B208 wrote:First thing that it needs is a workable process for amending.
It is amendable, but it's not supposed to be easy. The reason for that is to keep people like you and governments that think like you from doing irreparable damage. The foundations of a nation and its principles are supposed to last longer than any particular government and not be subject to the whims of any crackpot that manages to seize power. You may have noticed that when there is a coup or a nation is taken over by a dictator the first thing he does is change or eliminate the Constitution.
This, along with individual rights immune from the emotional and often times ignorant whims of the majority is something you will never understand.
Old fella wrote:B208
Section 15 is Equality Rights. I am going to shut my commentary down because I don't like your direction and associated thought process.
Moderator is correct, this thread has gotten way off track.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
I didn't sufficiently clarify my objections to section 15. I have no problems with section 15 (1). 15(2) however, needs to go. If you are happy to keep it, that says more about you than it does about me.
B208 wrote:First thing that it needs is a workable process for amending.
It is amendable, but it's not supposed to be easy. The reason for that is to keep people like you and governments that think like you from doing irreparable damage. The foundations of a nation and its principles are supposed to last longer than any particular government and not be subject to the whims of any crackpot that manages to seize power. You may have noticed that when there is a coup or a nation is taken over by a dictator the first thing he does is change or eliminate the Constitution.
This, along with individual rights immune from the emotional and often times ignorant whims of the majority is something you will never understand.
I believe that the topic at hand was random alcohol testing for pilots?
Fair enough. I have established a constitutional thread at the site that shall not be named. Rockie, Old Fella; If you'd care to pop over there and continue the discussion I'll give you the chance to try and prove you're right.
In case no one noticed, the world has become a paranoid place since 9/11. So in that light, since a very very small minority of baggage screeners may feel the need to claim their fifteen minutes of fame by ''nailing'' a high value target such as a pilot, suggest that no one take a chance and perhaps use the below calculator to see where you stand.
This thread is a couple weeks old. But with the Liberals new Marihuana (spelled correctly I might add) policy they have paved the road to random and arbitrary alcohol (not drug) testing at the roadside. Now, the Criminal Code does not differentiate between aircraft, motor vehicles, and vessels for the purpose of the testing when it comes to impaired driving. So if this legislation goes into force next year it could certainly pave the way for this exact type of thing with pilots.
To answer a question posed much earlier in the thread regarding testing costs. Urine is about $40 and is somewhat accurate. Hair is more accurate but cost about $200. As far as breath tests, the mouthpieces are 50c to $1.50 ea. The roadside screening devices are about $1000 ea. An intoxalyzer is about $3-5k. A standard field sobriety test is free, but takes about 10 minutes. A drug recognition test is also free but takes about 1 hour.
Technically speaking this type of legislation is a violation of your Section 8 Charter Rights against unreasonable search and seizure. But that being said there is plenty of case law that has allowed these types of activities if the Supreme Court feels that societies benefits outweigh your personal rights. A perfect and relevant exams of this is the Supreme Court ruling in RIDE spot checks themselves.
Question is, if this does happen, who in the heck are they going to get to do the tests? There aren't enough police officers to do this. Urine testing is pointless from a legal perspective. They can't exactly set breathalyzers up on every ramp at every airport. I just can't see the logistics of this working outside of a pre employment screening scenario.
The regulator in my country of employ has mandated 100% crew breathalyzer testing before every flight for the next three months, due to the recent apprehension of a severely intoxicated pilot before a flight. (See, it doesn't only happen in Canada!)
Every cockpit and cabin crew member on the flight. Every flight. Mandatory, or dismissed. It's the first thing done at the crew check-in counter, before computer sign-on. So yeah, the logistics aren't too challenging.
Meanwhile Canada wrings its hands and wonders if random testing is somehow invading privacy and impinging on rights.
lol
It's kind of quaint, really.
---------- ADS -----------
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
That's 2 publicized indidents in a year. We're talking about airline pilots, responsible for the lives of 10s of thousands of passengers every year. We expect above and beyond conduct when on duty. Darn right there is an issue.
This is not burger flipping and more is morally and ethically expected.
confusedalot wrote:One person makes a mistake, nobody is trustworthy. Pretty sad notion when you think about it.
Agreed. When a state imposes " random", it suggests to me they are suspicious of their citizens and don't trust citizenry to act in a responsible manner. This Sunwing incident in my view is not representative of how Canadian Airline pilots conduct themselves, nor Canadian Aviation in general. I have been around way to long to be convinced otherwise.
complexintentions wrote:The regulator in my country of employ has mandated 100% crew breathalyzer testing before every flight for the next three months, due to the recent apprehension of a severely intoxicated pilot before a flight. (See, it doesn't only happen in Canada!)
Every cockpit and cabin crew member on the flight. Every flight. Mandatory, or dismissed. It's the first thing done at the crew check-in counter, before computer sign-on. So yeah, the logistics aren't too challenging.
Meanwhile Canada wrings its hands and wonders if random testing is somehow invading privacy and impinging on rights.
lol
It's kind of quaint, really.
Who cares what they do in your country? This is Canada and here we have constitutionally enshrined protections from overreach by the government. It may be that random testing is approved by the courts, but if it is it will have gone through rigorous testing against the constitution and deemed by the courts to be justified. I'll accept that over your country any day...quaint or not.
complexintentions wrote:The regulator in my country of employ has mandated 100% crew breathalyzer testing before every flight for the next three months, due to the recent apprehension of a severely intoxicated pilot before a flight. (See, it doesn't only happen in Canada!)
Every cockpit and cabin crew member on the flight. Every flight. Mandatory, or dismissed. It's the first thing done at the crew check-in counter, before computer sign-on. So yeah, the logistics aren't too challenging.
Meanwhile Canada wrings its hands and wonders if random testing is somehow invading privacy and impinging on rights.
complexintentions wrote:The regulator in my country of employ has mandated 100% crew breathalyzer testing before every flight for the next three months, due to the recent apprehension of a severely intoxicated pilot before a flight. (See, it doesn't only happen in Canada!)
Every cockpit and cabin crew member on the flight. Every flight. Mandatory, or dismissed. It's the first thing done at the crew check-in counter, before computer sign-on. So yeah, the logistics aren't too challenging.
Meanwhile Canada wrings its hands and wonders if random testing is somehow invading privacy and impinging on rights.
lol
It's kind of quaint, really.
You've been away from Canada for too long if you think that is ok or you're just trying to justify it in your own mind to make yourself feel better about it. Either way, it's not OK!
Also, who are they going to catch, if I'm told I have a 100% chance of being caught doing something I shouldn't be doing, guess what, I'm not going to do it! They should catch a couple idiots who didn't get the memo I suppose, perhaps they need to do 100% post flight testing as well, that should catch a couple more.
complexintentions wrote:The regulator in my country of employ has mandated 100% crew breathalyzer testing before every flight for the next three months, due to the recent apprehension of a severely intoxicated pilot before a flight. (See, it doesn't only happen in Canada!)
Every cockpit and cabin crew member on the flight. Every flight. Mandatory, or dismissed. It's the first thing done at the crew check-in counter, before computer sign-on. So yeah, the logistics aren't too challenging.
Meanwhile Canada wrings its hands and wonders if random testing is somehow invading privacy and impinging on rights.
lol
It's kind of quaint, really.
Who cares what they do in your country? This is Canada and here we have constitutionally enshrined protections from overreach by the government. It may be that random testing is approved by the courts, but if it is it will have gone through rigorous testing against the constitution and deemed by the courts to be justified. I'll accept that over your country any day...quaint or not.
+1. Seriously. Why would any Canadian pilot care what you have to put up with. Enjoy.
