Friendly skies: Canada greenlights terrorists for air travel

posted at 5:56 pm on July 17, 2006 by Allahpundit

Not an exaggeration. I understand that racial profiling can be abused, I understand that the U.S. watch list is a bit, shall we say, overinclusive. But, um…

It’s every joke you’ve ever heard about Canadian politeness, times a million:

Being a member of a terrorist organization won’t necessarily land someone on Canada’s no-fly list, The Canadian Press has learned…

“You cannot be put on the list on the sole basis that you’re a member of a ‘terrorist group,'” the source said. “In addition, you have to be a demonstrable threat to aviation safety.”

The source said that under the proposed regulations, people involved in a terrorist group — either now or in the past — could be added to the list only if there were reason to suspect they may “compromise civil aviation, the security of any aircraft or aerodrome, or the safety of the public, passengers or crew.”

Which I guess means Mohammed Atta is okay to fly Air Canada so long as they don’t find out about the pilot lessons.

Actually, what I think it means is that members of “legitimate” terrorist organizations, like Hamas, that make a pretense of political dialogue in between bus bombings are good to go. Not even Canada, I hope, would let a known AQ operative hop onboard a 747.

I don’t mind telling you, I’m actually afraid to find out what official DHS policy is on this subject.

Across the pond, not only won’t the Brits let terrorists fly, they’ll lock you up now for “glorifying” terrorism. The very first group to be banned under the new legislation: al-Ghurabaa, successor to al-Muhajiroun, sponsor of this golden moment in the annals of free speech, and bequeather of the wit and wisdom of a certain degenerate well known by now to all of you:

More groups will be added to the list shortly, says the Guardian, including the peaceful, non-violent supremacist cult of Hizb ut-Tahrir — a name that might ring a bell with longtime Hot Air readers.

Anyway. None of this will do much to reduce jihad fever in Londonistan, but it does show you how seriously they regard the threat. If they’re willing to criminalize terrorist speech after one bombing, imagine what Europe will be like ten years from now.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


So what do you have to do to demonstrate a threat to air security? Blow yourself up first?

It sounds like a duck, it looks like a duck, but we won’t call it a duck until it acks like a duck. By then it might be too late.

How many have to die before all the political correctness gets thrown out? Inquiring minds want to know.

Kini on July 17, 2006 at 6:06 PM

Nope… it looks like a duck… it walks like a duck….

but its not a duck until it quacks us up…

Romeo13 on July 17, 2006 at 6:29 PM

The Brits have many laws on the books they dont actually enforce. Crime is way out of control there and the victim is always in the wrong if they fight back so I dont really expect much out of this.
As far as Canada is concerned, one incident with a plane and this policy will change. Unfortunately, it is going to take something to happen and innocent people to die before Canada wakes up..even with their homegrown jr jihadis arrested last month.

labwrs on July 17, 2006 at 6:40 PM

“You cannot be put on the list on the sole basis that you’re a member of a ‘terrorist group,’” the source said. “In addition, you have to be a demonstrable threat to aviation safety.”

Well it’s good to know that our neighbors to the north consider being a member of a terrorist group and being a demonstrable threat to aviation safety as two different things.

thirteen28 on July 17, 2006 at 7:15 PM

What sort of [Bush comment] is that? A terrorist can board a Canadian jet with his buddies, then take control and fly yet another jet into New York?

IMHO, we would be well within our rights to shoot down any Canadian flight headed our way due to the huge threat they now impose.


DannoJyd on July 17, 2006 at 8:21 PM

And I bother to write satire . . .

The Therapist on July 17, 2006 at 8:41 PM

I Liked the “Behead those who insult Islam” sign. It reminds me of the following daffyniton: SHARIA LAW: Code of Hack-urabi.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 17, 2006 at 10:00 PM

I thought there might be a semantic problem so I looked up ‘terrorist’ in the dictionary:
“One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism”

Is there something different about a ‘Terrorist group” in Canada? Perhaps there, the new inclusiveness means that groups are required to admit all applicants, including anti-terrorists, in which case we should encourage them to fly more?

Or perhaps Canadian departments of public safety are required to hire and promote both those interested in maintaining public safety and those opposed?

As a self-preservationist I find this so confusing. Maybe I am reading the wrong books. What was that book with the Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter and the White Rabbit?

Why are Canadians flying anyway? Just follow the White Rabbit though the tiny door.

A demonstrable threat to aviation safety

entagor on July 17, 2006 at 10:07 PM

Bye the bye, Canadians (or Canadiens) hate being referred to as ‘nice’. It get’s them so steamed that they would probaby send you a six bean casserole…and leave out the french fried onions! Deal with it!

Doug on July 18, 2006 at 8:30 AM