Loading...
The Citizen, 2008-05-01, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008. PAGE 5. Bonnie Gropp TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt Don’t be the judge For just a nanosecond it occurred to me that perhaps I’d died and gone to Hell. I was in a long line of cowed and daunted strangers, shuffling endlessly up stairs and down corridors under harsh fluorescent lights in an airless, dismally anonymous building towards an unknown destination. At the bottom of an escalator we were confronted by a portal beside which stood a huge black man in a vaguely military uniform who was bellowing, seemingly at no one in particular: TAKE AFF YER BELTS, TAKE AFF YER SHOES, COINS, KEYS AND METAL OBJECTS OUTTA YER POCKETS AN INNA THE TRAY! TAKE AFF YER BELTS, TAKE AFF YER….” He hollered his mega decibel mantra over and over at the shambling wretches passing before him. Then I remembered that no, this wasn’t Hell. Just the seventh circle of airport security at LAX – Los Angeles International Airport, gateway to Asia/Pacific and institutional meat grinder to 61 million hapless passengers per year. Welcome to Paranoiaville, post 9/11. If you haven’t had the experience of flying through LAX – or indeed, any major America airport in the past few years, my advice is simple: don’t. Fly over the U.S., take a tramp steamer around it, or better still stay home. You don’t need the aggravation. Can’t fault their vigilance. I daresay that nary a tube of Colgate nor a set of toenail clippers have eluded the eagle gaze of Fortress America and its wand waving minions. Woe betide the grey-haired granny who tries to board a flight with a pair of knitting needles tucked in her carry-on. UP AGAINST THE WALL, MOTHERKNITTER!!! Ever tried to commandeer a 747 with a pair of knitting needles? No? Neither has anyone else. Never mind. Such sterling detection work doesn’t come cheap. The world spends nearly $6 billion U.S. a year patting down airline passengers in search of rocket launchers, Glock pistols and Improvised Explosive Devices. The good news is: last year, some 13 million prohibited items were intercepted and confiscated. The bad news? Most of them were Bic lighters. Ever tried to commandeer a 747 with a Bic lighter? No? Neither has anyone else. Never mind. And it’s not as if they were all cigarette lighters. Why, just last February, Transportation Security Agents on duty at the airport in Lubbock, Texas were alerted by a metal detector at Dallas that passenger Mandi Hamlin, en route to Dallas, had some undeclared metal on her person. They pulled her aside. An agent passed a hand-held wand in front of her chest. Sure enough. The woman was trying to get on board wearing a pair of nipple rings. “They have to go,” an agent said. Ms Hamlin offered to show her breasts to a female agent – just to confirm she was wearing nipple rings, not hand grenades. No dice. They gave her a privacy curtain and a pair of pliers and insisted she remove them. There can be, I understand, some pain involved in removing well-established nipple rings. With time, the flesh grows around them. Ms Hamlin cried. She says she heard male agents snickering. Her attorney, Gloria Allred, is seeking – at the very least – an apology from airport security authorities. “Last time I checked,” says attorney Allred, “a nipple was not a dangerous weapon.” Nevertheless, the madness continues – and spreads. In the near future, Vancouverites visiting their bank can expect a little extra attention – especially if they happen to be wearing a hat. Or sunglasses. “If they have ball caps on and sunglasses on, they’ll be asked to remove the ball caps and sunglasses,” says Sergeant Les Yeo of the Vancouver Police Board. Any exceptions? Pregnant moms? Decrepit old newspaper columnists? Kids on a PeeWee baseball team? Nope, says the Sarge, “It’ll be across the board”. Frankly, I find the Vancouver approach half- baked. I’d like to see RCMP identity checks and full body scans on people lining up to make their mortgage payments and check their deposits. In fact, why not have everybody do their banking in the nude? Can’t be too careful. Someone could be wearing a nipple ring. Arthur Black Other Views Fear of terrorism: the nipple effect Some MPPs are marked as people to watch the moment they set foot in the legislature and there is one of them there now. Past examples, whom you do not have to admire, but who were worth keeping an eye on, include New Democrat Stephen Lewis, recognized as a specially gifted orator in his mid-20s. He became leader, could not push out the durable Progressive Conservatives in three elections and now is an internationally admired spokesman against AIDS. Bob Rae, another New Democrat, had been an impressive critic in the Commons, so much was expected of him when he switched to the provincial party and became leader. Later he was the party’s first and only premier. Recently he became a Liberal MP, with again much expected of him. Liberal Stuart Smith, a Montreal-born intellectual and psychiatrist, entered the legislature while Pierre Trudeau dominated federal politics amid some belief he had similar vote-winning appeal. Within months he was chosen leader, but was unable to diagnose what went on inside the heads of the blander Conservatives in two elections. Sheila Copps, another Liberal, was eagerly awaited because she was known to have the genes of her feisty political family and showed this, but rapidly concluded the Ontario party would not win in her lifetime and left for the Commons and giddy height of deputy-prime minister. Many eyes were on the legislature when Morton Shulman, a coroner who battled the Conservative government, was elected for the NDP, but he quickly lost credibility through mistakes including claiming a minister was involved with organized crime. The most watched new MPP in recent years was Liberal Gerard Kennedy, director of a food bank, an ideal occupation for someone wanting to win votes, and so articulate and photogenic he immediately became front- runner for leader, but lost to unheralded Dalton McGuinty. The most-watched newcomer now is Conservative Randy Hillier, elected in October, who led a group called the Ontario Landowners Association which complains particularly that government regulates and interferes too much in rural lives. The association blocked highways and government offices in high-profile acts of civil disobedience and there were predictions he would not fit in with leader John Tory’s moderate style. Hillier, however, has managed to avoid open breaches with his party, while still being active. He had a bitter row when he accused Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant of failing to ensure native demonstrators observe laws. Bryant retorted Hillier broke the law by hunting out of season, because his association issued its own permits and killed what it called nuisance deer. Hillier called him a liar. But Hillier mostly has stuck to his theme that the McGuinty Liberals are imposing too much government, which has some resonance with business in urban as well as rural areas. Hillier has charged the Liberals have made Ontario a “nanny-state,” which is a debate waiting to burst into the open, because the Liberals have brought in a stream of legislation to protect from dangers ranging from pitbulls to smoking, which most residents probably will support, but some feel is going overboard. The Conservative mainstream also has supported many of these laws and is handicapped in calling them excessive. McGuinty has elevated Hillier to some status by labeling him “the champion of an anti-government movement,” which not all will see as bad. The premier has countered he believes an individual cannot build, staff and maintain schools and hospitals, strengthen the economy and protect air and water on his or her own and “I count on the government to do it.” Hillier also brought in a private member’s bill that would require all legislation, and regulations now made privately, be reviewed by an all-party committee of MPPs that could recommend the legislature change any it felt imposed an unjustified burden or red tape or infringed freedoms. The Liberals inevitably rejected his proposal, which would have reduced the powers of government. Many will disagree with Hillier, but he is putting forward ideas worth discussing – and he has not thrown the Speaker’s Mace at anyone. Eric Dowd FFrroomm QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk It wasn’t the typical story. The relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is often a cautious one, where both must understand a relationship neither initiated while trying to build it. Missteps can be made. Mom’s helpful suggestions can be misconstrued by her daughter-in-law. She may feel pushed to maintain certain ‘standards’ established by the mother-in-law regarding the son/husband’s care, while she personally believes he should be capable of caring for himself. Conversely, there was Lily, who if not actually adoring her mother-in-law, did feel a certain fondness. Mrs. Senior had always been kind, albeit with reserve. She never pushed, never over-stepped her bounds and made a point of remarking positively on Lily’s home and on the meals she prepared. When grandchildren appeared on the scene, Mrs. Senior bestowed attention, but respected Lily’s rules. Conversely, Lily’s relationship with her father-in-law was less pleasant. She thought him a rude man, a tormentor. She disliked the comments he made to his wife, feeling he was often unfair. Years passed and life separated Lily from her in-laws for many of them. And, as is often the case, time and space can offer a new perspective. What Lily came to realize was that there was another side to both in-laws. One was not as good as she thought, the other not so bad. My point in this story is to remind of some clichés. There are two sides to every story. Never judge a book by its cover. And things are not always as they seem. They are trite, they are over-used, but they are the latter for a reason. The truth in them has been proven time and time again. You can feel you know and understand an acquaintance. Yet, if honest, you know people are far too complex for such total empathy to be likely. You look at someone and form an opinion of them based on what you see. Yet, you could probably list many examples when that assessment has failed miserably. You can study the dynamics of a family or relationship, but unless you walk in the shoes of each one involved, your assumption is probably skewed at best. A public person can be quite different from their private counterpart. The jovial buddy to all, the social pal to the world, may be quiet and sullen with family. The sweet, shy kitten at the party may have claws at home. The point I’m trying to make is nothing people don’t already know. It isn’t fair to assume to understand other people or relationships. You can’t judge people by sight or perception. What puzzles me about this, though, along with many other life lessons, is why can’t we stop? How often have you looked at a family in trouble and felt you knew how to fix it? Or decided you didn’t like someone based on your first meeting? Yet, if anyone asked you’d say that attitude is wrong. The end of the Lily story is probably no surprise to anyone. When she found herself in a tough situation, the kind mother-in-law she had ‘known’, closed the door. It was the father-in- law who reached out generously to help, to offer a lifeline. Beyond gratitude, Lily also felt abashed that her assessment had been so off base. Her eyes were open. She would never judge by what she believed again, she promised. You also won’t be surprised to hear that Lily recently refused to hire someone whose only flaw was a nose ring. After all there is that other cliché — old habits die hard. Our most-watched MPP Letters Policy The Citizen welcomes letters to the editor. Letters must be signed and should include a daytime telephone number for the purpose of verification only. Letters that are not signed will not be printed. Submissions may be edited for length, clarity and content, using fair comment as our guideline. The Citizen reserves the right to refuse any letter on the basis of unfair bias, prejudice or inaccurate information. As well, letters can only be printed as space allows. Please keep your letters brief and concise.