns youtube.. why is it that these same activities aren't applicable to google but are applicable to Mr. Al Talebani..

Freedom of speech and expression (except for hate speech....Canada is funny that way)

[shortlived]

Irrelevant...you do not have the right to fly unless you have wings.

Freedom of speech and expression (except for hate speech....Canada is funny that way)

I'm sorry but you are wrong, you cannot discriminate against people.

Airline and air security is based on equal application of the law. And yes I can. I have no deprivation of rights, based on reasonable grounds, if I need to fly I will. Nah man I have plenty of right to fly, while specific jurisdictions may try to apply their law to myself. Its my right to use my judgement in weighing the balance of outcomes based upon my actions and the reactions of others.

I am a free person, I uphold my right. I am free. My freedom is my right. If others seek to deprive god will determine the outcome. Government is bound to its law. I am not party to that law so I am not bound by it. I am bound by reason, and rationality in determining my actions in preventing violence unless there is a greater need.

Its not my law. I am a reasonable person though, and if I do not have a need to break the law, others law, I won't. My right is freedom and consent. You can't take that from me, and I will not surrender it. Of course I have little respect for other people who don't take my view in mind in how they expect me to act. This is a separate issue though.

The government IS bound by its law, otherwise it lacks legitimacy to rule.

I am a law abiding citizen as long as the law is just.

I have no obligation to obey other people who lack reason or communication. I am not subject to any power but god in equality. I have faith in God to do right, manmade law is not my law, but I put my faith in god to do right.

I put my faith in the Supremeacy of god, and all the legalese BS means nothing to my life.

Modern law is just politics. Rationality guides justice. I really don't give a damn about the governments law, they don't enforce it anyway half the time. Its a corrupt society.

the law doesn't prevent me from acting, it creates a response to my actions, and only if it matters to them.

Obviously you don't throw rocks at a hornets nest unless you like getting stung, breaking up the nest, or stupidity.

There is no right I do not have. I'm willing to die for my freedom. I don't need to attack people to insure it though, that would be senseless bloodshed. Its a twisted game.

In terms of this topic though, the government is not being reasonable in denying this guys rights yet, allowing sites like youtube and google to operate in Canada, or for their employees to fly while depriving this guy access to that same service, it is pure politics.

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sorry but you are wrong, you cannot discriminate against people.

Different idea entirely...you have no right to fly.

Airline and air security is based on equal application of the law. And yes I can. I have no deprivation of rights, based on reasonable grounds, if I need to fly I will. Nah man I have plenty of right to fly, while specific jurisdictions may try to apply their law to myself. Its my right to use my judgement in weighing the balance of outcomes based upon my actions and the reactions of others.

No, you may fly subject to the rules and limits of your jurisdiction. For instance, you have no right to travel through or over the sovereign territory of another nation.

[shortlived]

Different idea entirely...you have no right to fly.

You are wrong. I do.

No, you may fly subject to the rules and limits of your jurisdiction. For instance, you have no right to travel through or over the sovereign territory of another nation.

What don't you get about, I am free.

That is diplomacy and politics. I get what you are saying but I am not bound to foreign law, that doesn't mean other countries can't try to enforce it.

In terms of this guy and Canadian Law though there are laws that insure peoples right to fly based on equal grounds.

I can only hope other jurisidictions laws are just, and in that case there shouldn't be any issues or need to enforce through militancy.

Afterall I have no ill plans, and only wish for peaceful coexistence, there shouldn't be a reason to deprive me from flying on a plane to get from point A to point B that is just ludicrist, and the only reason would be politically motivated by morally corrupt individuals.

Its just diplomacy, line the pockets of person x or y through formal or informal means, pay for passport, pay for airport fees, pay for departure fees etc... that is just all a systematic construct of most countries. Its not an absolute but it probably in a balance of outcomes be the easiest means of flight.

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[WWWTT]

No, it's different...Canada is not a republic. No matter, as there is no right to conveyance by aviation. Maybe horses, but not airliners.

I'm not aware of any mode of transportation restrictions in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms????

Provide the link backing up your claim.

WWWTT

[Guest]

It didn't say he organized for Al Qaeda, it said they frequented his website.

And that's why I said it seemed reasonable he was not allowed to fly. If he organized for Al Qaeda, it would seem reasonable to lock him up.

[ReeferMadness]

No fly lists are a modern form of McCarthyism.

[RNG]

I would even be willing to allow people to be put on to temporary no-fly lists if they were automatically given their day in court to clear their names in a reasonable time frame. I'm not aware of any Canadian examples, but the list of blunders in the US having serious impact on the quality of life and sometimes livelihoods of innocent people who have the misfortune of sharing a name with someone is a gross injustice.

Edit: By "clear their names" I am not implying it is their responsibility to prove themselves innocent, it is still the crown's duty to prove them guilty.

Edited March 30, 2013 by RNG

[shortlived]

And that's why I said it seemed reasonable he was not allowed to fly. If he organized for Al Qaeda, it would seem reasonable to lock him up.

Dude, no its not reasonable not to allow someone to fly becaues Islamists frequent your website. There are a lot of Islamist websites, and I'd be suprised if every website owner where a OBL video showed up is on a no fly list, especially the likes of google.

Where are the terrorism charges? It seems pretty obvious if this guys conduct is within the bounds of the law he's not doing anything illegal. His behaviour shouldn't be criminalized.

Partisan politicians shouldn't be able to indiscriminately deprive people of their freedoms without an actual security threat. Not liking his religious or political affiliations is not sufficient to deprive someone of their rights if within their lawful bounds.

You are advocating for totalitarian police state methods, and allowing policy to criminalize rather than due process. Removal of due process is creation of a despotic totalitarian police state that contradicts the premise of a free and democratic society.

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[PIK]

Don't play by our rules , you don't fly, Flying is not a right.

[shortlived]

Don't play by our rules , you don't fly, Flying is not a right.

You arn't the boss of me PIK.

Its funny how cult heavy you are.

Flying is a freedom, mobility rights are in the charter. Enter Remain or Leave Canada, it does not designating flying as an exception of that.

Due to equality all people have the same grounds to commercial transaction because it is an indictable offence to deny people equal access to services by means of discrimination.

PIK you are wrong, you have fallen into a mass media perception that is wrong. Realize you are confused by cult and totalitarian propaganda.

There are no "our rules". There is the constitution and statute, no where in there does it say for political reasons people can be discriminated against and deprived their basic rights provided by common law.

You have no right to infringe my rights.

You are not my master.

My right by Canadian law is to use any force reasonable to arrest you if you try to deprive me of my common law rights, including use of deadly force if you cannot be arrested with lesser force or if you attempt to flee.\

Common nuisance

• 180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby

  • (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or

  • (b) causes physical injury to any person,

  is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

• Marginal note:Definition

  (2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby

  • (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or

  • (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 176.

\

The government is bound to allow me to enter or leave Canada if they fail to do so they are commiting an indictable offence because they are unlawfully depriving me of a common law right enjoyed by all Canadians. Consumer rights are also a common law right which cannot be descriminated on.

The basic of the program is "immediate threat"

This program prevents people who have been deemed an immediate threat to aviation security from boarding a flight from Canada or boarding an aircraft destined to Canada.

there was no immediate threat. no charges or explanation. it was completely arbitrary. How does hosting a website endanger a plane? I don't understand how hosting videos on a website creates an aviation security threat, am I missing something here? Is there some magic ability to have the internet activate its secret plane endangering powers by hosting videos with strong use of words?

http://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/fs-fi/fs_20070627_e.asp

Its funny how people like PIK turn it into a cult abuse of power for political and partisan purposes rather than the actual reason for the program, to insure immediate, aviation security.

The guy is a foreigner walking around Canada for years now, nothing seems to indicate he is a threat to public security or aircraft security. A higher level search of his belongings and person should be more than sufficient to insure flight security. It is disgusting what is being done by abuse of a program intended for a completely different purpose.

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest]

Dude, no its not reasonable not to allow someone to fly becaues Islamists frequent your website. There are a lot of Islamist websites, and I'd be suprised if every website owner where a OBL video showed up is on a no fly list, especially the likes of google.

Where are the terrorism charges? It seems pretty obvious if this guys conduct is within the bounds of the law he's not doing anything illegal. His behaviour shouldn't be criminalized.

Partisan politicians shouldn't be able to indiscriminately deprive people of their freedoms without an actual security threat. Not liking his religious or political affiliations is not sufficient to deprive someone of their rights if within their lawful bounds.

You are advocating for totalitarian police state methods, and allowing policy to criminalize rather than due process. Removal of due process is creation of a despotic totalitarian police state that contradicts the premise of a free and democratic society.

And me such a freedom loving guy, too. According to the article, it wasn't just an Islamist website. It was a website used by militant Islamists and Al Qaeda.

I hope they make him walk. I wouldn't let him on Greyhound either.