Canadian Scorn For U.S. Security Proposal Brought Back To Earth In Halifax

Of course the possibility of someone hijacking a plane in either country is real, but at issue here is the fact that handing over Canadian info to the U.S. (with its PATRIOT Act and other invasive methods of gathering and abusing info) means sacrificing our Canadian civil liberties--and our information and identity sovereignty, in the name of the U.S. definition of "security". <P> I believe it was U.S. icon Ben Franklin himself who said "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". <P> So personally, I can, and I will, get upset about it. As Can ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna himself (no anti-American) has said (watched him this weekend on Question Period), handing over info on domestic Canadian flights to the U.S. clearly violates our current privacy laws. <P> And I have two other words which should give us all pause: Maher Arar. <p> For a very good overview of the situation including the recent scramble, blog-style with links, see <a href="http://www.theworldforum.org/story/2005/6/6/10586/50832"> U.S. Wants To Impose Its "No-Fly" List On Most Canadian Domestic Flights</a> from The World Forum. <P> You'll note that there are some major American groups who are opposing the new U.S. style of info gathering and the infamous "no-fly" lists. From the above article:<br> Both the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center are involved in lawsuits against the U.S. government relating to no-fly lists. EPIC has received documents under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act which it says.."establish that the TSA administers two lists: a "no-fly" list and a "selectee" list, which requires the passenger to go through additional security measures. The names are provided to air carriers through Security Directives or Emergency Amendments and are stored in their computer systems so that an individual with a name that matches the list can be flagged when getting a boarding pass. A "no-fly" match requires the agent to call a law enforcement officer to detain and question the passenger. In the case of a Selectee, an "S" or special mark is printed on their boarding pass and the person receives additional screening at security." <P> The "no-fly" list has in fact often been shown to be imperfect and ineffective. For instance, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html">U.S. Senator Edward M. Ted Kennedy was put on the no-fly list and couldn't get off of it for THREE WEEKS</a>. According to the Washington Post, "Critics said the senator's experience served as the latest example of how a system designed to improve security is instead targeting innocent travelers." <P> Remember, that's a <i>U.S. Senator</i>. So what chance would regular innocent Canadians have to fix a similar problem? How many planes would be downed or sent back for NO REASON when some innocent person on a Canadian domestic flight crusing through US airspace comes up on the U.S. "no-fly" list? Isn't that a colossal waste of time and money, and doesn't it take those resources away from finding any real threats?<p>---<br>Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf<br />

"Airspace security" should neither be an excuse to seize personal information, nor to turn away an entire plane of innocent passengers. If Canada had not accepted said flight out of US-like paranoia, what course of action should the pilots have taken? Turned around and flown across the atlantic?

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

Simply Canadians should just put their foot down and demand our government say no to this proposal. Until Americans become respectable world citizens again, we should not bend to their wishes to protect them from themselves. Our security apparatus such as CSIS and the RCMP while not perfect, does protect Canadians, and thus Americans. Giving up our personal information is going too far.

Larger issue - how many Canadians will stop flying because of this, and what will that do to our domestic airline industry? Nobody seems to either be asking that question, or seem to care. I for one have already stopped traveling to the United States because of their current government and their overt paranoia. I would also not fly on a domestic airline if I knew my information was going to the United States, and out of our domestic control and oversight. I have nothing to hide, but that is not the issue, the issue is our very sovereignty, and that matters far more than Bush government overreaction to the events of 9/11.

People may want to take a read:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?articleid=134149">http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?articleid=134149</a><br />
<br />
<<Prevent and Respond to Threats within North America<br />
<br />
- Develop and implement a strategy to enhance North American maritime transportation and port security.<br />
<br />
- Develop and implement a strategy to establish equivalent approaches to aviation security for North America.<br />
<br />
- Develop and implement a comprehensive North American strategy for combating transnational threats to the United States, Canada, and Mexico, including terrorism, organized crime, illegal drugs, migrant and contraband smuggling and trafficking.<br />
<br />
- Enhance partnerships on intelligence related to North American security.<br />
<br />
- Develop and implement a common approach to critical infrastructure protection, and response to cross-border terrorist incidents and, as applicable, natural disasters.>><br />
<br />
Notice how you're told what, in a general sense, will be 'developed', but not exactly what will be implemented/rolled out or how. <br />
<br />
Welcome to the Canadian brave new world.<p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />

Perhaps I don't understand the whole story here, but if the airliner was hijacked, why would it be safe to land it in Halifax, rather than say, Maine? Does this new security measure mean that any threat to the U.S. is sent to Canada?

I also think that handing over personal private info, has very little to do with making the skies safer, and as stated above by targeting people on a list, you are missing possible real threats, because they are relying on an obvious flawed system. Whatever happened to real police work, like investigations, following leads, etc? The criteria for people to be put on this list is not clear, secret until they pull you off the plane, and I agree, with the Patrio Act in place, if the Canadian domestic fight is pulled out of the air and forced to land in the U.S. because you are percieved to be a threat to the U.S., one why bring you to their country, second what rights will you have, regardless of if you are innocent? Or will we all be subject to their mercy, and those that fail the test sent to Syria?

I wouldn't feel safe flying at all under the current system, they are flagging people who are innocent, therefore the real danger are possibly getting through, because they aren't doing their homework. Why do they keep the list secret, allow you on the plane only to force it down later, isn't that a huge waste of resources? Why not reveal you are on the list when you attempt to purchase a ticket? Then the local authorities can question you, and hopefully remove your name from the list? But from what I understand nobody knows they are on the list, and it is very difficult to get it removed once it is on the list.

I don't think it is making anyone safer, just turning society into a paranoid group that suspects their neighbors and fellow passengers. Perhaps that is part of the plan. Another point might be to prevent people who must fly, from speaking out against the political will, because they fear their name could end up on the list. There are many ways to silence the masses.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

There is no way to silence the mass if the mass is in control.

I don't mean to be offensive here however, it really doesn't matter what anyone here thinks or doesn't. None of us have any control over anything to do with government decisions, and most of us have no idea of what our government is doing, or not.

Our opinions don't matter.

---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).

Absolutely NOT TRUE!

Two words buddy - missile defence

Martin and his government were all for it until Canadians like those found on Vive and elsewhere made their noise.

Yes, as a Haligonian I'm starting to feel a bit uneasy. In the backs of our minds was the uneasy suspicion that immediately following 911, that at some level it was decided that NFLD and NS airports and surrounding areas were less densly populated and therefore a better option for landing than other Canadian or US airports.

Point taken.

The U.S. didn't need Canada to sign-on for any reason beyond PR. Canada not signing on could, as I've indicated before, be utilized by 'harmonizers' to further their agenda as effectively or more effectively than might have been the case if Canada had signed on the dotted line, so I can't see the BMD situation as being quite the 'victory' that some do.

I will however amend my comment to "Our opinions don't matter, unless it is the interests of the powers that be to have us believe that they do".

BMD aside, I'll again suggest people look at the "Security Agenda and Prosperity Agenda" in my initial post and read between the lines or envision exactly how the generalized statements of direction might play out.



---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).