News   Apr 19, 2024
 1.4K     0 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 778     2 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 1.2K     3 

Airport Security Screening

Actually, many provinces actually did have provincial forces historically. The mounties were meant to be temporary, and were supposed to be disbanded after the Prairies were settled, and partially were with the the establishment of the afformentioned provincial forces. Why they re-replaced those provincial forces is beyond me.

I guess history starts where you choose the starting point!

I agree with you. It's really odd for example that a province like Alberta which has the wealth and an antipathy towards the centre, subcontracts to the RCMP every few years for policing.
 
It's really odd for example that a province like Alberta which has the wealth and an antipathy towards the centre, subcontracts to the RCMP every few years for policing.
Agreed. Seems every time I pick up the newspaper, and see a report about inappropriate tasering, I know it's going to be RCMP, even though most Canadians are policed by a Provincial force, rather than the RCMP (not to mention that even in provinces where the RCMP does the policing, that many people deal primarily with city forces rather than the RCMP).
 
Racist?? How on earth do you get that from anything I said? Any Israeli I've known has been the same race I am. Many aren't.

You don't know enough Israelis then. Israel is quite the melting pot, especially given the huge numbers of displaced Jews they've taken in from all over. Not all Israelis are cookie-cutter whites.

??? I didn't metion Palestine, or any other nation such as Uganda or Samoa. I don't see the relevance to my comment.

You're being disingenous. There is a context to the actions of the Israeli state. If you deem them to be a "terrorist state" then there has to be somebody they are terrorizing. And in this context, most would presume the supposed victims to be Palestinians. If I'm wrong in my presumption, please define for us who you think the Israelis are terrorizing.

Not sure your point here. Many Arab countries are horribly backwards and bigoted. But you can't use that to justify that other nations have the right to act like terrorists.

Fortunately for us, our enemies aren't next door. I would suggest that our morals would be quite different if there were populations ten times our size hell-bent on wiping every last one of us off the face of the earth. Under this context, defining one side's actions as terrorism while completely ignoring the other side's thinly disguised desire for genocide (or being outright dismissive of this reality as you are) is atrocious wilful ignorance and morally vapid.

That and what you call terrorism, most would consider (including most Israelis) to be legitimate self-defence.

I don't know why one can't acknowledge that Isreal is a backward bigoted terrorist nation without pointing to it's neighbours and saying it's okay that they are like that, because their neighbours are worse. Do you rape your neighbour and then say it's okay, because my neighbour would have killed them instead?

This is just inflammatory nonsense. The whole reason the Israelis are in Palestine in the first place is because they were attacked several times by their neighbours, with one of the aggressors being Trans-Jordan (which included the present-day West Bank). If my neighbour had decided to repatedly try to kill my children, and try and wipe out my whole extended family, I would have zero issues with sitting in his living room with my shotgun to make sure he decides to stay off my property and not attack my loved ones. I would not wait for him to pick off my loved ones one-by-one in the faint hope that he might somehow decided to compromise years down the road. And I would stay there until he agreed to make a reasonable peace.

It's one thing for Palestinians to target the Israeli Army in their homeland. And most would consider such resistance legitimate. But it's quite another matter to target Israeli civilians in Israel proper who have nothing to do with the conflict. The Palestinians can end this quite easily. The day they decide not to make killing Jews their life's ambition, there will be peace in the region. You really think Israelis aren't fed up with the occupation too? They've got to send young conscripts to risk their lives, in the hopes that they'll have a buffer zone for their country. You don't think they'd rather have peace? But what happens when the give the Palestinians space? Just look at Gaza. The Gazans elected Hamas and then supported Hamas launching rocket attacks in Israel proper.

There are Israeli actions I fully disagree with (settlement expansion, imposition of internal movement controls in Palestine, controls on Palestinian aid and trade, etc.). But to suggest that the current situation is solely the fault of the Israelis and that attempts to defend themselves from repeated attacks through some form of strategic depth after fighting several wars on their own soil constitutes terrorism is ridiculously bigoted nonsense. The day all their Arab neighbours recognize Israel's right to exist in peace is the day there will be peace. At that point, if the Israelis continued with their occupation, I would support the "terrorist" label. But while you have Palestinian governments like Hamas which refuse to talk to Israel, teach Blood Libel to school kids and consider it legitimate to target Israeli civilians in Israel, it's nonsense to suggest that the Israeli Army seeking to create a buffer zone is equivalent to terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Seems every time I pick up the newspaper, and see a report about inappropriate tasering, I know it's going to be RCMP, even though most Canadians are policed by a Provincial force, rather than the RCMP (not to mention that even in provinces where the RCMP does the policing, that many people deal primarily with city forces rather than the RCMP).

Personally, I think the roots of many of the RCMP's problems stem from their varied responsibilities. It's challenging for them to be beat cops and guardians of national security.
 
Not all Israelis are cookie-cutter whites.
This was exactly my point. How could a statement that criticizes a multi-racial state be racist?

If you deem them to be a "terrorist state" then there has to be somebody they are terrorizing.
In particular I was thinking of the international crimes they have by stealing and faking both Canadian and British passports. That's terrorism.

And in this context, most would presume the supposed victims to be Palestinians.
There you go again ... what is with this obsession with Palestine. Have I mentioned either Palestine or Goa? I'm really tired of people who think one can't criticize Israel without being some pro-Arab fascist. I criticize most nations. Should I discriminate against Israelis and not criticize them? I certainly don't hesitate to criticize anyone who defends the Turkish occupation of Kurdistan, or the highly bigoted society in Saudi Arabia.
 
Last edited:
This was exactly my point. How could a statement that criticizes a multi-racial state be racist?

If you're including all Israelis than I stand corrected. However, you did suggest that most Israelis were like you earlier...which would oddly make your prior statements racist against your own kind.

In particular I was thinking of the international crimes they have by stealing and faking both Canadian and British passports. That's terrorism.

Under what definition is using a fake passport terrorism? A crime? For sure. Terrorism? No way. Such an action is certainly not defined as terrorism under any international convention or law that our government subscribes to. If that was the case, the actions of our diplomats during the Iranian hostage crisis would also be terrorism.

There you go again ... what is with this obsession with Palestine. Have I mentioned either Palestine or Goa? I'm really tired of people who think one can't criticize Isreal without being some pro-Arab fascist. I criticize most nations. Should I discriminate against Isrealis and not criticize them? I certainly don't hesitate to criticize anyone who defends the Turkish occupation of Kurdistan, or the highly bigoted society in Saudi Arabia.

First off, can you spell Israel properly? Thanks. Next, it's not an obsession, it's a recognition of reality. Israel is the way it is, because it is embroiled in a conflict with its neighbours. If you ignored Nazi Germany, the allies would have looked like quite the aggressors too.
 
If you're including all Israelis than I stand corrected. However, you did suggest that most Israelis were like you earlier...which would oddly make your prior statements racist against your own kind.
???? I said nothing of the kind. I said any Israeli I've known. I've only known a couple. At the same time, I noted that many aren't the same race. I don't know how these comments make one racist against anyone. If I criticize US fiscal policy, am I being racist against blacks? Or whites? Or anyone? How could criticizing a multi-racial state on political issues ever be considered racist?

Under what definition is using a fake passport terrorism? A crime? For sure. Terrorism? No way. Such an action is certainly not defined as terrorism under any international convention or law that our government subscribes to.
It terrifies me ... it's terrorism, and I'll refer to it as such. If it makes you feel better, I'll retract terrorist, and replace with criminal.

If that was the case, the actions of our diplomats during the Iranian hostage crisis would also be terrorism.
I'm quite sure the government of Iran would agree with you.

First off, can you spell Israel properly?
A spelling flame, really? Your correction has been noted. Hmm, I guess I've always spelled it wrong ... never noticed before.

Israel is the way it is, because it is embroiled in a conflict with its neighbours.
... or is it embroiled in a conflict with it's neighbours because of the way it is. ... actually don't answer this. I really don't care much about middle-eastern politics. I simply will object to anyone or any nation that believes bigotry is ever justifiable for any reason whatsoever.

Still, I wouldn't putting a criminal organization like Mossad in charge of airport security in Canada. Perhaps you should justify why you think this would be a good idea, rather than trying to defend Israel's right to be bigoted and break international law.
 
Last edited:
???? I said nothing of the kind. I said any Israeli I've known. I've only known a couple. At the same time, I noted that many aren't the same race. I don't know how these comments make one racist against anyone. If I criticize US fiscal policy, am I being racist against blacks? Or whites? Or anyone? How could criticizing a multi-racial state on political issues ever be considered racist?

Perhaps racist is misplaced? How about bigot instead? To me, such strident anti-Israeli views on the left are on par with the birther crowd. In fact they are worse. They conflate the actions of a state with its citizens to paint all its citizens with the same broad brush. And on top of that attempt to use such black or white terms and apply it to a region embroiled in a complex conflict spanning generations. Anybody who dumbs down the Arab-Israeli conflict to state that one side categorically wrong is without a doubt bigoted towards that nation and its people.

????
It terrifies me ... it's terrorism, and I'll refer to it as such. If it makes you feel better, I'll retract terrorist, and replace with criminal.

Yes. There's a huge difference between a state that sponsors terrorism and one that commits criminal acts.

I'm quite sure the government of Iran would agree with you.

So are you of the opinion that the Iranians are right to think that Canadians are terrorists and that we are a terrorist nation?

A spelling flame, really? Your correction has been noted. Hmm, I guess I've always spelled it wrong ... never noticed before.

It's just annoying. I thought you were doing it on purpose.

????
... or is it embroiled in a conflict with it's neighbours because of the way it is. ... actually don't answer this. I really don't care much about middle-eastern politics. I simply will object to anyone or any nation that believes bigotry is ever justifiable for any reason whatsoever.

There you go again, laying blame for the whole conflict on one side. Like there's no bigotry on the other side.

Still, I wouldn't putting a criminal organization like Mossad in charge of airport security in Canada. Perhaps you should justify why you think this would be a good idea, rather than trying to defend Israel's right to be bigoted and break international law.

1) I have never advocated putting any police or intelligence service in charge of airport security. Go back and read my posts. I was pretty clear that I wanted airport security to be in the hands of personnel trained and dedicated to the job, working for an organization with a mandate limited to air transport security. In other words, I want CATSA to do the job inside of outsourcing.

2) I am not so much defending "Israel's right to be bigoted and break international law" as challenging what I see as an unfair viewpoint on a very complex conflict in the region.

And flat out, yes, when I hear people who have never lived in the region, hold such strident anti-Israeli views, that allow for no nuance whatsoever, I do suspect that anti-semitism is not far behind. It's always either, "The Israelis are terrorists." Or, "All Arabs are terrorists." And they often follow their bigoted screed with, "I know a few Israelis (or Arabs)."

3) Mossad criminal? LOL Most intelligence agencies are. If they aren't breaking the law somewhere, they aren't doing their jobs.
 
Perhaps racist is misplaced? How about bigot instead? To me, such strident anti-Israeli views on the left are on par with the birther crowd.
I don't know how you could possibly equate being very opposed to a countries political choices to bigotry. I think Russia's political choices in the last 5-10 years are equally horrible, but I've never met a Russian I don't like. I think the Iranian government is completely insane, but I've gotten along great with every Iranian I've known. One can be can be anti-Israel without being pro-Arab.

Anybody who dumbs down the Arab-Israeli conflict to state that one side categorically wrong is without a doubt bigoted towards that nation and its people.
And again, you try and turn someone making negative comments about Israel as being taking sides. Let me make this clear ... the only Middle East countries fucked up more than Israel are the Arab ones like Syria and Palestine. Well, and Iran ...

Yes. There's a huge difference between a state that sponsors terrorism and one that commits criminal acts.
There's no difference at all. It's a step to far, and those that go that far should be prosecuted to the full extent of international law.

So are you of the opinion that the Iranians are right to think that Canadians are terrorists and that we are a terrorist nation?
???? What have I ever said that could possibly ever suggest that? The Iranian government is completely insane ...

It's just annoying. I thought you were doing it on purpose.
Not at all actually ... it suddenly crossed my mind why it's always pronounced differently than I think it should be ...

There you go again, laying blame for the whole conflict on one side. Like there's no bigotry on the other side.
???? That's just a bizarre comment. How can me saying that I'm simply opposed to bigotry on either side be blaming one side. If that were true you must believe that there is no bigotry in the Arab nations, and no bigotry in Iran. Perhaps you haven't noticed that they are even more bigoted than Israel? The over-the-top paranoia that if one criticizes Israel here, that one must be choosing another side is ... just unreal.

Okay then ... Mossad out for airport security. I still don't see why a private agency can't handle it. When has this created an incident at Pearson?
 
Okay nftiz, I'm sorry I ever brought up Israel. This is obviously a sensitive topic for you on which you have firm and unwavering opinions. That's fine, go with it.

Getting back to Pearson security screening, if you feel that the private firm handing out-bound passenger screening is sufficient, what about in-bound passengers, luggage and cargo? Should we out source customs and immigration officers at Pearson? Is there any security function at Pearson that you feel the Federal government is best to handle vs private firms?

I imagine there is a reduced capability Canadian version of Blackwater Security Consulting (BSC) available for hire if we wanted to run the Federal security staff out of Pearson.
 
Okay then ... Mossad out for airport security. I still don't see why a private agency can't handle it. When has this created an incident at Pearson?

I'd rather not wait for an incident to address what is obviously wrong in the current setup. You have employees who are barely trained, on low wages, who are essentially the last line of defence to what is at minimum a place with a ton of people (mass casualty potential), or worse, with access to airplanes full of people.

I want these screeners properly trained with a proper career path in a properly uniformed service, under strict codes of discipline with full independent oversight (like we have for our military and police forces). They should have a career path as air transport security officers, all the way from screener at the bottom to rampside security to air marshalls. As of today, this is not the case. What's there today is window dressing. Low wage labour with minimum training, whose alternative to screening bags at the airport is guarding a bank branch in a suburban strip mall.

While no setup is foolproof, the current one, in my opinion, is just asking for trouble.

By the way there is presidence for this. Many countries have police organizations that are dedicated for transport or for critical infrastructure (nuclear plants or hydro dams for example). We're more exception than the norm, here.
 
I imagine there is a reduced capability Canadian version of Blackwater Security Consulting (BSC) available for hire if we wanted to run the Federal security staff out of Pearson.

But then he'd complain that they were too expensive....

Sadly like most Canadians, he'd rather wait until something goes drastically wrong to initiate change.

Btw they aren't Blackwater anymore. They're called Xe.
 
Okay nftiz, I'm sorry I ever brought up Israel. This is obviously a sensitive topic for you on which you have firm and unwavering opinions. That's fine, go with it.
It's only a sensitive topic, because another poster's reaction to anyone having the gall to criticize Israel was to say that it's racist nonsense, and turn the discussion into a rehash of local politics. The topic of Israel's over-the-top policies in itself is no more sensitive to me than many other rogue nations - the USA included. I'd be equally vocal is someone suggested that the CIA, DIA, CSIS, or SIS should be in charge.

Getting back to Pearson security screening, if you feel that the private firm handing out-bound passenger screening is sufficient, what about in-bound passengers, luggage and cargo? Should we out source customs and immigration officers at Pearson? Is there any security function at Pearson that you feel the Federal government is best to handle vs private firms?
I don't feel that there is any security function at Pearson that the federal government is best to handle. Peel police seems to always be there to handle policing matters. I don't see any reason why private agencies can't deal most items. There needs to be a federal presence for immigration and customs ... but these are strictly speaking security items. That's not to say the RCMP or CSIS should be restricted from Pearson, if they feel they need to be there for operational reasons.
 

Back
Top