Government to Consider Random Alcohol testing for pilots

[Rockie]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I seem to recall a similar reaction by know it all socialists when the now president of the United States announced his candidacy.

It was funny back then when people gave Americans far too much credit for intelligence. Now of course not at all funny because he got elected and is proving even the mildest of optimists hopelessly wrong.

[B208]

Government sometimes get it wrong though, it gets challenged, and the Supreme Court is required to rule on it.

Whether you realize it or not, you are placing absolute faith I the Supreme Court. I do not.

I am perplexed as to what women and aboriginals have to do with question at hand.

I have faith in your abilities to figure it out, provided you re-read this thread enough times. I am still curious as to why you should have cause to ask numerous defence lawyers numerous questions. Also, did you get a chance to ask them about the law's historical view of women and Aboriginals? Did they give you an answer different than mine?

[B208]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I seem to recall a similar reaction by know it all socialists when the now president of the United States announced his candidacy.

It was funny back then when people gave Americans far too much credit for intelligence.

And that credit was well deserved; They didn't elect Hillary.

[Rockie]

Whether you realize it or not, you are placing absolute faith I the Supreme Court. I do not.

Not true (sort of), I may disagree with some of their rulings as do governments. But disagree or not, place absolute faith in the SC or not, they are they final arbiters. I trust that they will defend the constitution even if me or the government disagrees with any particular ruling, and will accept it as such knowing they bring much more legal and constitutional knowledge to bear than I ever can. That's Canada though, down in the USA the SC Justices are appointed by the President according to their political views which influence - sometimes drive - their interpretation of the constitution rather than simple principle of law.

What are you gonna do if you do disagree?

[Old fella]

Actually Governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause to over ride elements of the Charter. However for Provinces to do this it has to be within their jurisdiction and responsibilities. Case in point here was Alberta and SSM( which was under Federal rule so Alberta couldn't touch it). Quebec invoked it under Robert B., I believe under language requirements. Remember some of the Harper social conservative fringe nutbars wanted him to override the Charter on the abortion issue, of course no Federal government would go near that with an A330 right wing.

Rockie and other airline pilots here in Canada. I don't believe there is a serious issue of pilots at all our major airlines and their feeders of members getting in the cockpit under the influence that would require random testing similar to the RIDE stops. Yes, that Sunwing issue was probably the worst, but airlines carry the best big stick which is his/ her job. Also airlines like all other major corporations have employee assistance programs, recognizing fragility of humans and sadly issues overtake people. Correct me if I am wrong but there are many checks and balances aka other crew members wouldn't permit a crew member who is under the affects of alcohol to attempt to perform his/ her duties. I just can't see that happening-again I stand to be corrected. K

[B208]

Whether you realize it or not, you are placing absolute faith I the Supreme Court. I do not.

and will accept it as such knowing they bring much more legal and constitutional knowledge to bear than I ever can.

That is one way to look at it. Another is that they are an unelected body, (whose members have an extremely narrow background), which operates without checks or balances. Our current system is not a democracy; It is an oligarchy with the judiciary at the top. As for what I am going to do about it; I'm going to educate people, (as I am right now), about the reality of the nation in which they live.

[Rockie]

Correct me if I am wrong but there are many checks and balances aka other crew members wouldn't permit a crew member who is under the affects of alcohol to attempt to perform his/ her duties. I just can't see that happening-again I stand to be corrected.

Absolutely correct.

As far as the "Notwithstanding Clause" is concerned, any government actually using it will be forever judged for it so they aren't likely to use it for anything trivial.

That is one way to look at it. Another is that they are an unelected body, (whose members have an extremely narrow background), which operates without checks or balances.

Nonsense. They are a panel chosen over time by elected governments for their legal expertise to render legal rulings on matters including the constitution. There is nobody and no "body" more qualified to do so. They are an essential component of the checks and balances you cite, and if a government runs afoul of them as Harper did regularly it means the checks and balances are working properly. They defend the constitution - which is permanent - against the Harpers, Trumps, and any other temporary government who seeks to violate it.

[Old fella]

Whether you realize it or not, you are placing absolute faith I the Supreme Court. I do not.

and will accept it as such knowing they bring much more legal and constitutional knowledge to bear than I ever can.

That is one way to look at it. Another is that they are an unelected body, (whose members have an extremely narrow background), which operates without checks or balances. Our current system is not a democracy; It is an oligarchy with the judiciary at the top. As for what I am going to do about it; I'm going to educate people, (as I am right now), about the reality of the nation in which they live.

Well and needless to say, a good many of us here are educated and no doubt value continuing studies. Your curriculum vitae! Do include your aviation credentials as well.

[B208]

and will accept it as such knowing they bring much more legal and constitutional knowledge to bear than I ever can.

That is one way to look at it. Another is that they are an unelected body, (whose members have an extremely narrow background), which operates without checks or balances. Our current system is not a democracy; It is an oligarchy with the judiciary at the top. As for what I am going to do about it; I'm going to educate people, (as I am right now), about the reality of the nation in which they live.

Well and needless to say, a good many of us here are educated and no doubt value continuing studies. Your curriculum vitae! Do include your aviation credentials as well.

As I often tell my students; The info is all right there in front of you. You need only spend the effort of opening your mind and doing a little reading.

[Mostly Harmless]

No one has yet introduced a reason or argument to why we should give up rights other than;

I did it and it wasn't so bad;
Because I said so;
Your slippery slop argument is alarmist invalid in my opinion;

All laws are an infringement on personal rights and liberties... but they make it into society because a problem exists, evidence is brought forward to show that the balance of those losses of personal rights are outweighed by the dangers of the issue if unchecked. No one has brought forward anything. Where is this army of drunken pilots? Where are all the crashes caused by impairment? Even the one person saying they blew every day before going to work admitted no one got caught. Was that because of the test or because there was no issue in the first place? Do you really think without the testing that you, personally, or your colleagues were going to suddenly start flying drunk?

I am perplexed as to what women and aboriginals have to do with question at hand, perhaps there is something I am missing here and awaiting your enlightenment to guide me. Until then, I will take a pass on your wisdom.

Nothing. If you can't present any evidence to back up your convictions, or worse yet, there is no evidence to support your beliefs, you change the argument. Make it about the past, make it about whether the courts can be trusted, make you defend a position and pick that apart with lazy logic and catch phrases.

I put out the challenge, present evidence. Convince me why I should give up a right I currently have for "your" greater good. Show me the accidents that have happened and could have been prevented with your new laws. No one has done any of that. What's been done is changing the argument to something else.

[Rockie]

Our current system is not a democracy; It is an oligarchy with the judiciary at the top.

You need only spend the effort of opening your mind and doing a little reading.

The Constitution is at the top. I think you're the one who needs to do a little more reading.

[Cat Driver]

The problem is the oligarchy thinks it is above the constitution.

[Rockie]

The problem is the oligarchy thinks it is above the constitution.

Exactly. Harper got smacked down repeatedly because of it.

[trey kule]

Rockie posted:

Now of course not at all funny because he got elected and is proving even the mildest of optimists hopelessly wrong.

Please share with us the evidence to support this claim.

In my opinion, It is these kind of claims, that, if not supported by evidence, allow the government to gain support for this or that measure that makes absolutely no sense to anyone with common sense.
Read the posts here...The media has actually convinced some of the posters to believe these kind of occurrences are common...and the public demands action. And I would expect the government to react, though ultimately in a less drastic way ...
Even this post thread title....no one seems to notice the word "consider" in it.

[Rockie]

Please share with us the evidence to support this claim.

Google "Republicans" and you'll see who I mean. Led by Paul Ryan almost all of them were hoping Trump wasn't really as stupidly ignorant, or as offensive on every human level as he was during the campaign not to mention the first 70 years of his life. Of course they were wrong. Just as they were wrong (Obama too) that the job would temper Trump's worst tendencies and deep six his most lame-brained ideas. Reference what most of them were saying about his retarded wall...

Now of course the Republicans are futilely shoving their heads under the sand hoping Trump will somehow go away on his own before taking them all with him when it all blows up. They're wrong about that too. Those idiots created Trump and are inevitably going to be the ones who have to get rid of him, and every day they put if off is going to make it worse for them.

Go on Youtube and look at past footage of Republicans making excuses for Trump before the election...it's very easy to find. Except for his most ardent supporters in Congress the rest are terrified of having to answer publicly for their President and avoid the press like the plague.

[timel]

No one has yet introduced a reason or argument to why we should give up rights other than;

I did it and it wasn't so bad;
Because I said so;
Your slippery slop argument is alarmist invalid in my opinion;

All laws are an infringement on personal rights and liberties... but they make it into society because a problem exists, evidence is brought forward to show that the balance of those losses of personal rights are outweighed by the dangers of the issue if unchecked. No one has brought forward anything. Where is this army of drunken pilots? Where are all the crashes caused by impairment? Even the one person saying they blew every day before going to work admitted no one got caught. Was that because of the test or because there was no issue in the first place? Do you really think without the testing that you, personally, or your colleagues were going to suddenly start flying drunk?

I am perplexed as to what women and aboriginals have to do with question at hand, perhaps there is something I am missing here and awaiting your enlightenment to guide me. Until then, I will take a pass on your wisdom.

Nothing. If you can't present any evidence to back up your convictions, or worse yet, there is no evidence to support your beliefs, you change the argument. Make it about the past, make it about whether the courts can be trusted, make you defend a position and pick that apart with lazy logic and catch phrases.

I put out the challenge, present evidence. Convince me why I should give up a right I currently have for "your" greater good. Show me the accidents that have happened and could have been prevented with your new laws. No one has done any of that. What's been done is changing the argument to something else.

Amen to that.


Looks like TTC on the other hand is having problems with alcohol and drugs and unlike for pilots they have documented the issue. http://www.cp24.com/news/ttc-union-seek ... -1.3304433

In a factum submitted ahead of this week’s hearing, the TTC said there have been 291 documented incidents where workplace safety concerns arose in connection with employees. In 141 of those incidents, the TTC suspected or confirmed that alcohol or drug use was a factor.

“Between 2010 and the present, over 11,000 drug and alcohol tests have been conducted. The results of those tests, as well as accident and other evidence, indicates that drug and alcohol continues to be a significant problem for the TTC, a threat to its safe operation and to the safety of the public,” the factum read.

Let's see what the court will be deciding.

[B208]

Our current system is not a democracy; It is an oligarchy with the judiciary at the top.

You need only spend the effort of opening your mind and doing a little reading.

The Constitution is at the top. I think you're the one who needs to do a little more reading.

Nope, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution is at the top. Sorry to stain your ideals with reality.

I would say that you are destined for upper management Rockie. You have a real knack for making statements that are true, but not fully accurate. I have fleshed out one of them below for you.

The original:

Nonsense. They are a panel chosen over time by elected governments for their legal expertise to render legal rulings on matters including the constitution. There is nobody and no "body" more qualified to do so. They are an essential component of the checks and balances you cite, and if a government runs afoul of them as Harper did regularly it means the checks and balances are working properly. They defend the constitution - which is permanent - against the Harpers, Trumps, and any other temporary government who seeks to violate it.

And the corrected version:

Nonsense. They are a panel appointed over time by elected governments based on the how closely their legal thinking coincides with the ideology of the government of the day. They are selected from a pool of people, (who increasingly see themselves as an activist and ruling caste), with a very narrow background. Once they are appointed they are, for all intents and purposes, answerable to no one and un-removable. There is nobody and no "body" more qualified to do so. They are an essential component of the checks and balances you cite, and if a government runs afoul of them as Harper did regularly it means the judicial oligarchy can run roughshod over the will of the population as expressed through their elected government. . The constitution defends their position, privilege and power- which is permanent - against the non-judicial and non-academic castes who seek to violate it.

[Rockie]

Our current system is not a democracy; It is an oligarchy with the judiciary at the top.

You need only spend the effort of opening your mind and doing a little reading.

The Constitution is at the top. I think you're the one who needs to do a little more reading.

Nope, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution is at the top. Sorry to stain your ideals with reality.

I would say that you are destined for upper management Rockie. You have a real knack for making statements that are true, but not fully accurate. I have fleshed out one of them below for you.

The original:

Nonsense. They are a panel chosen over time by elected governments for their legal expertise to render legal rulings on matters including the constitution. There is nobody and no "body" more qualified to do so. They are an essential component of the checks and balances you cite, and if a government runs afoul of them as Harper did regularly it means the checks and balances are working properly. They defend the constitution - which is permanent - against the Harpers, Trumps, and any other temporary government who seeks to violate it.

And the corrected version:

Nonsense. They are a panel appointed over time by elected governments based on the how closely their legal thinking coincides with the ideology of the government of the day. They are selected from a pool of people, (who increasingly see themselves as an activist and ruling caste), with a very narrow background. Once they are appointed they are, for all intents and purposes, answerable to no one and un-removable. There is nobody and no "body" more qualified to do so. They are an essential component of the checks and balances you cite, and if a government runs afoul of them as Harper did regularly it means the judicial oligarchy can run roughshod over the will of the population as expressed through their elected government. . The constitution defends their position, privilege and power- which is permanent - against the non-judicial and non-academic castes who seek to violate it.

You can put whatever slant on it the voices in your head tell you to. The fact is individual rights as guaranteed by the constitution cannot be taken away by any government - notwithstanding clause notwithstanding - which in Canada's multi-party system rarely represents a majority of the population. What people like you never understand is that the courts are supposed to thwart the government when they violate their citizen's rights. That's their purpose. You also don't get that a majority population cannot deny a minority their rights in a democratic society.

Who cares if you don't like it.

[Old fella]

In my view your interpretation is quite correct Rockie . Constitutional Rights are absolute, in other words you assert them period and full stop - no permission required no privilege attached.

Look at the Constitution Right to Silence or in other words your refusal to participate in a police investigation against you. Silence isn't evidence and cannot be used as such against you, nor can silence be subject to cross- examination. As the saying goes, the law poses no duty to speak so your refusal to do so cannot imply guilt. It's as simple as that.

[B208]

What people like you never understand is that the courts are supposed to thwart the government when they violate their citizen's rights.

True. But sadly our activist judiciary has gone beyond that into seeing themselves as law makers. The difficulty is in our Constitution. It is vague and leaves too much authority, (in the form of interpretation), in the hands of the judiciary. Mind you, what can one expect when said Constitution was drafted by a megalomaniacal lawyer with despotic tendencies.

You also don't get that a majority population cannot deny a minority their rights in a democratic society.

School's in. A right is just a courtesy that society extends to individuals. Your rights, (and anybody else's for that matter), are whatever society says they are.

Democracy: rule of the majority (as defined at : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)

So, yes. In an actual democracy the majority can define who has what rights.

Who cares if you don't like it.

....and stuff like that from the left is why Trump got elected and will again.