private property should be protected by private individuals – not the government
remove immunity from government agents to grope us and take x-rays of us: if an ordinary citizen does not have the right to do something, then the government does not have that right either
the duty of the government is to protect our rights – not to abuse them in the name of safety
buying an airplane ticket does not mean you are relinquishing your rights
He also points out something I have said in comments to other blogs, though not blogged here: putting a loaded gun into the cockpit has been much more effective at curtailing air-terrorism than all the airport procedures put together!
(OK – I’ve gone further in my comments on other blogs, if not here: if every adult passenger were required to be certified in the use of firearms and carried a loaded gun on the airplane, we would not only be much safer, we would also be empowered to protect us and our families instead of being treated like cattle waiting for slaughter, hoping it’ll happen later rather than sooner! It’s about time we started accepting the responsibility for our own safety instead of hoping someone else will do it for us .)
People who give up freedom for security will get neither.
This phrase – in various permutations – has been attributed to several different people: perhaps because it is very true.
Last week, I posed questions about the propriety of the current procedures we are asked to submit to at airports in the name of security as well as an audio of an interview with a woman who, along with her children, was subjected to what amounts to sexual assault during an ‘airport security check‘.
Since the state derives its rights from us, citizens, nobody – not even when they are acting on behalf of the state – has more rights than any other citizen: because if ‘regular citizens’ do not have the right to touch you in private areas of your body, then they cannot delegate this right to the State and its agents. Therefore, if a touch is assault if another person on the street touched you that way, it is assault if a TSA or another agent of the State touches you that way.
This week, there is renewed debate on this topic following a YouTube video of a guy who refused to enter the full body scanners telling the TSA agent: “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested.”
Perhaps the most interesting part of this story is the flat assertion by the TSA agent that by purchasing an airline ticket, every citizen is voluntarily surrendering their rights and freedoms…
And – even after the police and TSA agents escorted him out of the screening area on the instructions of their supervisor’s supervisor because he chose to not proceed with his travel plans, he was told that as a condition of leaving the airport, he had to go back to the screening area and submit to the patdown!
From his blog (my emphasis) – this conversation is taking place after he was escorted out of the secure area by the police and got his ticket refunded:
‘He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn’t know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents’ supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area.
…
‘I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, “then I’m leaving”. He replied, “then we’ll bring a civil suit against you”, to which I said, “you bring that suit” and walked out of the airport.’
A few very interesting points in there….
the TSA agents, nor their supervisors, ‘knew the rules’ – according to the person who claimed to be in charge of the airport security
nor did the police officer on-scene
these officials were not going to be penalized for ordering the passenger to do the wrong thing – yet the passenger was liable for following their orders
the passenger faced a choice: disobey the orders of the police officer who told him to leave the secure area OR face a $10,000 fine and a civil lawsuit
“You are free to leave – but if you do, we’ll sue you and fine you $10,000!”
No wonder everyone is talking about this incident!
But, that is not all…
Then there is that report of an airline pilot who was traveling with his teenage daughter and overheard the person who checked their bags say into a mike to the people running the full body scanners: “Heads up – got a cutie for you!” The daughter found the following patdown ‘invasive’…
When the video of the little girl (perhaps 2-3 years old) being ‘patted down’ while screaming hysterically that she does not want to be touched that way surfaced, we were told this was an isolated incident of a child which got cranky and just went hysterical for no good reason. yet, perhaps this child’s instincts were not as wrong as all that: now we learn that pedophiles have been shown to be applying to become TSA agents who perform the ‘patdowns’ on children…
Sounds to me like this child is telling us the Emperor is wearing no clothes!
(Well, actually, this is worse: at least the naked Emperor was not groping anyone!)
This does sound like an awesome film festival to go to!
And, it offers more than just films: on Saturday, 13th of November 2010, Ezra Levant and Elisabeth May will debate, live, at the National Archives building, as part of this festival.
When a citizen of a ‘Western Democracy’ wishes to travel from one point to another, they are supposed to be ‘free’ to do so. They are not to be hindered by any government actions.
This is all about that ‘freedom of movement’ thingy…..one of them pesky ‘innate’ human rights!
Now, if a said person contracts someone (a person or company) to facilitate his/her travel, it is a private contract between a free citizen and either another free citizen or, more frequently, a company. Let’s call it ‘a concern’…
Like, say, a concern that runs taxis, buses, horse-dawn carriages, trains or airplanes from one city to another – within the city or without, within the country or internationally. (A government has the jurisdiction to control who crosses the border, but not how ‘free citizens’ travel within them….)
Therefore, said contract is a private, civil business transaction between a free citizen and a private concern.
Since the citizen has the right to freedom of movement, any and all security measures are strictly a matter of the contract between the free citizen and the private concern which is providing said transportation service.
Therefore, in my never-humble-opinion, any security involved in a private individual contracting a private concert to transport them, is a matter strictly between the two contracting parties. A strictly ‘civil’ matter!
Yet, somehow, we have permitted ‘government’ to play that role!
How could, in a truly free society, any such government regulation be permitted, much less legislated?!?!?
And from what I read and hear, the government is now dictating the terms of all air travel, forcing private citizens to either submit to scanners which render photographic-level images of the citizens’ nude form (which, of course, also reveal a huge amount of bio-graphic data which can – and likely will – be used to identify that person in the future) – or submit to a ‘pat down’ which, in any other situation, would be grounds for charging the government agent performing said ‘pat down’ with sexual assault!
Of course, if we submit to this treatment – guilty until proven innocent – during air travel, it WILL spread to other venues…using the same justification: security above freedom!
Admission – I do not often listen to Alex Jones; sometimes, he is a bit ‘out there’. But, there are instances where the ‘outliers’ truly are the proverbial ‘canaries in the coal-mines’. So, I invite you to listen to his interview of a woman who was traveling with her children and all of whom (including the very young children) were subjected to having their genitals probed in a highly intrusive manner:
(Caution: this is disturbing and graphic description of what, under any reasonable circumstances, would be described as sexual assault of a woman AND her children – the interview starts a few minutes into the video)
This is more intrusive than what used to happen in the slave markets!!!
Yes, you would be naked and exposed – no more than the ‘naked scanner’ machines do now – but at least, in slave markets, the buyers were not permitted to touch your genitals out in the open…..and nobody was permitted to store the biometric data gained from the ‘naked body scans’!!!
And THAT just involves ‘VOLUNTARY’ examinations: the ones you permit yourself to be subjected to in order to be permitted – by your government – to exercise your innate freedom of movement, as agreed to in a private contract between yourself and a non-government controlled private individual/company!!!
I simply do not understand why this is acceptable.
Why do we permit our governments to pass laws which permit them such intrusive regulation of our freedom of movement?!?!
An ‘airline ticket’ is a private, civil contract!
It is the business of the airline to provide the security sweeps of the people who contracted them for transport.
If one private company’s security checks are more intrusive than another’s, it will be a matter of private contract made at the time the services of the transport company were contracted.
Companies whose security measures were ineffective would soon loose their customers.
Ditto for companies whose security measures were way too intrusive.
But, throughout it all, the customers would have a choice: do I choose to travel with company A, whose civil contract does permit the performance of highly intrusive security checks before permitting their customers entry onto aircraft….and who, presumably, offers greater ‘security’, or do I choose to travel with company B, who does no real security checks at all? Or, do I choose company C, who is somewhere in-between?
Either way, it is the customer’s choice to enter into a private contract which specifies the level of inspection/security one is both ‘subjected to’ and ‘protected by’.
And, it is a part of a civil contract!
It is, in no way-shape-or-form, the government’s business!!!
So, why do we permit the government and its agents to be the ones who not only perform all security scans, but also have jurisdiction over who is or is not permitted to exercise his or her rights to freedom of travel?
To collect and store all this data about us?
Why do we permit our governments to regulate a whole industry which permits us to exercise one of our core human rights?
How did we ever permit governments to usurp this level of control over us?
Leto was right: a population which walks is easier to control!
Not a single terrorist has been caught through any of these ‘security measures’: so, what is their actual purpose?
Truly, do think about it…..and ask yourself: Why do we permit this?
…
If you figure it out, please, let me know: I sure cannot see any reason for all this beyond conditioning us towards ‘general acceptance’ of greater and greater oppression….of normalizing greater and greater infringements on our freedoms!
Of course, this type of ‘surveillance’ is not limited to airports: we now have disguised vans roaming our streets, taking x-ray images of everything they encounter: the dose of x-ray radiation we unknowingly receive, we are assured, is no greater that that received during a routine x-ray….
This is an excellent series of videos which explain the how different ideas about the where human rights originate affects how we think of them and how we think human rights ought to be exercised.
Yes, I have posted these in the past. However, the versions I had linked have since been found to have violated copyright by putting some music in the background of the videos without proper permission. The whole audio, including the spoken voice, has therefore been pulled from them.
Rather than edit the old post to insert these links – with functioning audio – I decided to re-post the videos again. If you have seen these before, my apologies.
What: Come and protect the National War Memorial from desecration
The ‘White Poppy Campaign’ is out in force again: Ian Harvey of the Ottawa White Poppy Coalition announced that they are planning to lay a wreath of White Poppies at the National War Memorial this Remembrance Day.
They have done it last year, and the year before that….
….after the official ceremony, of course. More precisely, at 12:30 pm.
“The red Legion poppy, in my opinion, represents the nostalgia and romanticizing of war,” said Ian Harvey, an activist in the Ottawa White Poppy Coalition. “We should remember that you don’t have to go to war to get peace.”
How many people is it acceptable to kill, or maim, or chase out of their homes, so that we can live in comfort?
WHERE DO I BEGIN?!?!?!?!?
I, for one, will take the advice of a caller to the Lowell Green show on CFRA today. I will come to the War Memorial, this Remembrance Day, and stay until 12:30. When these people attempt to desecrate the memories of all those who sacrificed of themselves so that we may live, I will stand in their way. Peacefully, but firmly (and not necessarily quietly…).
Hopefully, enough of us will come to form a protective wall.
If these ‘White Poppy Coalition’ people truly believe in the principles of non-violence, they will not attempt to use force against us: either the force of their own hands or the force in the form of civil authorities.
UPDATE: the pressure is working – Sakineh had not been executed, YET. However, this is, at best, a tentative pause – to see if the international attention will die down… So, keep up the good work and don’t forget about Sakineh and her plight!
Remember Sakineh – the Kurdish woman who was tried for being an accomplice in her husband’s murder, and found innocent?
Yes, she was found innocent, even though the trial was held in a language she did not speak…
The Iranian regime did not wish to let her go. Innocent of murder? No problem – they charged her with adultery and sentenced her to be stoned for that, instead!
Worldwide outcry went up – and Iran said that, perhaps, they might not stone her….they might just execute her in another way.
Now, they have set the date for this execution: November 3rd, 2010
Here is the full text of the email I have received today from Maryam Namazie – the woman who is tirelessly working to help Sakineh:
ACT NOW
PLEASE NOTE: WE WILL BE GATHERING AT THE EMBASSY OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN IN PARIS AT 2PM (4 Avenue d’Iéna 75116 Paris) AND MARCHING TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN BRUSSELS. JOIN US. WE MUST SAVE SAKINEH’S LIFE AND SECURE HER FREEDOM AND THAT OF HER SON, LAWYER AND THE TWO GERMAN JOURNALISTS. AND WE MUST END STONING NOW!
According to news received by the International Committee against Stoning and International Committee against Execution on 1 November 2010, the authorities in Tehran have given the go ahead to Tabriz prison for the execution of Iran stoning case Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. It has been reported that she is to be executed this Wednesday 3 November.
We had previously reported that the casefile regarding the murder case of Ms Ashtiani’s husband had been seized from her lawyer’s office, Houtan Kian, and found missing from the prosecutor’s Oskoo branch office so as to stitch Ms Ashtiani up with trumped up murder charges. [Another man has already served a prison sentence and is now free for her husband’s murder.] Ms Ashtiani’s son, Sajjad Ghaderzadeh, and her lawyer, Houtan Kian, have warned of the regime’s plan to do so on many occasions. With the arrest of Ms Ashtiani’s son and lawyer on 10 October and her not having had any visitation rights since 11 August and after fabricating a new case against her, the “Human Rights Commission” of the regime has announced that: ‘according to the existing evidence, her guilt has been confirmed.’ In fact, the regime has created a new scenario in order to expedite her execution.
In other news, Sajjad Ghaderzadeh and Houtan Kian have been severely tortured in order to obtain confessions against Sakineh and themselves since their arrests on 10 October along with two German journalists. The initial interrogations by the Ministry of Intelligence have now been completed and the casefile sent to the National Prosecutor General and Judiciary Spokesperson, Mohsen-Ejehi, in Tehran rather than being handled in Tabriz. Their families are concerned for their wellbeing. When attempting to secure lawyers for the two, authorities have said that the two men did not need legal representation.
Sajjad and Houtan Kian’s only ‘crime’ has been to defend Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and proclaim her innocence with facts and evidence. That their contact with Mina Ahadi is considered a crime is absurd given that Ahadi has been contacted by death row prisoners and their families and lawyers for many years now, including directly from prison. This is because of her many years of work against stoning and executions.
The International Committees against Stoning and Execution call on international bodies and the people of the world to come out in full force against the state-sponsored murder of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. Ms Ashtiani, Sajjad Ghaderzadeh, Houtan Kian and the two German journalists must be immediately and unconditionally released.
ACT NOW!
1. Contact government officials, MPs, MEPs, and the UN asking them to intervene urgently. Governments must immediately summon the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ambassadors and demand that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s execution be stopped and that she along with her son, Sajjad Ghaderzadeh, and lawyer, Houtan Kian, and the two German journalists be immediately released.
2. Send letters of condemnation to the Islamic regime of Iran right away:
Head of the Judiciary
Sadeqh Larijani
Howzeh Riyasat-e Qoveh Qazaiyeh (Office of the Head of the Judiciary)
Pasteur St., Vali Asr Ave., south of Serah-e Jomhouri
3. Please urgently donate to the Save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani campaign by making your cheque payable to ‘Count Me In – Iran’ and sending it to BM Box 6754, London WC1N 3XX, UK. You can also pay via Paypal (http://countmein-iran.com/donate.html).
About 18 months ago everybody’s favourite Ex-Canadian Human Rights Commission employee Richard Warman launched one of his many, as in very many, SLAPP suits against yours truly for, among other dastardly deeds, linking to the “far-right web site http://www.steynonline.com/“. Sheesh everybody knows Mark Steyn is controversial.
…
Warman is also suing for comments made by multiple readers. In one instance for the heinous crime of calling him a “Bully”. We all know what this SLAPP suit is really all about. Warman is using every lawfare tactic he can to prevent a discussion in the public interest of Section 13 (1) and the CHRC. A discussion in which he must feature prominently.
…
Warman is suing me for $500,000.00 Dollars. A ridiculous amount for an equally ridiculous lawsuit. Nonetheless even nuisance suits such as this must be defended against. To date legal fees have run me about 10K. I’ve covered that from my own pocket. I am now asking for your help. I know times are hard for many of us but if every reader who visited daily were to contribute 5 or 10 dollars then that would go a long way to helping all of us out.
This is your fight too, well except for the lawyer stuff anyway 😉
To help, either go to his site and click the PayPal ‘Feed-the-Kitty’ button, e-mail an internet banking transfer to blazingcatfur@gmail.com or send a cheque to:
“Christopher Ashby in Trust”
Attn: Blazingcatfur defence fund
Suite 1013
8 King Street East
Toronto ON M5C 1B5
It keeps baffling me just how many people are either unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between ‘not believing something’ and ‘believing in something else’.
A non-deity centered example of this would be, say, the question: do you believe that my mother has ‘naturally blond hair’?
Never having met my mother – and therefore not holding an opinion on the topic of her hair colour – seems the most obvious and logical position.
Yet, to have some people explain it, not having any opinion on the topic either way somehow implies a belief that her hair is NOT naturally blond – or even that it is ‘naturally red’!
Like Pat Condell, I find the suggestion that a ‘belief’ should be treated with respect similar to or greater than ‘fact-based reality’ actively offensive! Whether that belief is religious or secular, it is a belief – a notion (perhaps deeply held, but a notion none-the-less). It must never be afforded the level of respect that the anti-blasphemy movements demand.
No, I will not deny them the right to believe whatever they want to. It is their right to believe whatever they wish.
But it is NOT their right to demand that I, you, or anyone else respects their beliefs and goes around pretending that just because they believe something, we must all behave as it it were true!
Yet that is exactly what the UN’s new anti-blasphemy laws demand…
Now, couple the religious beliefs with political ambitions and you have a recipe for oppression – of the worst kind.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 