Article

2006-02-20 Great White North

Canada rethinks policy of unarmed border guards

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-20 07:01|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Well, I suspect that if the guards were armed and one of them did shoot a crook, he'd find himself on trial for "excessive force" or some such. In that case, why bother?

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-02-20 08:54|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-02-20 08:54|| Front Page Top

"But the reality is that we don't live in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood anymore," added ~~moron~~ Moran

You never did, Delbert - you just liked to pretend while we did all the heavy lifting. As usual.

Nothing to see here - move along....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-02-20 15:37|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-02-20 15:37|| Front Page Top

#3 Kanuckistan is part of the problem.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-20 15:39|| 2006-02-20 15:39|| Front Page Top

#4 Its like other aspects of the English language employed by the various former colonies of the Mother tongue. We south of the border often refer to people who perform the job of 'guard' as someone usually armed. On the other hand we refer to someone not armed at a point of transit as an 'observer' or a 'ticker puncher'.

Posted by Angaith Grerens9024 2006-02-20 16:37|| 2006-02-20 16:37|| Front Page Top

#5 exercising a legal right under Canadian law to leave a workplace they considered unsafe

I don't understand why you had to put that in bold. Why is that law so strange? All it means is that if an employee finds his work conditions unsafe, then the employer can't fire the worker for refusing to work if indeed the work conditions turn out to be unsafe (by law, common sense, or whatever). Don't you have protections like this in the US? You mean that a power line worker in the US can be fired for refusing to climb a pole in a lightning storm??? Now that's weird.

And please don't mention firemen,policemen etc, because that's not what that law is about.

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 21:04|| 2006-02-20 21:04|| Front Page Top

#6 well, I would say a "guard" who leaves his post when things get dangerous is actually an overdressed "receptionist"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-20 21:16|| 2006-02-20 21:16|| Front Page Top

#7 No 'duty, honor, country' kinds of considerations, I guess. Sigh. Who doesn't want to get home safely to the family? But it truly isn't Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood at the moment and if Canada isn't part of the solution she's going to become more and more a part of the problem.

Typical American overreaction. Misses the point completely. Armed guards won't do much for border security, or your security for that matter.

Sorry, I have to vent because that "No 'duty, honor, country' kinds of considerations" is kinda over the top. I guess by the same reasoning the London Bobbies don't have a sense of duty, honor, and country kinds of considerations. What bile.

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 21:18|| 2006-02-20 21:18|| Front Page Top

#8 And you, Frank, would do what? Throw yourself in front of the car?

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 21:20|| 2006-02-20 21:20|| Front Page Top

#9 "You know they're not armed at the station across the border," Elfo said. "That's always a consideration" for U.S. law-enforcement personnel when they are deciding on a course of action during a pursuit.

It's always refreshing to see someone's got more than an ounce of common sense.

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 21:23|| 2006-02-20 21:23|| Front Page Top

#10 I wouldn't take a job that required me to throw myself in front of a car...but that's just me, I guess...If you want a professional job that requires policing actions, don't take it without the tools of teh job: handcuffs, spike strips, a gun, bullets, a badge that means something....

jeebus, we issue that and more to our highway patrol officers. Don't ask someone to be a guard when you equip them like a f&*king turnstile!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-20 21:25|| 2006-02-20 21:25|| Front Page Top

#11 "Canadians being proud of the fact that we don't greet people at the border crossings with someone who's armed"
Yep, overdressed receptionists. But it's not the "guards" fault -- it's their pathetic government.

Posted by Darrell 2006-02-20 21:28|| 2006-02-20 21:28|| Front Page Top

#12 We south of the border often refer to people who perform the job of 'guard' as someone usually armed. On the other hand we refer to someone not armed at a point of transit as an 'observer' or a 'ticker puncher'.

That's because every Tom, Dick and Harry in your country can have a gun. I'm not knocking that but it'd be kind of stupid if a guard in your country didn't have a weapon of some sort with that kind of saturation of guns. Canada is still in the situation where we can get away with the average mall security guard not requiring a gun (though we are getting close to the breaking point).

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 21:34|| 2006-02-20 21:34|| Front Page Top

#13 mall security here does not carry guns in almost ALL cases. Mace, yes, radio, yes. It's not the prevalence of guns...it's the authority attitude

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-20 21:36|| 2006-02-20 21:36|| Front Page Top

#14 Okay, but what if they hold passports from 12 countries? The guards, I mean. I'm just askin...

Posted by .com 2006-02-20 21:40|| 2006-02-20 21:40|| Front Page Top

#15 And please don't mention firemen,policemen etc, because that's not what that law is about.

Agreed - however I find it strange that you consider your border guards NOT to be in the same category as law enforcement and firemen.

I understand your sensitivity on this issue. I wonder if you understand the frustration many of us have with what sometimes appears to be rather ... casual ... concern for the border and who comes across it (in either direction).

Perhaps my comments in the article were unfair. But the image of (admittedly ill-equipped) guards leaving their posts rather than serving with courage is a better fit than I would like for what seems to be Canada's stance these last few years with regard to wider threats.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-20 21:43|| 2006-02-20 21:43|| Front Page Top

#16 we issue that and more to our highway patrol officers.

You mean highway patrol officers in your country aren't regular cops? Wow.

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 21:50|| 2006-02-20 21:50|| Front Page Top

#17 The Highway Patrol works for the State. "Cops" as most people use the term, work for cities. The Crips & Bloods work for, um, well, heh...

Posted by .com 2006-02-20 21:54|| 2006-02-20 21:54|| Front Page Top

#18 above and beyond, Raphael (your ill-humor/sarcasm is beneath you). They are on extended patrols without backup nearby, and can count only on their own skills/equipment. Rather than be sarcastic, perhaps you should lobby your own to adopt that stance, which is safer for the guards, and likely safer to crossers

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-20 21:55|| 2006-02-20 21:55|| Front Page Top

#19 Rafael - I can't speak for every state, but in most U.S. states, the highway patrol (state police) officers usually are considered more that just "regular" cops. They patrol isolated highways alone, with any backup quite a distance away in case of trouble. (Unlike local cops, who have backup a few streets away.) And if a local police department has a problem or possible conflict of interest, the highway patrol/state police investigates. In most cases, they are (at least considered) supercops.

Think Texas Rangers - "one riot, one ranger."

State cops in the U.S. are comparable to the RCMP as we perceive the Mounties - I don't pretend to really know how the Mounties operate.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-02-20 22:05|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-02-20 22:05|| Front Page Top

#20 Agreed - however I find it strange that you consider your border guards NOT to be in the same category as law enforcement and firemen.

You would seriously put them in the same category? I'd say police officers and fire fighters have an nth degree more dangerous job than a guard at a border crossing, who generally doesn't need to worry about not coming home one day. I guess I find it equally perplexing that you seem to think that not having a gun means being completely devoid of authority, but that's the heart of our differences, I guess.

I understand your sensitivity on this issue. I wonder if you understand the frustration many of us have with what sometimes appears to be rather ... casual ... concern for the border and who comes across it (in either direction).

That's because there isn't a problem at our common border. I don't understand your concern. Who do you think comes across our common border? Illegal Mexicans? Chinese? Cubans? The vast majority are Canadian and US citizens. If it happens that someone has false identity papers, then that's not really a border guard issue is it? Your concerns are misplaced.

Perhaps my comments in the article were unfair. But the image of (admittedly ill-equipped) guards leaving their posts rather than serving with courage is a better fit than I would like for what seems to be Canada's stance these last few years with regard to wider threats.

First of all, that was done as a protest. Secondly, you can only claim bravado because your guards are armed. Thirdly, your image of a Canada without courage seems to contradict facts, given that our comparatively ill-equipped troops are at this very moment serving in Afghanistan alongside your top-of-the-line military.

I suspect what you were really after is just another excuse at good old fashioned Canada bashing. The least you could do is to be honest about it.

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 22:36|| 2006-02-20 22:36|| Front Page Top

#21 State cops in the U.S. are comparable to the RCMP as we perceive the Mounties - I don't pretend to really know how the Mounties operate.

Canada also has the provincial police, which I think is more comparable to your state police than the RCMP. The RCMP is more like your FBI. In addition to the railway cops who do carry guns (CN Police). In other words, we're more alike than you seem to think.

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 22:49|| 2006-02-20 22:49|| Front Page Top

#22 Rather than be sarcastic, perhaps you should lobby your own to adopt that stance, which is safer for the guards, and likely safer to crossers

I didn't vote Conservative on a whim. I hope they do get guns, for their sake, and particularly because they asked for them. But my contention has always been that this will not have any impact whatsoever on border security, perceived border security, expression of authority, or what have you.

BTW, it used to be, even before 9-11, that upon arrival at Toronto's international airport, on an overseas flight, that I always saw a Canadian soldier standing guard at the airport's border crossing. This shouldn't be, if American perceptions of Canadian border policies are correct.

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 23:10|| 2006-02-20 23:10|| Front Page Top

#23 fair enough - remember, Raphael - we are not your enemies. Carping relatives, yes, but even they have constructive suggestions sometimes .....
I would prefer that there be no need for armed guards in either direction at the US Canada border, but that's another 120 count thread :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-20 23:16|| 2006-02-20 23:16|| Front Page Top

#24 That I haven't forgotten Frank. I've always been pro-American and I suspect I always will be. And so will my family. A somewhat funny story... my father, whom I look after, is disabled and has trouble communicating due to aphasia. The morning of 9-11 he had no trouble communicating his anger at those assholes flying the planes into the buildings. Took me a while to convince him that the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan were on our side.

Posted by Rafael 2006-02-20 23:54|| 2006-02-20 23:54|| Front Page Top

10:32 Anonymoose
23:59 Anon
23:54 Rafael
23:38 Alaska Paul
23:37 mag44_vaquero
23:30 DMFD
23:28 Zenster
23:24 .com
23:19 Frank G
23:16 Frank G
23:16 Jan
23:14 mom
23:13 .com
23:13 Frank G
23:12 Frank G
23:11 .com
23:10 Frank G
23:10 Rafael
23:09 Zenster
23:09 Jan
23:08 Frank G
23:04 Alaska Paul
23:00 Silentbrick
23:00 Alaska Paul