Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
I think the point that was being made was that your railing against our "backwards courts" was misguided. Just because you don't understand/agree with the limits on liberites vs. security that Courts have implemented doesn't mean that the Courts don't impose limits on liberty in this situation. I disagree with you 100% and would bet that if this case was brought before a court or an HRC, the willingness of the security officials to see the face in a private room by a female officer would absolutely be upheld as constitutional. I may be a bleeding heart, but I would have told them they couldn't pass and that they would be put on a no-fly list if they would not accede to reasonable security requirements.
Oh, and I think that security officers that let this slide should be reprimanded at the least, if not fired.
|
I never said that a HRC would reverse the security process, just that the threat of a lawsuit is enough to scare our security offices to let these people through. AFAIK the HRC couldn't reverse the law but they could find that the officer infringed upon her rights despite the fact that he would have been totally right in denying her access.
Now I did say that it is "quite likely" that if taken to the Supreme Court that the law would be reversed because our courts are ass backwards. Now I don't necessarily think that is the case, I'm no expert in constitutional law, however based on some of the absolutely ridiculous rulings that we have seen from the SC of Canada, it wouldn't surprise me if they upheld the woman's claim. I should have worded it that it wouldn't shock me if the SC upheld the woman's claim not that it was quite likely that they would.
That being said, the HRC and the Supreme Court of Canada have shown a willingness to completely ignore common sense and allow fringe groups to have laws struck down or $$ settlements paid out even though they are valid. I'm not saying this is necessarily one of them but who knows crazier things have happened.
It appears we are in complete agreement that the security officers were completely wrong in allowing this woman access even though she refused to comply with our security measures.