This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.
I can't be reading this correctly. Are you saying that we should knowingly increase the risk to an aircraft in order to avoid offending those who choose to wear a hijab? Please tell me that was either mistyped or said in jest?
So tell me. What are the stats? How many crimes in Canada are committed by women wearing hijabs? Now tell me how many crimes are committed by guys wearing ball caps?
The point is there is little risk in allowing either through metal detector with their head coverings on. Unfortunately, the reason for removing caps has little to do with concealing something (you actually have more room in your underwear) and more to do with the fact that many caps have metal in them such as the little rivets they put in the vent holes.
So does allowing women to wear a hijab through the metal detector increase risk? No more than letting you wear your shoes or pants or shirt or even a hat. But your ball cap may have metal in it and add uneccessary delays.
By the way, many bras have underwire supports and many have large enough cups to concel all sorts of weapons. Should we be telling women to take off their bras, or do we allow them to pass through the metal detector with them on?
Try to see the big picture and use a little "logic".
So, if you want to travel with your 12 year olds, just dress 'em in a veil and tell the security people to get stuffed, then you don't need to bother with ID
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
corporate joe wrote:This is our home grown Canadian version of the extremists who blow themselves up in the middle east; Incapable of nuancing their actions and reality, prone to categorize everything, and so omnibulated by their own made up truths that no fact or argument can dissuade them.
So you're now drawing a parallel between me and a middle east suicide bomber because I am of the opinion that if baseball caps are going to be examined, then we should also be examining hijabs.
CID wrote:
So tell me. What are the stats? How many crimes in Canada are committed by women wearing hijabs? Now tell me how many crimes are committed by guys wearing ball caps?
We are talking about airport/airline security, not B & E's. How many airplanes have been blown up, hijacked, or otherwise interfered with by Muslims? How many of the same by young white males in baseball caps?
CID wrote:The point is there is little risk in allowing either through metal detector with their head coverings on. Unfortunately, the reason for removing caps has little to do with concealing something (you actually have more room in your underwear) and more to do with the fact that many caps have metal in them such as the little rivets they put in the vent holes.
There is no risk whatsover in allowing either through the metal detector with the hat/headgear on. READ MY POST: I am asking why, when the metal detector has not sounded, do we require the baseball hat to be removed for further examination when the same is not required of the hijab? That is my question.
We are talking about airport/airline security, not B & E's. How many airplanes have been blown up, hijacked, or otherwise interfered with by Muslims? How many of the same by young white males in baseball caps?
OK. How many airliners in Canada have been hijacked by Muslims then? You are a victim of media misinformation.
As for the rest of your rant "the_professor" I'm not aware of that specific policy and haven't witnessed it myself. If you were subjected to such an inspection maybe it's because you looked dangerous or acted in a suspicious manner.
mayfleur wrote:I just had a problem with professors original statement.
My original statement explicitly left open the possibility of non-Muslim terrorists by qualifying my statement with the word "virtually". There was no need to provide the McVeigh example, as I was not denying that McVeigh types exist. We shouldn't only be checking the McVeighs at the airport, and yet that's exactly what I saw recently -- twice.
A definition of terrorist is: 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Personally I am inclined to include the Virginia Tech Shooter, and the shooters from Columbine as terrorists as that was there intent and that's what they succeeded in doing.
The fact is that Muslim's aren't the only people the F.B.I are looking for. I could make the statement "virtually all terrorist activities against the West were casused by angry young (mostly) white males". I don't think that is correct either but hey it has "virtually" in it!
By the way, many bras have underwire supports and many have large enough cups to concel all sorts of weapons. Should we be telling women to take off their bras, or do we allow them to pass through the metal detector with them on?
[/quote]
I vote yes, at least for the good looking ones anyway.
CID wrote:OK. How many airliners in Canada have been hijacked by Muslims then? You are a victim of media misinformation.
So, by extension we shouldn't check any Muslims because they haven't yet hijacked an airliner in Canada? But we should continue to check everyone else? What's your point?
Some of you are trying, directly or indirectly, to dilute my main point, which is this:
If you're going to check under a baseball cap, then you'd better check under any other head covering. If a baseball cap poses a potential risk because it might be hiding something, then it follows logically that any other head covering might also be hiding something. Is that really so difficult to understand for some of you?
'The complaint said Kaukab told "security personnel that she could not remove the hijab in public, but would be willing to do so in a private location and only in the company of women. She made it clear that this was not an attempt to be uncooperative, but was necessary as part of her religious beliefs.'
"I can't remove this symbol of brainwashing in public, but I would do so in private."
How inconvenient and impractical would it be to have to haul those persons whom you wish to search, who are wearing a hijab, off into a private area? How many airport security checkpoints have private rooms immediately accessible to the CATSA clowns? Not many.
Therefore, in the interest of convenience and, more importantly, political correctness, let's bypass screening female Muslims wearing a hijab. Great idea. But we'll check the acne-ridden girl-chasing 22yr olds with baseball caps without fail.
Note to any terrorist interest groups: Have your women wear hijabs, place the offending materials on them, and send them in. We're too polite to question their intentions.
The article you quoted is just indicitive of the process of compromise and negotiation that is part of life in any multicultural tolerant society.
I'm sure that eventually they'll come up with a compromise that will respect their religious and cultural differences and still make intolerent rednecks happy.
Here’s your compromise, CID: Remove the hijab when essential, ignore it where it's irrelevant.
I think AP security to be essential.
“While international passengers require a passport, the new rules will require even domestic flyers to show identification before boarding flights starting Monday.
Passengers will require one piece of valid government-issued photo ID that shows name, date of birth and gender, such as a driver's license or a passport; or two pieces of valid government-issued non-photo ID, at least one of which shows name, date of birth and gender, such as a birth certificate.
Transport Canada is giving airline passengers aged 18 and under a reprieve from showing photo ID when its no-fly list takes effect. Until Sept. 18, they'll only need one piece of government-issued ID, with or without photo. “
Snip http://www.thestar.com/News/article/225638
What’s you’re take on full face covering (niqab or burka) at security, CID?
Same as the hijab?
What can you hide in a hijab or full face cover or turban or ball cap that you can't hide in your underwear or bra or pants pocket and make it past the metal detector?
I think that inspecting head gear that doesn't contain metal that would make the metal detector go off is pretty useless and certainly not "essential" to airport security. If you don't think so, why stop at head gear? Why don't we make people take off all their clothes?
And that, considering the relatively low risk for domestic flights in Canada would be ridiculous.
Maybe the compromise is to remove headgear or other articles of clothing that are easily removed and don't threaten a person's beliefs before you go through the metal detector and have them run through the X-ray machine. The result would probably be a minimum or no delay induced by hijabs.
In many airports now, they ask you to remove your belt and shoes to avoid delays caused by possible metal in these articles. I've seen them ask a person to remove stuff and repeat the metal detector process rather than use the wand. Again all in an effort to speed up the process.
If a lady wearing a hijab or an acne ridden neo-nazi wearing a ball cap makes it through the metal detector, then I don't think there should be extra inspection.
If I'm wearing a ball cap and I think it might make the detector go off, I would be inclined to take it off and pass it through the X-ray machine instead.
And I'd do so without whining about the great deal that the lady in the hijab gets. Why are so many people so concerned about perceiving that someone is getting an advantage?
If your glass of milk isn't quite as full as the guy next to you, just drink that damn thing and get on with your life. This is a non-issue.
This thread is yet further proof that the terrorists have won the war! You're all jabbering like a bunch of middle aged women! Airport security is a JOKE! Do you really THINK terrorists don't have photo ID??? Do you really think that some 20 year old West Jet ticket chick would know an international terrorist if he gave her a hickey?? She would NOT! And neither would you or I! Give it up already! Why don't we all just fly around naked? Clip our toe nails before we check in? Pay three times as much for the same bottle of water on the OTHER side of all the "new" Canadians with the metal detectors who now rule our nation's airports? Was that not PC? Bite me. Canadians are a nation of sheep....always have been...always will be.
Doc wrote: Do you really think that some 20 year old West Jet ticket chick would know an international terrorist if he gave her a hickey?? She would NOT! And neither would you or I!
I have an image of a terrorist giving Doc a hickey now.
---------- ADS -----------
The things I love are not HR approved
"I hate you so much right now." - sar
Pre 911 on my way from Calgary to Inuvik, I put my change and leatherman in the little basket and walked through the metal detector. They used the wand, and aside from my watch and belt buckle, only my steel toed winter boots caused a reaction. "Are those steel toed?" "yes." Was waved on, picked up my change and Leatherman and proceded to fly where no terrorist would go anyway.
Post 911, had to take my boots off and put them through the x ray machine. Fom my carry on, they confiscated the metal points from my compass and spanner! I coould more easily have used a metal pen to poke someone!
All of thins aside, both years I included in my stowable luggage a rubbermaid container full of misc. odd looking metalic gear and other things like a small survival kit, bear bangs, and pencil flares. I assume nothing was checked.
On a different note, the only threat I believe an aircraft has at this point is from and explosive. There have been numerous cases of problem causers being "subdued" by other passengers, even causing death in one instance I know of. How long do you think someone would last today if they tried to get into the cockpit using a box knife, or even a gun for that matter? I know I might get shot, stabbed or sliced, but I prefer these alternatives to being flown into the ground.
Lastly, I believe Isreal has it right. My brother was talking to one of the guards who had a dog. This guy said that 99% of the job was watching the peoples reactions and body language when they came around the corner and fist saw the dog. In many cases, it is observing this reaction that is the deciding factor for a personal search.
CID wrote:
I'm sure that eventually they'll come up with a compromise that will respect their religious and cultural differences and still make intolerent rednecks happy.
well said CID ! I have lived and travelled to countries where it's standard procedure for women to be searched by women border officers only. The search was always done in a private area regardless of the gender of the person being searched.
CID wrote:
I'm sure that eventually they'll come up with a compromise that will respect their religious and cultural differences and still make intolerent rednecks happy.
well said CID ! I have lived and travelled to countries where it's standard procedure for women to be searched by women border officers only. The search was always done in a private area regardless of the gender of the person being searched.
I think in the intrest of security and PC we should search everyone regardless of their religous obligations but make it as comfortable for them as possible. Theyre not terrorists untill proven so, we can keep the torture for gitmo
---------- ADS -----------
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
You know Prof, if you really want to know why you have to remove your ballcap you should write CATSA and ask. Once you have the answer to that question it may also tell you why all headress is not removed. There might be a legitimate reason, but more likely it's nothing more than a rote patterned behaviour within the security staff that resulted from some earlier experiences with ballcaps setting off metal detectors. The current group of staff probably don't really know why things are done the way they are. They do it simply because it's always done that way, or they think they know the reasons based on heresay and stuff off the internet.
