A
aesop081
Guest
Grando said:
Please explain .........
Canadian: Air Passenger bill of rights [Merged]
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
Please explain .........
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
garb811 said:
That's a poor excuse... since when does a mother with three children constitute such a great risk she needs to have even her children's shoes searched and her support gear torn apart? And then left unaided afterwards to put everything back together while still trying to keep track of three kids? This is the type of action that draws unnecessary criticism...
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Greymatters said:
Since the British learned the hard way in Aden so many years ago. Women were, until then, never searched for weapons or explosives/explosive devices.
So what makes you think a mother of three should be exempt suspicion?
A
aesop081
Guest
Greymatters said:
No its not. The poster was blaming Air Canada for her family's experience at security when the responsability clearly lies with CATSA.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
In regard to the blame, agreed, it falls on CATSA, not Air Canada.
In regard to circumstances of suspicion, Im not talking about women in general being above suspicion of carrying out terrorist acts. There have been so many female suicide bombers over the decades that to do so would be ludicrous.
Im talking about profiling a line up of people, and a mother with three children being apparently picked out as the person 'most likely to carry out a hostile act' and to be searched completely (along with her children) which does not match any known profile I ever heard of. If you've heard of an attack being conducted by a mother with three children in tow, Id be glad to hear of it.
There is also the issue of compassion and responsibility for actions to consider on the part of the security provider. Its a given that persons searched are responsible for cleaning up and packing their own gear afterwards, but trying to do so with three kids in tow is a problem of greater proportions that every parent understands. It falls under the category of undue hardship and inconvenience. Any parent would know how difficult it is to track three kids, never mind trying to repack all your bags afterwards, and a little assistance should be provided.
Security is a two way street - respect for the authority requesting you submit to inspection, and in turn, respect for the individual being searched, especially when finding that the person being searched has nothing to hide.
In regard to circumstances of suspicion, Im not talking about women in general being above suspicion of carrying out terrorist acts. There have been so many female suicide bombers over the decades that to do so would be ludicrous.
Im talking about profiling a line up of people, and a mother with three children being apparently picked out as the person 'most likely to carry out a hostile act' and to be searched completely (along with her children) which does not match any known profile I ever heard of. If you've heard of an attack being conducted by a mother with three children in tow, Id be glad to hear of it.
There is also the issue of compassion and responsibility for actions to consider on the part of the security provider. Its a given that persons searched are responsible for cleaning up and packing their own gear afterwards, but trying to do so with three kids in tow is a problem of greater proportions that every parent understands. It falls under the category of undue hardship and inconvenience. Any parent would know how difficult it is to track three kids, never mind trying to repack all your bags afterwards, and a little assistance should be provided.
Security is a two way street - respect for the authority requesting you submit to inspection, and in turn, respect for the individual being searched, especially when finding that the person being searched has nothing to hide.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Many innocent people have been caught up in this type of profiling. It is a fact of life. Many on this site may have had a bad day and matched such a profile. So tell us all: is it better to be "Safe" or would you rather be "Sorry"?
As for packing up their things afterward: who would you suggest do it? I know I would prefer to do my own packing, no matter how inconvenienced it may be. I have had the pleasure of doing some of that with overweight luggage recently. It is never fun, but again, who would you prefer do it?
As for packing up their things afterward: who would you suggest do it? I know I would prefer to do my own packing, no matter how inconvenienced it may be. I have had the pleasure of doing some of that with overweight luggage recently. It is never fun, but again, who would you prefer do it?
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
I recently flew back from Halifax to Edmonton. My carry on was dismantled with all the care of a feeding hyena. I was putting all my stuff back together when a (let's just say a Canadian who didn't live here when the Oilers last won the cup) told me to hurry up as I was blocking things. I asked him to repeat that, his Sup stepped up and said "He said hurry the Christ up, you're holding up traffic". THERE'S your respect.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
My response is that just because it is the current culture among particular security staff to not give a shit doesnt make it right or acceptable. "Responsibility for actions" is in play, a principle that many law enforcement agencies follow, or at least claim to.
Look at this scenario:
A wheelchair could potentially carry a lot of hidden armaments and/or explosives. Having matched the profile for possible threats, the security agents remove the man from his wheechair and take apart the wheelchair to inspect it. Nothing is found. Should the security staff;
a) leave the disabled person to put their wheelchair back together.
a) assist the disabled person with putting their wheelchair back together.
c) put the wheelchair back together for him.
What is your response?
Look at this scenario:
A wheelchair could potentially carry a lot of hidden armaments and/or explosives. Having matched the profile for possible threats, the security agents remove the man from his wheechair and take apart the wheelchair to inspect it. Nothing is found. Should the security staff;
a) leave the disabled person to put their wheelchair back together.
a) assist the disabled person with putting their wheelchair back together.
c) put the wheelchair back together for him.
What is your response?
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 530
One reason security doesn't help you put your stuff back together is due to liability. If you re-pack your items you have the ability to check if anything is missing and are SOL if you report something as being lost/stolen later. If they help you pack your stuff up and you find something missing later, they become a suspect in a theft allegation. The other reason, of course, is due to manning. Check points aren't funded and manned to have "x" number of helpers to assist in getting your overstuffed carry on back together, they are manned to clear the expected number of travelers through the checkpoint and for every minute a guy spends helping Mrs Bloggins get her stuff back in a bag is a minute that someone isn't doing what they are actually supposed to be doing.
As for the treatment of the poor mother of three with a green passport...didn't we just go around this topic in the thread where buddy was upset because he had to go through the proper procedure in his DEU? Parents involve their kids in criminal activities on a not so infrequent basis, just because someone has three kids in tow doesn't get them an automatic by, much the same as traveling in DEU doesn't either. Number of kids, colour of passport, uniform you're wearing, badge in the wallet as it goes through the X-ray...none of those give you any leeway, nor should they.
As for the treatment of the poor mother of three with a green passport...didn't we just go around this topic in the thread where buddy was upset because he had to go through the proper procedure in his DEU? Parents involve their kids in criminal activities on a not so infrequent basis, just because someone has three kids in tow doesn't get them an automatic by, much the same as traveling in DEU doesn't either. Number of kids, colour of passport, uniform you're wearing, badge in the wallet as it goes through the X-ray...none of those give you any leeway, nor should they.
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 530
It used to be the rule that you could only have one passport at a time so, if you were posted out of Canada on a Red or Green passport, you had to turn your blue one in so you had no choice but to travel on your official one.
A
aesop081
Guest
BYT Driver said:
IIRC , Springroll was posted OUTCAN at the time
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
I don't know about other bases, but here, WOps has your green passport which you have to sign out when travelling on official military business...such as deployment. I also used to have a blue one for travel, speaking of which I should get it redone soon! I don't think you're allowed to travel in country on vacation using the green one. But I could be wrong. :-\
CDN A, you could be right.
CDN A, you could be right.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
garb811 said:
Short sleeve shirts, pocketless pants, and monitoring cameras are great for removing liability on this issue. Its already used for this purpose in other security sectors.
garb811 said:
Thats exactly my point. Such manning should be taken into consideration. When security actions impose a delay factor on a person undergoing security actions, especially when undegoing a process they have no choice but to accept, such delays and extra actions should be taken into account. Saying 'you dont have to fly' is BS. Our country is so large we have no choice but to fly, and the bus and rail options are sub-standard. Failure to consider public reaction leads to increased criticism and opposition when the whole point of good security is to have everyone happily comply. To repeat, respect is a two-way street.
garb811 said:
Nor am I suggesting they should be given leeway if they look suspicious. In this case, we cant judge because we werent there. We dont know if she fit the profile or if she just pissed off the luggage inspector who used their authority to exact revenge. In either case, you dont just dump someone on the curb when they turn out to be 'innocent' of wrongdoing. Police forces have learned their lesson the hard way on this subject over the past ten year with numerous lawsuits, and it wont be long before someone finally confronts security at an airpiort over this same issue. "Everyone is a suspect" is an excuse that can be used for only so long before it backfires and kicks you in the teeth.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
garb811 said:
Not to mention the fact that one will be asked several times during their "travel process" whether or not they "packed their own luggage". Now, what would happen at their next security screening if they were to answer in the negative?
As for your example with the wheelchair..........get real. Use a little bit of common sense and reason. That is an exceptional case and one that would probably be handled a little differently.
V
visitor
Guest
Air Canada prefers to damage wheelchairs themselves while in the hold, rather than leave it to the security people.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
Strike said:
Then I would have been set up for offending the Recent Canadians in the overwhelming majority at airport security. I just reacted by moving even slower, examining everything for damage, packing and wrapping everything carefully.... I can be a pretty petulant six year old at times, but I'm working on it..... ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
George Wallace said:
Im not trying to be an asshole by posing a hard example - Im demonstrating that security is guided by society's reactions, and youre damn right it would be handled differently. Obviously you wouldnt just leave the guy lying there. Its a clear-cut offensive and unacceptable example to society and whoever did it would get crucified in the press.
The reasoning still follows on. If you wouldnt leave a diabled person to clean up security's mess, why is it acceptable to leave a mother with three kids to clean up the mess? She's not disabled, but certainly handicapped by other responsibilities.
The police follow this principle when they accidentally raid a house and find they've raided the wrong house. They dont just walk away, they try to make things right. The CF and many other allied nations use these principles of respect successfully in our security work overseas when dealing with other cultures. Why is it so unreasonable to talk about applying the same principles to our security in Canada?
Similar threads
