Your View

"Patrick, your legal analysis continues to be representative of that of a junior practioner or law student, so I can ignore that easily."

Well the reality is you don't understand the law hence you'd ignore it. As some lay persons do you are ready to scream "Charter Violation" without knowing how the Charter or the system actually works. I see that the fact that I mentioned to you that the results of an Supreme Court reference alaying your fears was released (in February) has silenced you on the above matter.

"The no-fly list will not pass the muster of a Charter test under the right fact situation."

So the Department of Justice Lawyers are wrong ... interesting.

"Charter applies to all situations where a government act or policy is enforced by an agency in direct or in indirect control of a government agency."

I told you this spal, you're the one alleging that the document itself "There are big problems with this no-fly list, including potential Charter violations, just watch." despite the Supreme Court reference and the okay from the federal justice Ministry and its legal/bureaucratic counterpart the Department of Justice. But alas you're more of a legal mind than all of them put together. Oh by the way if there were Charter violations do you know how they'd be saved? I doubt you do.

"It must be noted, however, the only reason Canada is even being threatened is because of Steve mini-Bush in Ottawa pushing a pro-US foreign policy and Mckay and O'Connor just add to the blunders."

Jean Chretien started our mission there and Paul Martin moved our forces to the volatile south of Afghanistan, a little fact checking once in a while would be in order.

I wasn't going to post but felt I had to say something about Patrick from Ontario. This guy posts all over the place and moralizes at everyone, but the really funny thing is that he makes up most of what he posts! Then he defends the things he makes up. Unbelievable.

First off Mr. lawyer wannabe, it's "Mea Culpa", not Mia. Mia Farrow was married to Frank Sinatra but was in no way involved in latin legal terms.

Patrick posted: "The Liberal party of Canada agreed to this. Guess they too are the radical right?" (regarding the no fly list).

The liberals DID NOT agree to this, they were and are vocally against it. The implementation of this list did not require legislation so it was just imposed by Harper.

Patrick posted: "War has been declared against Canada by Al Quaeda and a number of Islamic extremist groups. So by definition we're at war"

No we're not. First off, this is not a war by definition or any other stretch. This is a NATO mission to try and ensure stability in a region. Al Quaeda are not an army, they are a rogue group of criminals and can make all the declarations they want, none of them constitute a legal declaration of war. The Tailiban used to be a government, now they are fugitives so they can't declare war either. Again, you made that up and convinced yourself that you are right but you're dead wrong!

Patrick posted: "Three Federal Justice Ministers Cotler, Toews and Nicholson, an army of Department of Justice Lawyers and the Red Nine ... you know 'em as the Supreme Court of Canada must also be naive"

The supreme court of Canada, or any other court for that matter, have not made any rulings whatsoever on the constitutionality or legality of this no-fly list. There have been no cases brought forth on this issue. Again you made this up. Shame.

1) There is no accountability with no-fly lists.
2) There is no evidence that a no-fly list prevents any sort of terrorism.
3) It is an extreme life changing inconvienence if you are mistakenly placed on the list.
4) Because of the no accountability (public disclosure), the list will be abused and used for the personal purposes of those in power.
5) It is a wasteful use of taxpayer's dollars

Ok. Everyone here is using Air India as an example of why a NFL is necessary. But do all of you know that the RCMP and CSIS were already aware of the threat posed to the flight?

They had been informed numerous times prior to the explosion by the Indian government, Air India, and by certain officers in their own organizations. They had in their possession numerous tapes with details about the plot.

What did they do with this information?
NOTHING. Because they couldn't be bothered to follow up the leads and information given to them. Because they didn't bother to find someone to translate the tapes.

They even knew which flight was going to be targeted. A police officer was sent with a dog to sniff out explosives, but the plane was cleared to take off and was gone before he got to the airport.

Would a No Fly List have changed this? NO.
Stop saying that the Air India bombing wouldn't have happened with a no fly list. It could have been prevented without one.

Patrick, your legal analysis continues to be representative of that of a junior practioner or law student, so I can ignore that easily.

It must be noted, however, the only reason Canada is even being threatened is because of Steve mini-Bush in Ottawa pushing a pro-US foreign policy and Mckay and O'Connor just add to the blunders.

The no-fly list will not pass the muster of a Charter test under the right fact situation. Charter applies to all situations where a government act or policy is enforced by an agency in direct or in indirect control of a government agency.

US foreign policy has been to brutalized and terrorize countries for a very long time - hardly leaders of the free world.

When there is retaiation against that overt brutality and inhumanity, the US asks why? Is the deaths of over 700,000 Iraqis since the illegal US invaions not enough already? Hussein was responsible for 1 million dead during his 24 year regime, the US will pass that death toll next year in Iraq. Who is the real threat to humanity? If the US foreign policy is causing a problem, maybe it is the problem.

Why does Canada, under Steve mini-Bush, continue to support the failed policies of the US?

It is time to stop the dismal failure of the right wing agenda and return Canada to leaders that will make decisions for Canadians - not for George Bush's approval and Republican campaign dontations to the Tories.

I do not care what party leads Canada, just get the hell out Bush's back pocket and the promotion of the western war of terror, which is unjust ab initio.

The question of the list is really one of how much power we’re willing to give our government at the expense of our own personal freedom.

I’m wary of a list that prevents a person from flying without giving prior knowledge.We live in a country whose legal system is meant to operate on the premise of innocent until proven guilty.

Our government isn’t supposed to decide that certain individuals should have their rights restricted without giving them due process through the courts and having the evidence against them exhibited.Implementing the no-fly list violates individual right to due process and presumes them guilty.

Our government touts the idea that we’re a democracy and are free.We say that we’ll face terrorists head on and won’t submit to their attempt to terrorize us.

Why then is it so easy for us to restrict those freedoms once we’re threatened? Strength in the face of terror is refusing to abandon your. By restricting the civil liberties of our citizens, we’re abandoning one of our most valuable convictions.

I don’t believe that the no-fly list will be efficiently managed. CSIS and the RCMP have a horrendous track record. The Air India and Arar fiascos are prime examples of how inept they can be. These events underline a main argument against the no-fly list.

Without total confidence that the no-fly list will be efficiently directed, it is impossible to back its implementation. I think that eventually, numerous stories will be brought to light of people,mistakenly placed on it, who had to jump through an endless array of hoops to be taken off.

People are saying that this is no different from having our shoes or canes scanned.When we are asked to remove our shoes we have knowledge of what’s being done to our property.

Once your name is added to the list, you are not informed. There is no way to defend yourself. You have no recourse beyond what the government allows. This hasn’t been explained. In all likelihood, it will be difficult to have your name removed.

Hey y'all. This list is just one more reg for us all. That's fine. It just needs to be published with photos on a govt or airline webpage.

If you plan to fly, check yourself out prior to heading out. You might want to get cleaned up prior to trying to have yourself removed from it. Vote often.

The new no fly list is a huge waste of taxpayers money as no one actually on it would actually travel under their proper name. So, why would our government even bother? And, how much did this cost Canadian taxpayers to compile?

I for one have no objection to increasing security at our airports with "NO FLY LISTS". I applaud our government for continually finding new tools and new ways to help protect Canada and it's people from harm. That's what governments do.

For all the nay sayers who preach doom and gloom, no matter what governments say or do:

"SECURITY OF ONE'S COUNTRY AND IT'S PEOPLE AND THE RULE OF LAW IS A FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY, AND WITHOUT IT WE WOULD HAVE ANARCHY, WHICH MEANS NO CONSTITUTION".

Which brings me to the next subject.

NO FLY LISTS by their very nature are highly secured data. None of us know how the data was collected or compiled on the list, nor should we. Why get into a frenzy if you are on the list or not? Have you done anything in your past that makes you a security threat? If not why worry? This is not about bit crime crooks, it's about people who may harm our country or Canadians.

"We have a no-fly list so that a small minority of Canadians can fly hassle-free to the U.S.
That's it in a nutshell.
It has nothing to do with security."

Allan I won't even ask for sources or an authority here because I know there isn't one.

"This always reminds me of that silly cartoonshow, 'Southpark' and the episode called "Blame Canada" +

Or maybe this is the authority that you're relying on?

"Some of the radical right's efforts to sell this plan on this board sounds like the work of paid hacks."

The Liberal party of Canada agreed to this. Guess they too are the radical right? Perhaps, that's if you feel that the NDP has become too mainstream.

"If you are going to YELL, get your facts straight. Canada has declared war on no one."

War has been declared against Canada by Al Quaeda and a number of Islamic extremist groups. So by definition we're at war even those of us tucked away in the confines of Kamloops! Sure they're not states but in this New World Order, international law is gonna need a bit more than a facelift.

Allan the idea of yelling "Mia Culpa" before these types may sound appealing to you, but not to most Canadians.

"It makes absolutely no sense."

Something about the pot calling the kettle "black" comes to mind. Chuckles.

"People like Rob, Patrick and Ronald Potter are so naive!

You actually believe that a)this list is capable of being effective b) it won't be used improperly for political purposes and that only people who "deserve" to be on the list will be put on c) that it will be possible to get your name off of the list once put on by mistake."

Well Amanda,

Three Federal Justice Ministers Cotler, Toews and Nicholson, an army of Department of Justice Lawyers and the Red Nine ... you know 'em as the Supreme Court of Canada must also be naive. I guess you in your capacity as a "distinguished law professor" feel yourself fit to dissent from the distinguished persons I mentioned who feel that there are enough safeguards and watchdogs to correct errors and omissions created using this list.

Ronald Potter: I did not say Canada is now a restrained society, I said that is what the terrorists would like, and what this list moves us towards.

Jane: In your hysterical rant, you may have forgotten that soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are doig so because they believe in defending the freedoms we enjoy in Canadian society.

Do not be so sure that those soldiers, who have witnessed the horrors born of a fearful, oppressed society, would welcome new restrictions being placed on their families and friends in Canada.

What are they fighting for, if not to keep Canada safe.

Christopher Hay: Excellent point.

I think the concentration on making our air travel "safe" is unduly focused, and chipping away freedoms in one area of our society merely sets a precedent for restrictions later on, when a new form of terrorist attack emerges.

Craig: Ask Mahar Arar how easy it is to get off a no-fly list. Even after a public apaology from the federal government and a $10 million dollar settlement, he is still viewed as a terrorist threat by the US.

I wonder when they're going to come up with "no entry" lists for things like sporting events, concerts and like gatherings.

Seems to me a motivated terrorist could do as much or more damage, in human terms, at one of those events, than they could in the air.

If you're worried about your safety, then I suppose you shouldn't fly, go to hockey or baseball games... probably should avoid large gatherings of any kind.

Here's an idea, lets start screening people as they step out their front doors. I mean every single last citizen.

If it sounds crazy, its because it is. But heck, you'll feel better, right? A no-fly list might make you feel better, but that's about it.

The reality is, you aren't actually any safer. Anywhere.

Those who are willing to give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security receive neither, and deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin

A couple of questions come to mind...

- Who pays for the tickets if you miss your flight because you required additional "screening" due to having the same name as someone on the list?

- If the people on the list are known terrorists, and we have their personal info, why aren't they being rounded up as we speak? Why just limit where they can go on vacation?

- Did anyone else notice yesterday's ABC "Taliban are coming" story specifically mentioned a threat to Canada. Usually only the US and GB get this honour. Great timing for selling the no-fly list. Coincidence?

And, for the people who said take the train or drive, do you really think thats an option for popular destinations...like say, Europe?

Craig,

Submitting all that information doesn't stop a person from being flagged, because the system flags a person based upon names, and that name is still on the list.

Providing that information only means that when they do flag that person, the airline will have more information that they can use to clear him.

But he will still continue to be flagged because the name is still on the list, and the system does the initial flagging based on a person's name, and nothing else, not their passport number or any other piece of information he may provide them when he buys his ticket.

Wouldn't it be better to invest in the idea of preventing bombs from getting on board in the first place (a mjaority of domestic checked baggage is still not X-rayed for security purposes)?

Unfortunately, I can see these "no-lists" growing when a potential 'terrorist' decides to bomb a shopping mall (A "no-Walmart shopper list"?); or sports stadium (A "No Roughrider fan list"?) etc...

This list is pandering to fear, yet will not provide any better security over what we now have.

John,

A co-worker of mine had his name on the no-fly list, as he has a common name. He had to submit to a boatload of questions. He was advised that he when he books a flight to provide as much information as possible (ie, Passport number, full name, etc), which should eliminate him from being flagged.

Once you are cleared, the staff are willing to give you ways to stop you from being flagged.

Craig:

The statement you made is not correct:

"If you've done nothing wrong, and by chance your name is a common one that's on the no-fly list, you'll be inconvienced once with a security check."

A person with a name in common to someone on the list is not just inconvenienced "once" - he will have to be cleared every time he flies.

As a very frequent international traveler I welcome this no-fly list, should have had one much sooner.

Let's all cry and whine about our civil liberties now and when one of these terrorists kills a plane full of people we can all be shocked and dismayed as to how this could happen.

We all want our Government to do something ...but when they do.... oh no we can't have that!

If we're not at war, then why do we have tanks, LAV III's, Grizzlys, G-Wagons, soldiers and such in a country that isn't our own? If we're not at war then why have 57 Canadian Soldiers died in the past few years? If you don't think we're at war, then perhaps you should either give your head a shake, stop hugging your tree, or go back to putting your head in the sand. We ARE at war.

The no-fly list is intended to weed out 'undesirables' from flying. If you're so concerned about your name being on the list, then what have you done that warrants that concern?? Guilty conscience, perhaps?

No one says you have to fly. Take the car, take a train, take a bus, tree huggers can ride their tandem bicycle. Flying is a service that airlines provide. The government, rightly or wrongly, deems it necessary to 'enhance' security measures for airlines by having a 'no-fly' list. Big deal.

You've already given up your right to having your private information kept private. You work, pay bills, bank, all of which is tracked, along with your personal information that goes with all of that.

If you've done nothing wrong, and by chance your name is a common one that's on the no-fly list, you'll be inconvienced once with a security check. So what... if all this saves one life, just ONE, isn't it worth it in the end? After all, that life could be yours.

Of course this list is a bad idea... as have been most of the air security measures taken since 9-11.

The question that must always be asked is, does this measure add enough security to warrant it's being implemented and the freedom lost and problems insuring as a result?

It would be easy to stop all fatal accidents on out highways: reduce the speed limit to 50 and enforce it. However, this would be ridiculous (although in reality a much more effective way of reducing deaths. The probability that a car ride leads to death is much larger than any flight... and more people travel by car).

Similarly, why don't we add the same unreasonable measures to all buildings which hold more than 100 people? Why are we less worried about terrorists bombing a building? Remember Oaklahoma? Its definitely possible, and much easier! But again, this would be ridiculous... and a world I do not want to live in!

No, the security measures taken since 9-11 almost uniformly do not pass the test. Interestingly, the one measure which should be undertaken for flights has yet to be implemented: there should a wall between the pilots and the rest of the plane, not just a door. It this were done then we would essentially have a flying building. The plane could still be blow up, like most buildings, however, it could no longer be used as a bomb. The rest of the so-called "security" measures could then be thrown out.

Seriously people, please use your heads. The majority of the measures taken since 9-11 are for show only... they are there to make my grandmother feel better but make essentially zero change in actual risk.

How is a nail clipper, or grandmother with her knitting needles more dangerous than my pen or pencil? and the liquid ban? These measures are equivalent to locking your door while on vacation... it may deter a mischievous neighbourhood child, however, if someone really wants to break in, your locks are not going to stop them. Same with this ridiculous list.

I would just like to make 4 points:

1) the name AND passport number of the recent "TB traveller" were reportedly in the US no-fly list yet he managed to tour the world

2) an FBI "terrorist watch list" reportedly has over 500,000 names on it - how many of these are now on the no-fly list?

3) the 44,000 names on the US list is as of March 2006 - one year old already. There were reportedly 12 on the list before 9/11.

4) our list will be shared with our "friends". If you manage to get off our list will there be guarantees that you will get off our "friends" lists?

I have no problem with a no-fly list. We already have some restrictions on personal freedoms. I can't seem to find anyone to sell me a hand gun, yet I have never committed a crime other than perhaps speeding which is another restriction on my freedoms.

Why can't I own a hand gun(legally that is)? We regularly restrict personal freedoms for the good of the many and I don't see this as any different. Heck I can't even top up the coolant in my air conditioner!?!?!

Like a terrorist will use his or her real name. This is typical of Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper in the abuse of power which they have become used to. This is not governing, it's the use of a bigger hammer so ordinary Canadians can't fight back.

Will it help I don't know. But what is the problem. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about. This civil liberty thing in Canada has gone nuts.

Every time a new law or rule comes out these people go crazy. Give them a real job where they can meaningfully contribute to this country.

I think this is long overdue, and a good thing. The fact is these lists of terrorist entities and terrorist factions have existed and been publically available for several years via the Federal Government of Canada.

This is nothing new, but for the fact the government announced it publically. My wife and I both fly for our employment and I appreciate these steps taken for our increased security.

I do not believe that Canadians are surrending their personal freedom with these lists. Besides, the only Canadians that are effected are persons who have been convicted in the past of a serious crime.

What may cause temporary delays will help ensure the protection of us all. It is a justified and necessary action.

And hey - for those who cannot fly there's always the train or bus!

Requiring a passenger to be cleared solely based upon his name is like requiring him to be cleared based upon his religion.

Neither of them uniquely identifies the person, so they're casting a net and stopping everyone with this characteristic.

You say that this no-fly list ls necessary because we're at war, but only the people who are false positive matches are the ones who are going to suffer under it.

Aside from the actual people on the no-fly list, this new list needs to be developed so that it inconveniences NOBODY and if they can't do that then it must inconvenience EVERYBODY.

Please don't forget to include the following list of terrorists:

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Condoleeza Rice, Wolfowitz... for killing thousends of innocent civilians, invading countries, using weapons of mass destruction, using torture, lying, stealing other countries resources, commiting crimes against humanity, for no adhering to the Geneva Conventions, desregard to the Environment .... etc.

Nevermind the no-fly list. What Canada should have already been doing 27 years ago was monitoring who comes into the country and refuse those that did not meet our standards or would not be of any value to Canada.

We never should have taken in just any so-called refugees merely because they washed up on our shores or stepped off airplanes landing at our airports.

They need to publicize the list. So that confusion and headaches can be cleared up before showing up at the airport.

I simply have to respond to the note from Jane in Montreal. There is a tone of hysteria in it that is completely unwarranted, it seems to me.

It might well be one of the goals of the "terrorists" to produce just this kind of reaction, so that we don't take the time to make a calm, balanced, evidence-based assessment of what we're dealing with.

She may be "at war," possibly with her own fear demons, but that's no reason to try to stampede the rest of us into what seems to me an ill-considered, dangerous gamble with our civil liberties.

Have we forgotten Maher Arar so quickly?

I must admit that I feel very skeptical on this one. I especially get an odd feeling knowing that our "broken down" RCMP and CSIS have a hand in this.

For those who argue that we should trust the authorities to protect us, I say: wake up, look around you, observe, get informed and think clearly about this, because it may not be what it all appears to be.

It is a hidden process, done in the name of security, in great secrecy, and virtually unreversible; the process to correct mistakes and abuse, on the other hand, is long, drawn out, complicated, expensive, confusing and frustrating.

The minister in charge is Stockwell Day: that is my biggest concern, as I have less than zero confidence in that man and his party.

I cringe at every action taken by Harper and his crew: they are the people taking out TV ads to attack the opposition leader's reputation and public image in a manner that would be totally unacceptable even during an election campaign; they presented a spring federal budget which was nothing short of a vote-buying excercise (with our money, by the way, no better than any other party they attempt to denigrate); and now their big focus is to promote their party on race cars?

And I could go on, but I hope I made my point. These elected officials are not thinking any straighter than any of those they have replaced, and you want me to trust them to do what is good for me in particular and for the whole country?

My level of confidence in any and all levels of government is zero, and since this is a government initiative which may or may not have been thought through, my doubts will remain.

I could also mention that the Bush initiatives in the name of national security heve been far from comforting (Iraq war, Homeland Security, Afganistan, Middle East, etc...). I rest my case.

In response to Jane's efforts to awaken me (the average Canadian) to the eminent threat of impending doom, and apparently to inform us that WE’RE AT WAR (I’m surprised crucial information such as this has eluded so much of the public!!) I felt I should share another opinion.

I believe I would much rather endure an incredibly rare tragedy inflicted upon an otherwise free and creative society, than to subject myself or others to a constant and sometimes intense fear (as is seemingly suffered by the aforementioned - a characteristic shared by many to the south -) and the arbitrary coercion associated with this "so-called" remedy of the state.

Have you actually stopped to ask yourself what you are actually on “the look out” for?

As Benjamin Franklin put it:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Jane:
We are NOT at war!! This is a pure fabrication by the neocon administration south of the border to get companies like Haliburton et al... to make TRILLIONS of dollars! And honnestly the fact that you work for the country's airline scares me.

This list is just another excuse to have more liberties taken away and bend to US policy. Does Maher Arrar mean anything to you?

Plus do you really think that our so called 'enemies' would send someone that has his name on the list and wearing a black ski mask on to the plane?

I find it so funny (sad actually) that WE dare accuse countries of human rights abuse and seem to be destroying ours by the second...

To Philippe Theriault. You state, " Let the Americans fumble with their enemies – they are not ours." I say to you. As an American, any enemy of our friends is our enemy as well.

According to "Global Political Violence: Explaining the Post-Cold War Decline" a publication of the International Peace Academy in New York, political violence has been on the decline since the end of the cold war, and "there are a number of reasons for believing that international terrorism poses less of a threat than is commonly believed."

Not only are the no-fly lists useless, they are unnecessary except to those politicians who stay in power by fear mongering.

We have a no-fly list so that a small minority of Canadians can fly hassle-free to the U.S.

If we didn't have a no-fly list you could still travel almost the entire world plus all of Canada. So Joe Blow's business deal in Toledo trumps your trip to the Bahamas.

That's it in a nutshell.

It has nothing to do with security.

Security? Why we've left that in the hands of the RCMP and CSIS and of course those airport rent-a-friskers who have the power to have you hauled off but with the diplomacy of a junkyard dog.

This is the sort of decision making we are getting from those who still try to argue the 9/11 hijackers entered the US from Canada.

This always reminds me of that silly cartoonshow, 'Southpark' and the episode called "Blame Canada" which, in hindsight, predicted that stupidity.

The US has said 'create a list' or stay out of the USA and now you have to pass the list test even if you are taking domestic flights.

Some of the radical right's efforts to sell this plan on this board sounds like the work of paid hacks.

Surely the Conservatives communications types aren't stacking the CBC's forums.

It is interesting also to see someone add a bit of comic relief to all of this by suggesting Ayn Rand might have a rational fantasy to offer up.

Jane of Montreal

If you are going to YELL, get your facts straight. Canada has declared war on no one.

Canada is, last time I looked, participating in NATO and UN actions in Afghanistan.

Airport security has been a joke in Canada and if you work Air Canada and aren't aware of that then you are the naive one lady.

And please don't run that tired old "they're going to take out the CN Tower" scare again.

It makes absolutely no sense.

It doesn't bother me having a no-fly list but it MUST be specific. I am an airline employee who has had to be fingerprinted and have my eyes scanned as all airport staff in Canada are required.

Air crew also have to get their passport photocopied which will be sent to US Homeland security where they can track every crew member who flies over US airspace. They don't even have to land in the US.

What bothers me is if they just put a name on the list. When I travel for leisure to 2 places specifically, I have problems.

I am always held up at Hong Kong Customs as the agent checks out my name. One time the customs officer had the same surname so I asked why I always had a problem.

He flipped the screen and I saw a list on the screen full of my exact name. I guess some of them were problematic travellers.

When I travel to Australia, my request for an ETA(Electronic Travel Authority visa) always rejects due to several Canadians with the same name.

I am always forced to fax the Australian High Commission.
These two situations make me wary of any list that is non specific.

Well said Jane, finally some one with some sense and a no nonsense attitude telling the paranoid masses as it is.

Yes, I do think this helps in airline security and no there will be no negative implications as our government security agencies are among the finest in the Free World.

OK, so here's what i don't get...if the no-fly list is so crucial, why did it take almost 6 years after 9/11 to get one and how did we survive without it?

If you feel like crying, try taking all the moneys spent figting terror, incl. Irak, Afghanistan, this brilliant plan, etc... and divide it by how many terrorists you think really exist (1000? 5000?) that actually have the capability of attack the Western world.

So how much do we spend per suspect? Now imagine the same money used to fight poverty, famine, disease or to fix our infrastructure and health care. Are you mad yet...I know I am!!

I am not sure I see how this is an abuse of power. The people that find themselves on this list are there for a reason.

What would people say if the government did nothing and we had another Air India?

Dear Amanda,

We are not naive, or like children. We accept the fact that in order to protect our society and our way of life, we must accept certain inconveniences.

In any situation of any kind, there will always be abuses of power (regardless of whether it is the 'no-fly' list or how long it takes a pissed off cashier at Tim Hortons to give me my double-double).

You suggested fighting terrorism with realism! What the does that mean?? As for your fantasy list-how else do you start in a society like ours where freedom reigns?

We can't give everyone a polygraph or just ask them nicely, "are you going to blow us up today?", (maybe psychic-screening???).

btw-we do not live in a 'restrained' society'; we live in a free, democratic society. The restrained societies you speak of are the ones where the terrorists come from.

As for real action? We are at war & have been for several years. Our soldiers are making huge sacrifices defending our nation and bringin hope to a country that hasn't has any for decades.

Our police forces have broken up several very dangerous terror cells right here in Canada.

This is the reality of our free society, freedom isn't free, a price must be paid. Of course, if we were a middle-eastern or fascist nation, we wouldn't need a 'no-fly' list.

Our secret police, death squads & jihadists would take care of the rabble (and none of us would be free to discuss the issue like we are now !).

btw: Well said Jane. Right from someone who has to work everyday on an airplane and talks to the passengers! ... I can think of no better post than hers !

To all the naive and complacent nay-sayers:

WE'RE AT WAR !!! Do you need an aircraft up your CN Tower to wake you up? This is not a game. I work for the country's airline and I can tell you that most passengers are not upset but comforted by the fact that we're "on the lookout".

My blood boils at your ignorance and preposterous excuses. We may not have the best screening system but remember: it's to protect your a** !! Innocent until proven guilty? Yeah, that works great when you're all "pink mist".

Grow up and stop whining. Better yet, enlist.

According to Ayn Rand, government's only proper function is to protect its citizens from those who would use force against them, and protect these citizens by way of retaliatory force only. This "list" is not the proper use of force. It is initiated force, not retaliatory, and it destroys individual rights in a manner that smacks of fascism. What other rights do you want to give away?

People like Rob, Patrick and Ronald Potter are so naive!

You actually believe that a)this list is capable of being effective b) it won't be used improperly for political purposes and that only people who "deserve" to be on the list will be put on c) that it will be possible to get your name off of the list once put on by mistake.

Be reasonable here. You seem to take everything at face value, like a child would. Fighting terrorism takes realism, not some sort of fantasy list which assumes we can predict who the next hijacker is. This list's effect on our safety can be likened to cutting off a head of the Medusa: another will just grow.

But in the meantime we've given up our rights. And that is really what the terrorists want in the end: a more restrained Western society, too scared to take any real action.

What are we all arguing about anyway?

All of these comments, especially the real long ones that try to explain every angle about how this list could be bad or good for the country.

Let's get real. Of course the list is a good thing. If you have done nothing wrong that may cause your name to be on the list then what do you have to worry about?

We have to trust the people that are trying to keep us all safe. We have to have faith in something for heaven's sake!

To answer Sandra,

You won't be directly told that you are on the no-fly list, because that would be considered a breach of secuirty. You have to deduce it through the experience (usually more than once) of buying an airline ticket and seeing what happens.

So, the best way is to buy a ticket and then try to check-in using an automatic kiosk, or over the internet.

If you are able to complete your check-in and you are issued a boarding pass, then you're not on the no-fly list.

If the kiosk (or your computer) says that it can't complete your check in, and that you should speak to a check-in agent, then you will have to check-in at the airport.

If the agent at the airport has to phone someone with your information, or they have to go away for several minutes and then come back before giving you a boarding pass, then you are NOT on the no-fly list, but someone with your name is probably on the list.

You'll know this if it happens repeatedly.

If the airline refuses to board you, then YOU are on the no-fly list.

I feel that once again we have done what the Americans have told us to do. As a citizen I feel that I should have had more input into this decision.

"There are big problems with this no-fly list, including potential Charter violations, just watch."

Sorry BMan you are wrong on a point of order. This list like Bill C-36 was deemed to pass constitutional mustard by the SCC last year on a reference application. The government has a year to redraft its Security Certificates legislation which itself was deemed okay as a concept.

The list itself cannot be a Charter violation, only acts by officials irrespective of what they are claiming to have the authority to act on. If the court deems a document to be ultra-vires then it means actions carried out as directed by the document. As stated earlier this is not the case with the No-FLY list. To say otherwise is to say that Common Law powers of arrest are unconstitutional.

Remember our little lesson about privileged communication and when it can be broken? Imminent harm was the main reason. Same thing with law enforcement and the test set out by the courts. They (law enforcement) must prove difinitvely and on an objective basis that you constitute a security breach and their actions will be in accordance with the Charter (Section 1 if there's a breach) the Criminal Code, common law powers of arrest as well as several federal transportation regulations.

Hope this helps.

I'd rather see an effective "no fly list" or "identity watch list" in use than all the pointless searches involving nail clippers shoes, or liquids and gels. They might as well also add all the people in Canada who are wanted on arrest warrants to that list, to solve another problem.

Problem, we're talking about an *ideal* list, and assuming it will work as intended. In practice, there could be all kinds of problems with mistaken identity, unclear rules of what people are on there for and what to do with them, and misuse of the lists themselves.

We'd need one list, determined by our own intelligence and police agencies (not someone else's), a rational basis for putting people on it, and effective ways to use it only against the people it is intended to stop.

The U.S. is having huge problems, because of its confused use of many different lists from many different agencies, and the lesson there is that we probably shouldn't follow their example. As someone else said, other countries have used different methods, perhaps much more effective ones, so we should take some lessons from their methods too.

It's also been noted that terrorists and criminals are probably the most likely to be travelling under false identities and aliases, so unless the government gets serious about cracking down on the illicit "false ID industry", the whole thing could be a moot point.

As a matter of privacy and sovereignty, the government must make sure this list is never misused by other governments or leaked to private enterprises, since the damage done would cause more Maher Arar type of scenarios in the first case, and lead to immense privacy violations and identity theft in the second case.

And last of all, of course all this depends on good intelligence, which has always been a much more effective weapon. "No fly" lists would be unable save anyone if the intelligence is not there in the first place.

To Anonymous: I'm sure if you Google my name or anyone else's, several matches would show up (Canada, US, England, Europe, Asia etc etc---pretty much anywhere on the globe).

My point is, and it has been debated pro & con here by several other posters is the validity of delays for one person or another. If someone on the watch list has the same name as me, I would have no problem being held up (even missing a flight) for security. A few minutes or hours of delay is, in my mind, worth it if it possibly saves thousands of lives.

As I said in my first post, stop bitching. Security is what matters. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the fews. Don't be so selfish & self-involved !

Will someone please tell me how a person finds out whether her/his name is on this list?

Since I write frequent critical letters to the various federal cabinet ministers, is it possible that one or more of them could have my name on that list as a punishment for questioning their authority?

I find this list very scary. To think I might never be able to leave my home province to visit my children in Ontario and BC is causing me great stress.

Of course a NO-FLY list will improve airline security.

Despite the feelings of the loonie-left on these boards who feel that terrorism is a myth cooked up the the US, we need to ban from flight those whose main motives are to kill people and or destroy a flight mid-air.

Now as to the divulging of names on said list, it must occur, the airline staff naturally need access to identify people who are on the list so that they don't board flight and take lives.

The various other law enforcement officals like the RCMP, local police, CSIS and federal government officals need access to said list not only to update it and change it but to use as a tool to monitor the movement of dangerous people.

Civil liberties concerns will always have to be addressed, and their are plenty of Charter legal-specialists out there waiting to challenge the government should a mistake occur. I'd say this though, the inconvenience and humiliation suffered by one person wrongly placed on a list can easily be rectified, however an Air India or 9-11, would be a little harder to make right.

So far we in Canada have been either lucky or blessed in that our security and law enforcement officials have worked efficiently to prevent our major attack. We haven't had one so asides from the families of our 57 soldiers lost in Afghanistan few Canadians know the pain of loosing someone to terrorism in the post 9-11 world. Therefore talk about Bush and Iraq and America will go on as the concept of Islamic terrorism (the most common form today...) remains but a concept.

All we can do is pray that it remains so that people can feel free to rap about Bush and Blood for Oil and whatever else they've learned in their internet poli sci classes.

I guess what worries me about this list is the question of who is in charge of this information.

I mean we're talking about information coming from CSIS and RCMP. OK - so its only a name (presumably) - maybe a date of birth, maybe some other identifying characteristic.

But who is this info. being given to? CATSA? Air Canada? All Airlines? And who is making the decision to deny boarding? Who is authorised to reverse this decision if it turns out to be wrong?

The minister mentions recourse for wrongly identified passengers. What is the recourse? Seems to me the information that would contribute to a NFL would be very highly classified - so how sure are we about the security of this info.

Well, I just hope these questions have damned good answers.

Want to hear about my experience in Canada with the US No-Fly List? I'm not on that list, but I'm told that someone else with my name is on the list, and anytime I fly to the States I've had to have my identity verified when I get to the airport.

It's bad enough being forced to wait on line to check in, when I'm perfectly willing to use a kiosk, but on top of that there have been two instances when I missed my flights; once because the person at the desk said that they were trying to clear me, but nobody was answering the phone; the second time was because a 2nd level manager was required to clear all "security risks".

Both times, I did receive clearance, but by then, my flights had left.

Until Canada's no fly list is capable of being matched without inconveniencing anyone except the actual person on the list, the name of every MP should also be a match on the list. I'm sure they'd find a way to fix it, if that happened.

Ronald Potter: Google your own name, you come up with at least 7 different Ronald Potters.

It may be a terrorist's own problem if their name is put on the list, but if Ronald Potter 3, whose birthday is unknown, is put on the list, then it becomes yours. You might feel differently at that point. I could be wrong though, maybe you'll just feel safe.

"Tyranny of the minority" is the phrase that comes to mind! A no fly list that only the "authorities" possess!?! Smacks of things I was taught OUR society DOESN'T condone or practice. Another co-opted decision based on American policy! Shame on our parlimentarians!

Because the No Fly list performs its initial match using just the passenger's name, anyone unlucky enough to have the same name as someone on the list will soon discover that they won't be able to print boarding passes from their computers, or use the automatic check-in kiosks at the airport anymore.

They will have to wait on line and be cleared by an airline check-in agent each time they fly, to make sure that they are not the actual person on the list.

In fact, to allow for variations in spelling, the airlines use a system that will also require this of people whose names are merely similar (and sometimes not so similar) to a name on the list.

Anyone who says this is a necessary inconvenience has never had the pleasure of being bumped from their overbooked flight because all of the available seats were already claimed by the other passengers who were able to check-in via their computers, or who were told to arrive at the airport 3 hours before all flights to make sure that there will be enough time to clear them.

One of the readers posted false IDs and passport can be detected and that a person can be arrested. If this can be done most effectively,why many terrorists can get away with it in the past and now we become more alarm of it ?

Fact: The USA already implemented the no-fly list before the tragedy of September 11th happened.

If anyone has read the 9/11 Commission Report, you would see that if no-fly lists had been in effect on September 11, 2001, that great tragedy would not have occurred.

The sad fact is that terrorists have infected the entire world with their suicidal religious perversions and we as civilized people must protect ourselves. More security means more safety-pure and simple.

If anyone has an issue with the no-fly lists and/or their name on it then they have bigger problems than bitching about civil liberties. There is a reason your name is on it. This is your problem, not mine.

Annie you state, "Canada being one of the most democratic and free societies on earth, everyday I am thankful that I do not suffer, starve, be imprisoned, beaten, lack human rights, no water, no personal space or privacy."

I am not sure what Canada you live, but I have seen or experienced many (if not all) of those conditions in Canada on First Nations reserves and jails. The UN recently slammed Canada again for Human Rights violations.

You claim that one would have to be "extremist, communist, or brainwashed," to question the government.

It is my opinion that one would be negligently naive not to question when basic facts are investigated and the real truth remains hidden.

The 9/11 investigation was a farce, the invasion of Iraq was based on lies, and Afghanistan is a UN security mission - not a war - even though our troops are being forced to kill for US foreign policy blunders.

There are big problems with this no-fly list, including potential Charter violations, just watch.

Got milk?

I support our troops, not stupid wars.

Why is it that our fundamental right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty does not include the skies? On land, law enforcement cannot detain you unless they are willing and able to press specific charges against you. But now, at airports, we can be detained from flying “because someone has you on a list”. How crazy! It is derisory, ridiculous and not even a meaningful or useful as a weapon against terrorism.

Let the Americans fumble with their enemies – they are not ours. This no-fly list is a serious erosion of our freedoms and is a horrible precedent. Sadly, it will likely affect minority groups in Canada more than the rest of us. We should stand against this. Next they will come for you or me.

I notice a lot of the comments here are either in favour of a list or see no problems with a list. Do we need a list like this? How many planes originating from Canada have been hijacked, ever? How many have been used as missiles, ever? When was the last time a terrorist hijacked a Canadian flight, ever?

People claim that airport security is a joke, well it was head and shoulders better than US airport security on 9/11 and the fact is this is all nonsense for no good reason.

Another point to consider is the appalling ineptitude of both CSIS and the RCMP. Anyone finger pointing to the Air India tragedy will understand that all too well. Bad guys go free while good people are hassled: as usual, the cops are bass-ackwards.

Besides, as the article points out there are far too many potentials for abuse for this measure to go forward. CSIS and the RCMP have proven they can't be trusted AT ALL, and I suggest that if the Federal Government really wants to make good on real security then they should dismantle the RCMP and CSIS and create two new -hopefully - EFFECTIVE agencies in their place.

This no-fly list send a clear signal to all airline stock investors. If you are holding any airline stocks please dump them the sooner you possibly can.

The message to all canadian with this implemetation is YOU ARE GUILTY UNLESS YOU ARE PROVEN INNOCENT.

To make this so plain that even the most right aligned (and I'm ex-army) person sees the demonstration:

If I was to break the law and publish the list of suspected terrorists I have to review there would be an unimaginable backlash of people wanting to know why they are suspected terrorists.

One of our local hospital's trusts is suspected of money laundering because they have "cka" in their name. Let's say you have 10 neighbors - 8 of them will be on that list. It isn't about making everyone safer it's about neo-McCarthyism, a "with us or against us" mentality.

Flying may not be a right, but this will restrict people without any knowledge that they are being suspected of anything. That's the key suspected - not charged, proven guilty - suspected.

Fear, intimidation, and poverty are great manipulators. Think about it - gas and housing prices, spiralling inflation as they removed all volatile goods from the CPI so we don't need good raises to keep up. Crime is rampant so we need to suspend your rights - temporarily of course.

Those who object to the no-fly list on civil rights grounds, should remember that the ultimate civil right is the right to remain alive and not have one’s life endangered needlessly.

To guarantee this ultimate civil right, it is only common sense that we be prepared to sacrifice some of our privacy rights. We do not live just for ourselves alone, but as members of a society have a duty to put up with certain inconveniences for the safety of others.

Do we need another Air India to wake us up – or will we do the smart thing and take preventive action?

For those that believe that a No Fly List (NFL) will have no benefit because the 911 terroist or more recently the shoebomber would simply go out and arrange to get a fake passport; is in itself the best reason to support this measure.

It is nice to see someone speaking logically here. If someone on the No Fly List travels under their own name then they will be noticed by the system. On the other hand, if that person travels under a different name (i.e. fake passport) then that passport is more likely to draw attention (by security & airline personnel).

The more *hurdles* that a terrorist requires to travel through Canada, the more likely that they will slip-up and be discovered.

The people in this thread are overly alarmist (and anti-American as usual). Honestly, if you were to travel on a plane where a fellow passenger shares a name with a known terrorist then wouldn't you want that person's identity carefully verified? Or would you prefer to just assume that no terrorist would fly under their own name?

Oh, as to the *they wouldn't travel under their own name so why bother* argument. If CSIS or the RCMP get a tip that a terrorist named Joe Bob will be travelling under an alias of Joey Bobno then that alias can be added to the No Fly List.

If this system doesn't work then the flaws will need to be addressed. Until then, let's test-drive the system to find out if it is effective and/or necessary.

To be very honest this no-fly-list will never work.

Think about it.How many terrorists will use their true name in their passports and other IDs while travelling with the intention of doing excessive harm to the security of the vast majority of people.They make fake by stealing other people's ID and commit horrible atrocities in the name of that innocent individual.

This dribble about everything the government does to ensure our security is a threat to our freedoms, we are becoming a police state, and the RCMP and CSIS are inept and can't be trusted.

It's a government plot, the US is involved, it's all so bizarre. One would have to be an extremist, communist, or brainwashed, to think this stuff up, me thinks!!!!!

As this is the first day the list is being used for goodness sake, let's see how it works over time. If it keeps someone who is a threat off my airplane, I say THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

Canada being one of the most democratic and free societies on earth, everyday I am thankful that I do not suffer, starve, be imprisoned, beaten, lack human rights, no water, no personal space or privacy.

Last word: I think by now it should be would be obvious why a "National Security No Fly List" would not be made public.

CSIS and the RCMP have put together a list for the no-fly list. This bothers me greatly due to the fact that they never get their facts right and they always will say all is working just fine.

You and I both know there is no faith or trust in both of these organizations and things will wrong and people will be angry. They seem so worried about their staff but they never once gave a thought to the people who pay for these tickets.

They then turn around and say you can appeal how much will this cost. What does this all mean nothing but more and more angry people who can appeal, appeal what go where it will never end.

Dan Dennis: since you seem purport to be speaking for Americans, and are so keen on telling us to wake up, I suggest you do the same. Is that the freedom to travel freely within your country, the freedom to speak out against a war you don't believe in, or the freedom to shut up and agree with everything your President decides? I would suggest that real bravery is standing up for your rights and not letting acts of terrorism change the way you live.

Rod in BC: Just so you know, the US No-fly list is not a post-9/11 creation. They had one before that attack, but those terrorists just weren't on it. And that is the problem with lists. It is simply too difficult to tell who will attack, us in what way.

A preventative measure is only as good as the largest loophole it contains, and in this case, there are far too many unknowns involved in the planning and execution of these attacks to make any such list effective. For the inconvenience that many innocent Canadians could come up against, I don't think there will be enough tangible improvement to our security.

To those who say air travel is not a right and they are willing to see some people go through the inconvenience of trying to get their names removed, consider this: couples are choosing to have "destination" weddings in other countries with increasing frequency. Think of a family, with a common name, as one poster put it, the John Smith's of the world, in their various cultural forms (Singh, Chen, Mohammed). Consider if your father, mother, or even husband was prevented from getting on a plane and attending your long planned wedding ceremony?

It should be a day to celebrate, but instead it would be filled with heart-wrenching decisions: do you put off your wedding so your father can attend, or go through with it because you and 20 close friends and family members paid thousands of dollars to be there? Sure, he may be able to get his name off Canada's list eventually (to say nothing of US and other foreign lists) but you can never get that day back, and you would have no way of preventing that incident until your father showed up at the airport to check in. Consider that "mere inconvenience".

The right to protest has just been taken away. Part of protesting is to go to where what you protesting against is taking place. so, the first time you are held for anything that takes place, identified, and released, charged or not...your name will be entered on this "do not FLY list".

Voila...problem solved. Oh you can still drive, but how do you drive overseas, how do you get past this list if you want to drive into the US as custom agents also have this list at border crossings.

These type of lists are about controlling people, making sure that the governments message is the only message. After all, this kind of control works great in any state that doesn't tolerate dissent, just ask the people of China.

Dan Dennis - who is this "THEY" you refer to?

You say "Follow with us, you neighbors; America, Home of the free, land of the brave. Be brave with us."

I will not follow when those leading are doing so based on lies [proven], corruption, threatening foreign policy, and fear tactics. Following that lead, my friend, is more apt to get us killed.

It is NOT just about 1000 names. It is about the maybe 30,000, maybe 50,000, innocent Canadians that will share those 1000 names. Yes, I know that they also look at birthday and gender, but do you really think that you'll get a pass if your name happens to match? And why don't they include pictures of the Guilty-1000?

This is just another idiot attempt at airline security - already the biggest joke on the planet.

Security I don't mind; it's stupidity that 'gets my goat'.

Hey Annie,

It's not the list that people are complaining about, it's how they got the names for the list. You're name may well be on it for offering your opinion here. The fact that it is not your right to travel has nothing to do with it.

It saddens me to see the end of freedom in our nation. They won't tell us how they came up with the list, they will not tell us why these people are on the list. They do not give an explanation as to why these so called dangerous people are not being arrested before they harm someone.

There is only one reason for this shady type of behavior. The US wants us all to be in a State of terror so they can continue to loot and plunder the world like drunken pirates.

The Charter of Human Rights is supposed to allow for a fair trial if accused. Here we are accusing people of being dangerous without any type of trial or chance for the people on this list to defend themselves. Hard to believe the Charter was a Canadian invention. Our Government should not support this.

People, get your head out of the sand. Trying to be politically correct is going to get us killed. If THEY get control, you won't be flying anywhere. Follow with us, you neighbors; America, Home of the free, land of the brave. Be brave with us.

Good post Zen.

Again, we see mini-Bush following his idol and leader of the US terror war. Does anyone else see an increase in Canadians "threat" levels as Harper moves ever closer to Bush? If the US is causing a problem, maybe the US is the problem.

The fear industry is alive and well in North America. I do not put any faith in these lists whatsoever. What is the measure being used to get on the list - MInisterial discretion? If so, God help us all. Airports can not even screen domestically checked bags efficiently, how in the world is this going to be achieved?

It is time for Canadians to setp and say "no more" and demand a real investigation of 9/11; then we can talk and stop supporting the stupidity of the US Government.

Following the allegations of a White House filled with corruption and fallacy is not the sound basis for any military action.

The continued use of terror to justify the States perceived threats, thanks to their foreign policy failures and attrocities committed against hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East is truly disturbing - and Canada follows blindly - thanks Steve.

I support our troops, not stupid wars.

Thank goodness our security is not based on your posted comments. Everyone has their own take how this will or not work out, but, until we put it to the test, we'll never know, will we?

You can take your uninformed shots at the RCMP and CSIS all you want. It does not change the facts that very highly trained individuals both in government and from without, along with security agencies from Canada and around the world, had input in drawing up this no fly list. It will target persons who may be a security threat or wants to cause harm to Canada and our institutions.

For those that believe that a No Fly List (NFL) will have no benefit because the 911 terroist or more recently the shoebomber would simply go out and arrange to get a fake passport; is in itself the best reason to support this measure.

Who's say what the world would be like had the 911 terroist been on a NFL. It is entirely possible there would be NO war in Iraq and Afganstan. What's that worth compared to a flawed NFL?

If this NFL inconviences me(and it could) I owe it to every other Canadian to shoulder that responsibility and to accept whatever the mechanism or process/hoops/pain that I have to go through to correct the situation.

Instead of selfishly considering how the NFL could affect me, (me, me, me) and my individual needs, I believe it is my duty to other Canadians to a least try and do something, even if it inconviences me and at worst does nothing other than make it more difficult for terorist to hurt other Canadians.

I am always amused by Canadians who speak out against any and all security measures our government needs to implement to protect Canadians from unknown dangers. To quote: "It's a privacy rights issue" .

Well did you know that each time you applied for credit cards, Bank mortgages, Bank loans, opened Bank accounts, leased or bought cars, had a phone or cable installed, filed tax returns, paid municipal taxes, rented apartments, or used credit cards on-line, you willingly provided your most private personal information.

With all that private personal information out there, WHY on earth would airport screening lists bother anyone unless you have something to hide?

There are no Charter breaches here, as "traveling by plane, train, bus, ferries, etc, is a PRIVILEGE and NOT A RIGHT". It's a privilege I will gladly accept, rules, lists and all. Just ensure my safety, please.

this list is yet another offshoot of the police state being built south of our border and in turn affecting our country...the reasons behind the attacks of 9/11 are still not known and most of the suspected hijackers were being watched and activities noted...did this stop the attacks ?

We cannot follow this dangerous path and not expect our freedoms and liberty to be destroyed...just as we cannot be part of the "war of/on terror" and not expect some sort of "blowback"

Wow, talk about frightening!
To be clear, I'm talking about the response from Sarbjit Singh. His/her? words sound way too close to the absolute verbage & tones used by terrorists every day (..."we will rise against the infidels"...)

I believe this will just be another watermark step in the right direction for safer air travel, even if there may be a couple of hiccups along the way.

I also believe that the 'bad guys' are only hearing what the government wants them to hear by this announcment-that is, there is a whole other world of covert counter intelligence that will be gleaned from directed 'mis-information' to perhaps draw out further identities of these perverted terrorists.

We should all just stay tuned to see if this can work for all the rest of us 'good guys/girls'.

For those who are against this and think it won't do a damn thing...look at Air India. Those terrorists used their real passports, were suspected terrorists and now a few 100 people died. That could have been avoided (and therefore wouldn't it have been worth it?)

Some people say they are willing to give up their liberties if it means they are safer in the air. I bet that those individuals would not feel the same if it was their name on the list. I also doubt that those individuals are truly willing to give up their liberties, or else if they felt unsafe in the air they would instead choose to drive or take a bus.

This list does affect our mobility rights because if people can be turned away from flying, then what is to use the same logic to prevent people from using any other forms of transportation or be refused a driver's license?

All of us are allowed to criticize this (and should) because the people who make our laws are not necessarily any more of an expert than you or me.

The right to refuse services should be reserved solely by the airline and be able to withstand legal scutiny or else face compensatory and/or punitive damages. Let the airlines manage their own risk. If the government wants to immobilize an individual let them revoke their passport.

I dont beleive that a no fly list will make any difference as far as security is conserned.for Canada. I however laugh at the people opposing it, maybe they should have opposed the totally stupid human rights bill Trudeau came out with.

From some of the literature I have read He was barred from entering the USA before becoming the PM of Canada because he may have been involved in communism

From the way that people are screaming and yelling you would think that the government had asked to place microprocessors in our brains.

A list is being created so that individuals that may pose a threat to the passengers or the plane itself will be denied boarding.

My stance has always been I would rather have 100 people inconvenienced to save a single life, but many seem to be of the thinking that its better to cost a 100 lives rather then to have someone inconvenienced.

Notwithstanding the benefits of a "No-Fly List", (which will vary greatly depending upon the accuracy and ability to verify the individually identifiable information in question), I am certain that Canada's New Government is breaking the law (the Privacy Act) in releasing personal information to a non-Governmental Agency without the consent of the person so identified; that is prohibited, and I am surprised and dismayed that the Privacy Commissioner has not made a legal challenge on the release of private information to civilian airline personnel.

If, (and only if) the aircraft passenger manifests are checked by an employee or agent of the federal government, and if the information that identifies the individual on "The List" is of sufficient accuracy, i.e. Passport Number, Social Insurance Number or Driver's License number in addition to the name, should "The List" be allowed to be used.

I also suspect that many people would like to know whether or not their name is on the list (especially if their name is Jane Smith, or the ethnic equivalent in Korean, Arabic, Chinese, Sikh, Spanish and so forth) before arriving at the airport with a #3,000.00 ticket to their son's wedding in hand; I would.

Although we have no right to know who is or is not on the list in general, their is one exception: The Privacy Act stipulates that Canadians have a Right of Access to personal data about us that is under the control of any government institution, and I would suggest to all Canadians who travel that they ask the government if their own names are on the list.

I think the no-fly list the Govn't of Canada created is absolutely stupid, I am not surprise about this at all.

The Canadian Govn't is a puppet of the US, they will do anything whatever comes out of Washingdon but they are foolishly wrong to think that the Canadian public will stand for it.

The biggest terrorist on this planet is the USA and Canada is following it.

Canadians will arise againt this arrogant stupid provision.

The no-fly list is unconstitutional and should be abolished!

First this list only furthers discrimination and if it is indeed based on CISIC information more than likely unfounded. Just look at Mohamed Harkats story and you will see how reliable they are. Secondly we can already see from the example of the Alberta MP that this list will cause probalems at the airport.

And finaly if this new measure is suposed to be an improvement to our security, and that the people on list list are such a threat why dont we just arrent them now before they decide to hop on a plane?

Oh right because CISIC information is so deplorable that its not sound enough to press charges, and now that the security certifcate is gone we cant arbritrarly hold people any more. Arent you glad that we will in a free and democratic society?

The no-fly list is yet another very scary incursion into our human rights. To be denied the right to travel because of obscure allegations - made in secret - by paranoid government organizations is a serious threat to our freedom. This is one more dangerous step down the road to a police state in Canada.

The list will also prove useless in preventing acts of terrorism. What terrorist is going to travel under genuine travel documents? How naive to believe this will do anything but interfere with the rights of innocent people.

The whole thing is just another attempt to soothe the fears of the mindless masses, while handing more power to the State.

As someone who has traveled to Muslim countries, I'll be holding my breath every time I go to board a plane. This is very very disturbing. Canadians should be outraged.

I believe what the Minister of Transport said is true, none of these measures will make us safer but provide the illusion of security.

Who pays when someone misses their flight because of a false positive hit. It certainly shouldn't be the airlines and it should be the innocent passenger and you can bet that the government won't accept liability.

No terrorist in their right mind is going to board a flight using a name that is known. the Americans have caught no more terrorists with their watch list than they did before but they have denied people boarding because they were associated with protest groups.

How long will the Canadian Public stand up to this ever increasing loss of privacy in the name of the illussion of increased security. Terrorist attacks can only be prevented by good old fashion intelligence gathering and analysis. It is the failure to properly evaluate intelligence information that has caused most terrorist acts.

I have no problem with the list and would rather have my liberties infringed on slightly in order to make my country a safer place to live.

Erring on the side of caution to me is much better than allowing someone to fly who was suspected of terrorist activity and I get to be his/her victim at 32000 feet. Prevention saves more lives than an "oops" after the fact.

The one overriding thought that comes to mind is how are we the public supposed to trust ANYTHING the RCMP or CSIS does?

Their recent history shows organizations that on a good day appear incompetent and inept.

A no fly list is no guarantee of safety of travel any more than profiling will identify a terrorist.

If we want good travel security then provide it properly, with second-to-none baggage checks and check-in security. While air marshalls might give a hope of security, they will be largely ineffective if a hijacking takes place because any action they take will be after the fact and risk other passengers.

Good security starts on the ground with people and properly trained security personnel.

You want to see security? Try looking around the world at some of the other countries. Japan, Israel, and Thailand come immediately to mind. They know how to implement and maintain security for air travel far better than any country including the USA.

It is my opinion that we in Canada are all too accommodating to US methods and pressures. There are other and better alternatives but for some reason we dont seem to want to look at them. So this leaves one to wonder if the so called travel security is politically driven or if it is truly security motivated?

Pretending that we can predict where the next threat is going to come from does not make me feel any safer. The only thing this list does is prove that the government can and will restrict our freedoms further with every new "threat" that they can convince the population to believe in.

I'm not saying that there isn't a threat that exists in relation to air travel, just that I feel less safe, not more, when the government purports to make it safer, when really, they have no better idea of a specific threat than I. Because in reality, as long as there are terrorists who want to harm our society, they will come up with new and unusual ways to carry out that harm.

I'd rather live my life without constantly being told that I need to worry about the next terrorist plot, and being forced to amend my lifestyle so that the government can say that they are doing something to prevent it. That includes being able to get on a flight to visit my parents with a bottle of water and some shampoo.

I'm always suspect of 'critics' - how did they get to be critics? who nominated/elected them? what real expertise do they have in the area?

While there will be problems with the no fly list, it is just one more piece to aid in security.

Yes, no one is going to use their real name, but I suspect security officals have already thought of that (give them some credit).

Is the no fly list any more sillier than having my 85 year old mother send her cane through the security screening or having her remove her shoes. No.

But flying is not a right and if you want to fly, all people (including those who are innocent) are required to go through screening, show ID , not act suspious - any of which could reject you from the flight at the discretion of the airline.

We are living in times from which past experience clearly tells us that the worst can happen and that there are many, many people in the world who wish to do the western world harm - for whatever reason, real or imagined.

Since that this the case, we need to do all that is possible to ensure that they do not.

If the people on this list are a threat, then why aren't charges being laid against them? Does anyone think that a terrorist will use his real name on a passport?

This no-fly list is a joke - if air security is the intent, then how about upping the baggage and passenger scanning? If we are entursting Canadian and U.S. "intelligence" for compiling this list, we should all be worried.

God bless the men and women of the RCMP but it seems that their superiors have learned nothing about the Arar case.

Will Canadians find out later that some poor soul gets their life threatened/ruined/ended in some horrible fashion again?

Taxpayers coughed up $10M for Mr. Arar's pain and looks like we're just getting ourselves ready for another fiasco at the hands of those who decided to NOT tell people beforehand that they are on these lists.

Safety is important and after two years since the announcement of the Canadian version, it still has not sunk in that PEOPLE are as important too. And, so is perhaps, learning from mistakes?

Why is it that if the true purpose of the no-fly list is to protect the public from persons who are suspected of being, or who are already known to be dangerous and who continue to pose a real threat to the public, they are they free in the first place and are given the opportunity to offend or re-offend?

If the government truly wants to protect the public from dangerous offenders, why not keep these people incarcerated?

What's the point of protecting the public only when they're in the air? What about the large percentage of people who don't fly, and instead use public transit, the rail system, greyhound buses, etc.?

Although I have no objections to the purpose of the No Fly List, my hope is that the passengers won't take out the delays or errors on Flight Attendants who have to see passengers off the aircraft to have their passports checked.

FA have to abide by company/gov't policies, put up with abusive passengers, work without meal breaks sometimes taking off and landing 6 & 7 times in one day.

They aren't even under the protection of Air Marshals when flying to the US and the pay sucks.

So when you complain about a No Fly list, lost luggage or a cramped seat - remember, at least you had one.

I think this will be just like the lists of "suspected terrorists and organizations" the banks have to review monthly. It works on a pretty bad algorithim - if you have certain vowel / consonant combinations in your name you could be a terrorist.

No, I'm not a communist lefty but I do think that having to verify monthly that the local hockey teams, Legion, hospital trust etc. is a bit much to go through to make everyone "feel" safer.

But the public doesn't really know about this, and certainly no one knows they're on this list.

We're talking about families and organizations which have been here as long as the city I live in and yet - they could be terrorists! The horror!

Pretty much any Ukranian, Indian, Asian, or Middle Eastern based name is there. Why would this list be any different? Can't see it. The Government be efficient? Let's get us all terrified so we can pass any piece of legislation we want because "you're not a terrorist are you?".

Common sense isn't very common anymore.

The arguments used by the Harper government against the gun registry were that it was a lot of money to spend on something that wouldn't work and that real criminals were not going to register their guns. I heard many an Albertan fume about the loss of privacy as well.

I expect to hear those same voices again, as gobs of moneyare being spent on a program of dubious value (who whould use their reaal ID if they were a real terrorist?) tha

i dont believe this list provides any sense of security.

i for one do not feel any safer knowing that these 1000 or so individuals are being denied the ability to fly.

if they are deemed to pose a threat to our security in the air, why are these people just turned away rather than being detained or questioned? I dont see how one can be denied access to air travel, but still be allowed to use any other method of transportation within the country.

i believe that any citizen who has not been proven guilty of a crime, should be allowed to use any of the services open to any Canadian.

I don't think many people would have any problem at all with 1,000 people out of millions being restricted from flying because of verifiable terrorist connections and genuine safety concerns. We have far more people than that restricted from driving based on the same general idea after all.

I do wonder though if this measure is actually expected to truly achieve safer skies for us or if it is something else. As has been said, it is unlikely that a list like this will achieve much in terms of thwarting any real plot or stopping an organized group so if it can be assumed that security experts know this as well it must have another purpose.

If this is the case I can then only think of two possibilities. The first is that it is 90% a public relations exercise and the second is that this list is intended to be expanded over time and become a more general "tool" than one specifically targeting terrorists.

At present, lists such as this may not threaten people’s rights (when used as intended) but power is rarely given back once solidly in place and as we continue to give more and more power to certain elements of society we should be asking if will truly be effective and if it is truly necessary.

This is the most repulsive, ridiculous thing I've ever heard from this government.

What is going on here? How, HOW, did they get this thing through parliament?! Why did nobody object? Why was there no public discussion? I feel betrayed, not just by the governing party but also by the systems which should have prevented this kind of abuse of power.

Canada, which I had previously believed safe, seems to now be moving along the same road as the US; turning itself into an unaccountable police state.

Apparently, this was announced way back in October. Why did none of the politicians or media organizations talk about it back then?

The U.S. no-fly list has nabbed babies, senators, actors, professors and political dissidents. There is no way to get yourself off it because there is no way to "prove" that your name is on it.

I weep for my country. And so soon after the Maher Arar affair, too.

There should be a requirement to track and publish data regarding the number of false positives. We have the right to know just how poorly this system will actually perform.

Also, such false positive cases (where innocent people are denied boarding) could, and should, lead to multimillion dollar lawsuits against the government. Not just compensation for the ruined vacation or business trip, but for denial of basic enshrined rights and freedoms. I think that a settlement of $100 million per instance is about right...

The real concern is how certain people are added to that list... What criteria is used to determine a bona fide threat?

Should someone be added to that list simply by association to someone else? where does that intelligence come from (RCMP,CSIS,FBI,CIA)? If there is no legal basis (criminal conviction) or some other verifiable condition for someone to be put on the list then it can be considered discrimination and will likely be challenged as unconstitutional.

I am not some leftist trying to defend "terrorist rights" as some may argue in this thread, I simply would like to see a systematic, legal approach to this issue - let's do it right, instead of just doing it.

These things don't work. This is just another step by the conservative government to mimick the scare tactics being used in America.

I'm all for intelligent profiling if it helps save lives, but a 'no fly' list is nothing more than a move to make terrified citizens feel more secure and, in turn, feel as though the government is providing them with much needed protection.

Many people are going to look at this and say "oh it's just a slight inconvenience". That's probably true; statistically you're very very unlikely to be on this list. However if we don't stand up to protect our rights and freedoms now, by the time we desperately need to do so it will be too late.

This is another example of security theatre directed at a US audience. There is virtually no evidence that a "secret" no-fly list provides sufficient benefit to warrant the intrusion on individual rights and freedoms.

If one examines the published criteria for being included on the no-fly list, there is nothing in this criteria that could not be made public to the individual concerned.

There is merit in preventing individuals from flying if they have, through previous behaviour, demonstrated their potential to be a threat. We do this with health related threats. However, these individuals should be notifified and given the opportunity to clear their name. This would in no way compromise the control.

A prospective terrorist need only by an airline ticket ans show up to an airport to determine if he/she would have a problem at a future time.

There is also merit in taking action that make our largest trading partner more comfortable even if these actions deliver minimal security benefit; provided these actions respect our rights and freedoms.

The No Fly List is a very bad idea. I cringe to think of the headaches this is going to cause for the poor people who end up on the list mistakenly.

Surely the Arar case is reason enough to give us pause about the amount of power we hand over to our security organizations.

If a person is guilty of a crime – charge them, if they cannot be charged then we assume them to be innocent, leave them alone. This is our right as human beings.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety", said Ben Franklin, and while one may not agree with everything he has said, his point has resonance here.

When government becomes plagued with corruption and corporate interests hijack the political agenda, there is little to stand in the way of government-sponsored terrorism.

Under such circumstances, “war becomes the health of the state”, to paraphrase Randolph Bourne, often at the expense of individual freedom.

Perhaps the only thing that might stem the tide is an informed citizenry, but left with the choice between facing either a scary truth or soothing entertainment/disinformation means an informed citizenry will take confidence, self-discipline, intelligence, exertion and bravery.

We may even need to turn off Canadian Idol now and then.

Has anyone else noticed that our post 911 world is beginning to resemble a mob run protection racket?

Witnessing our somnambulist societal flirtations with an Orwellian police state is breathtaking indeed.

I want to know what is used for criteria when determining who should be on this list? I am concerned that we are pleading people guilty before proven innocent.

Are individuals notified when put on this list? How can one defend ones self. I heard via the radio news this morning that this list will restrict Canadians from moving within Canada via air as well.

Please tell me I misunderstood. I find it disturbing that a Canadian Citizen is being restricted to move about in our own country.

When are the boarders going up between Provinces then? And most of all if we deny passage by air don't you think they would just drive. Hence my question about boarders for provinces.

I can see the restrictions for International flights, sort of, after all they could just rent a plane if they really want to do the deed.

Within the country to me seems just plain ridiculous. God bless GW and his so called war on Terror and shame on us for falling for it.

If it makes the security folk feel good, go ahead. But don't for a minute think that this will make flying any safer for the public.

Just like the gun registry, boat licenses and the legal 'drinking' age, it is a program that is in place simply as PR without any proven benefit and likely positive impact.

Now if we could only get David Suzuki's name on the no-fly list, he could actually start living up to his anti-carbon-gas spewing preaching...

Air Travel is a service, and as such there is a need to assure that this commercial service runs as smoothly as possible.

Anyone who has ever flown on an El Al flight understands the true meaning of the term "Security". A Federal No Fly list is something that is long overdue, and is a means to protect the majority of passengers just looking to get to point B.

The good of the many simply outweighs the good of the few.

This really comes down to the greater good of all the passengers at the expense of a few.

While I have no doubt that the masses from the left will mention the odd name that should have never found its way onto the American version of such a list, I will hear very little about the thousands that were correctly on that list.

After the Air India inquiry showed the near endless leaks in the Canadian Airport network, coupled with a report issued six months ago discussing the lax security at most major airports in the country, I have no issue with another step being taken to assure that the vast majority of air travelers are safe.

There is a trade off here between 'potential' abuses and 'potential terrorists'.

You only have to go as far as the inquiry into the Air India disaster to see how much second-guessing there would be if 'terrorists' were allowed to board a plane and it was subsequently flown into a building or blown up with a massive loss of life.

I'd rather exercise some caution, although inconvenient, than be the subject of some future investigation into why more was not done to prevent a tragedy.

I have to admit, I'm torn on this one ... on the surface a no-fly list sounds just fine to me - I don't mind showing ID and having it verified if it is going to keep me safe.

On the other hand, the quote in the article makes a really good point - terrorists are not likely to use their own ID. And the last thing this country needs is for more people to be held 'on suspicion'.

I wonder how much this list and it's administration is going to cost? Would it be more effective to just invest that money in better physical screening technology instead ... ?