One more of those differences between Canada and the US that the Kanucks are so proud of

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 24, 2006 3:43 AM

"You cannot be put on the list on the sole basis that you're a member of a 'terrorist group'," said the source. "In addition, you have to be a demonstrable threat to aviation safety."
-- from the article above

Why not? Why can't someone be put on "the list on the sole basis" that he is a member of a "terrorist group"? For that matter, why should anyone reasonably believed to support any "terrorist group" (by showing up to demonstrate on its behalf, for example, or by contributing money to it) not be put on such a "list"?

On what basis does someone assert "you cannot be put on the list"? On the basis of wishing to appease Muslim groups? Because the members of those groups have shown themselves to be capable of owing their allegiance to non-Muslim fellow-citizens and the Infidel nation-state, or because the members of those groups do not care to show, and cannot possibly show, such allegiance, either to non-Muslim fellow-citizens or to the legal and political institutions of the Infidel nation-state, that incidental state whose nationality they may have acquired, but to whom their allegiance cannot, to the extent that they are good Muslims, conceivably be offered.

This is not hard to prove. This is easy to prove. What is hard here is to understand the reasoning that underlies such policies as that described in the article above. What leads to them? What are these officials in Canada thinking, what do they know, how do they reason? That is what is hard to understand.

Posted by: Hugh at July 24, 2006 8:00 AM

Perhaps in Canada you actually have to fly a plane into a building to get on the no fly list. But, it's too late then ... isn't it?

Posted by: JanuaryMan at July 24, 2006 9:00 AM

"You cannot be put on the list on the sole basis that you're a member of a 'terrorist group'..."

Being a member of a terrorist group should be the absolute minimum requirement for profiling discrimination. It is being circumvented here, if the reader will notice, by the inverted commas around the term terrorist group. I don't know whether the "source" put those inverted commas around the term (perhaps by signalling them with his fingers, Tom Friedman-style), or whether the reporter did. But they surely offer a wedge by which to confute even this screamingly rational minimum requirement for profiling. What is being said between the lines here is this: "Well, perhaps the rabidly neo-con fundamentalist Bush government controlled by Zionists has designated this particular group a 'terrorist group', but we should not deny basic rights to people on the basis of such Islamophobic identifications..."

Posted by: Television at July 24, 2006 1:30 PM

If the Canadian government had any sense, anyone with links to a terrorist organization would be on a "must fly list" as in "must fly out of the country by next week". Of course the same thing can be said of the U.S. too.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at July 24, 2006 1:49 PM

To add insult to the insanity, we Canadians have been paying an extra security fee (last time I checked it was about $24.00) on our plane tickets since late 2001.

Posted by: Archimedes at July 25, 2006 12:57 AM

"The regulations will soon be published with an invitation for public comment."--from the article.

This is basically an advertisement for terrorist groups planning an attack on, or using, a Canadian flight.

Posted by: Archimedes at July 25, 2006 1:17 AM