Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

This is not what I fought for.


How do we fight back against this bullshit?

Thank you daddygod for bringing this to my attention. I will no longer be flying.


( 35 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:32 pm (UTC)
Me neither...
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:38 pm (UTC)
Just wait until someone gets caught smuggling Semtex in their ass...

Think about the pre-flight screenings after that.
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:41 pm (UTC)
Someone already blogged about that. "What about female bombers carrying something in their vaginas?" he asked TSA, who then started looking uncomfortable.

Meh, I could just solve all this for myself by moving back to Canada.
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:43 pm (UTC)
Oh wait! I've got a link about Canuckistan here too..

Nov. 1st, 2010 06:48 pm (UTC)
Consider the source. It's the SUN. And I'd rather a woman be allowed to give testimony in court wearing a veil than live with this shit.

I just think of all the crap I live with here that I wouldn't have to worry about if I went home. No worrying about health insurance, which is the only reason I'm staying in the military. Less invasion of privacy. Lower taxes. No, I'm not kidding. Walking through a parking lot without JESUS bumper stickers everywhere. The fact that I could hypothetically download peer-to-peer music for my wife while smoking a reefer. Sure booze is more expensive, but I can always become a teetotaller.
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:50 pm (UTC)
You'd rather have someone not be able to face their accuser?

The fact that it was posted in the Sun has nothing to do with the ruling though.
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:56 pm (UTC)
They're still facing their accuser.
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:59 pm (UTC)
No, not really. You can't prove who is under any veil or mask. Besides, religion is supposed to be removed from the courts, right?
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:31 pm (UTC)
Voice? The part of the face that shows? Plus, Canadian law is done along British lines, not American, so religion is not removed from the courts.
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:41 pm (UTC)
But how dare anyone ever be religious and feel they can still be so in court? They're just scary MOOSLIMS anyways. She probably has terrorisms under that veil.

Seriously I can't believe someone fixed their fingers to even type that a woman wearing something she feels is her religious right is WRONG. Freedom of religion does not mean no one else can have a religion. You don't lose your legal rights because you're spiritual.
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:45 pm (UTC)
If you read the story, you'll find it was one judge who allowed it. A judge is generally allowed to do anything in his or her courtroom.
Nov. 2nd, 2010 05:58 am (UTC)

I was more commenting to the people I see who act like she's not allowed to wear things because courts are supposed to be areligious. Yes, it's nice that you don't believe their faith, but don't make other people follow your non belief.
Nov. 2nd, 2010 06:17 am (UTC)
The SUN family of papers tends to be very ass-backwards. The column mentioning the article referred to the judge's decision to let her wear a veil in court *while testifying against someone who had sexually assaulted her" as "sharia coming to Canada". Uh, no. If sharia came to Canada she'd be being stoned for the assault, not having a judge be compassionate to her.
Nov. 3rd, 2010 01:22 pm (UTC)
^ What she said!!
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:18 pm (UTC)
when you can testify in a mask, its fair to have her testify in a veil.

they do not PERMIT masked testimony. you need special exemptions to even testify by video link. because "right to face the accuser" is part of law.

now mind you, i must point out that i, unlike many others, actually have some interest/respect for teh face veil. i belong to many modest clothing groups, and i TRULY sympathize with any woman who wishes to be veiled......
i wear hijab myself sometimes, although not the veil....
and i wear head coverings fairly often.

that said? if she can testify in court, she should be able to fly in a veil.......
if they dont consider it safe to let her fly, or get her drivers license, in a veil.... then she shouldn't be testifying in one.
be consistant about whether the veil is "protected religious speech/habit/clothing" or its not
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:52 pm (UTC)
i dont consider bumper stickers, which are on people's own cars to be an issue in my life........

however the rest of it makes me wish *I* could move to Canada.

dont drink, dont smoke, (what do you do) so price of that wouldnt bug me.... but DMN what i wouldnt give for decent health insurance. and i am one of the lucky ones who HAS health insurance.
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:39 pm (UTC)
"oh, it's not REQUIRED. we can subject you to this other horribly invasive test instead"
if enough people don't fly on account of it, then maybe... TSA doesn't care, but the airlines certainly do, and they can throw their weight around.

if enough people write their Congresscritters (I will be), then maybe... TSA isn't their baby, but they can definitely make such screening illegal as a matter of law rather than policy.

if enough people write to the airlines, too, declaring they won't be flying anymore, then maybe... the airlines are hurting enough these days already without worrying about that.

problem is, if opinions are only made known in dribs and drabs, everybody comes to think of it as "okay". only when it appears as singular public outrage do politicians and businesses line up to try to correct the problem.
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:42 pm (UTC)
Is this kinda like how Jigsaw never killed anyone, he just forces you to kill yourself?

See icon.
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:49 pm (UTC)
the level of invasiveness, and the remarkable INEFFECTIVENESS of the methods chosen, continue to astound me

the back sctter x rays have at least marginal effectiveness behind them.... but no "body pat down" will detect the methods the terrorists have been seen to use lately, so why do it?
Nov. 1st, 2010 06:51 pm (UTC)
They wanna squeeze your boobies?
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:11 pm (UTC)
sadly this may be about all the reason.....
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:13 pm (UTC)
I was of course trying to make light of the situation, but yea, I'm sure there is a disproportionate amount of TSA employees that would support this postulation.
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:20 pm (UTC)
aaaaaand a large number of TSA employees currently going
"oh Gd no......"

i have met both
the ones who really are trying to do a difficult job, and trying to be reasonable, and have rules changing all the blasted time

and the ass hats
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:34 pm (UTC)
Right, which is why I said there will be a disproportionate number going "BOOBIES" as opposed to those going "oh God no..."
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:39 pm (UTC)
see icon
Nov. 1st, 2010 07:25 pm (UTC)
The x-ray option doesn't seem too bad, though I don't fly often at all, so radiation could be an issue for some (pregnant women, for example, couldn't do it). Really, this just makes me want to take Greyhound or commute cross-country by car (even though it's a much bigger pain in the ass, really)
(Deleted comment)
Nov. 1st, 2010 08:28 pm (UTC)
I would not call this security. It's simply knee-jerk reactions at their finest.

Real security isn't pat downs, taking your shoes off, X-ray machines and the other TSA-mandated BS that goes on now, it's threat anticipation and taking preventitve action. Security means that the chances of something going on are exponentially lowered, not taking action after the fact.

This is one place in which we really, really should learn from the Israelis (or the Germans).


My other concern with this new sanctioned sexual assault screening tactic is - yes, this may be a bit over the top - is how people who have sensory issues or PTSD might react to virtually being groped by strangers, irregardless of the context that this is in.

There is a lot that is Very, Very wrong with this.
Nov. 1st, 2010 08:32 pm (UTC)
The groping isn't mandatory because you can always go through the X-ray machine and be seen naked. Isn't that SO much more reasonable?
Nov. 1st, 2010 08:50 pm (UTC)
No. Neither option sits well with me.
Nov. 1st, 2010 08:51 pm (UTC)
I should have ended that statement with /sarcasm.
Nov. 2nd, 2010 01:46 am (UTC)
Ye gods.
Nov. 2nd, 2010 01:47 am (UTC)
I'm baffled. Is it anything like Israeli security? I was searched by a woman guard, and she had quickly passed over all the important places before I noticed what she was doing. This was done in curtained off cubicle. She also did a good search of all my luggage. Men were searched by men. No one has ever successfully hijacked an El Al plane.

I found it totally inoffensive. Irradiating me is not inoffensive.
Nov. 2nd, 2010 02:07 am (UTC)
They brought in the frisking because they want to make it MORE unpleasant than going through the x-ray machine. Remember, Canadians have more respect for x-rays than Americans and know they can do harm. This is why Americans think nothing of mammograms annually even if there are no risk factors and dentists do x-rays every six months. They're convinced x-rays are safe. I fly a LOT and I neither wish to be irradiated or fondled.
Nov. 3rd, 2010 01:28 pm (UTC)
I got this last year, flying home from Connecticut. I opted for the look-at-me-naked x-ray -- the people seeing the image are screened off from seeing the person going through -- but it really made me uneasy. And yeah, like you, I just don't want to fly if it's going to be like that.
( 35 comments — Leave a comment )


San Diego
This is it, the Apocalypse
My Amazon Wish List

Latest Month

June 2016


Powered by LiveJournal.com