Love Letter to WestJet Employees

[Cat Driver]

in countries like saudi arabia, all you gotta do is bribe the right guy.

Really?

Your ignorance about the world outside of Canada is quite impressive.

[Widow]

Rob, you are clearly not an idiot. You must have known the rules about showing gov't issued ID in order to get on the plane before you left your home. Why didn't you just call them up and ask how you needed to do things to have your ID approved to their satisfaction? Did you even try? Then you turn around and start the judiciary route before even seeing what remedy there was. How's it going with the OOR by the way?

And for the record, the rules about "asking for gov't ID" on domestic flights are not WestJet's.

Please explain how "asking" to see, rather than actually "seeing" the ID could possibly acheive the screening requirement?

Identity Screening Regulations Age Requirement for the Identity Screening Regulations

The Identity Screening Regulations require air carriers to ask passengers who appear to be 18 years or older for identification.

Before boarding, all passengers planning to travel on Canadian domestic and international flights coming to or leaving Canada who appear to be 18 years of age or older, are to be asked to present:

One piece of valid government-issued identification that includes a photograph and the passenger's name, date of birth and gender

OR


Two pieces of valid government-issued ID showing the passenger's name, without photographs, at least one of which must include the date of birth and gender

OR


A Restricted Area Identity Card (RAIC) (a smart card issued to airport workers).

IMPORTANT: The name on the identification that is provided must match the name on the boarding pass.

Valid passports are required for all international travel and all other rules for flights to the United States and other international destinations continue to apply.

The verification of passengers' identification is already a practice followed by most major air carriers in Canada.

The following are examples of valid government-issued identification documents that may be used to meet the requirements of the Identity Screening Regulations:

passport
citizenship card
permanent-resident card
driver’s licence
provincial health card
provincial or territorial government identification cards (GICs)
birth certificate
Record of Landing Form/Confirmation of Permanent Residence (IMM 5292)
immigration documents issued to foreign nationals (e.g., Work Permit, Study Permit, Visitor Record, Temporary Resident Permit, Refugee Approved Status)
Canadian military identification
federal police identification
federal, provincial or municipal government employee identification cards
Old Age Security (OAS) identification card
Certificate of Indian Status (Status card) issued by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)
Canada Border Services Agency NEXUS card

http://www.passengerprotect.gc.ca/identity.html

[tehmastermonk]

tiggermmouth, you misunderstand taxes, where they go, ane what they are for. you are operating on assumptions that income tax pays for these things you listed. thats not correct.

freemen dont oppose all taxes.those roads you talk about, they are not yours. they belong to the queen. and when i buy gas, the taxes are already incorperated into the price.

i pay the taxes that provide a benefit or service to society. what service to you does income tax render? read one of my lingwinded posts where i explain taxes, and jurisdictions and stuff and how all this applies. your benefits come from the public sector, wich is fiction. disneyland.
fiat currency

[tehmastermonk]

in countries like saudi arabia, all you gotta do is bribe the right guy.

Really?

Your ignorance about the world outside of Canada is quite impressive.

fair enough.and your ignorance about canada i worse. for at least i see my ignorance.


and as for rockie... and the guy you knew that was denied citizenship to the uk... is that all you have to counter theargument for commonlaw right to travel? you "know a guy..." thats it?

did this "guy" you knew realize his rights and exert them? or did he tuck tail?

[Widow]

and as for rockie... and the guy you knew that was denied citizenship to the uk... is that all you have to counter theargument for commonlaw right to travel? you "know a guy..." thats it?

did this "guy" you knew realize his rights and exert them? or did he tuck tail?

"The guy" Rockie mentioned, a Canadian citizen, was denied entry to the UK because he did not hold a valid passport - not denied citizenship.

The international travel requirement to bear a valid passport does not deny anyone the right to travel. You deny yourself the privilege by not applying for a passport.

Same goes for domestic air travel and gov't issued ID.

You guys are gonna be hooped if/when companies like Greyhound also start requiring gov't issued photo ID.

Please explain how "asking" to see, rather than actually "seeing" the ID could possibly acheive the screening requirement?

[Rockie]

and as for rockie... and the guy you knew that was denied citizenship to the uk... is that all you have to counter theargument for commonlaw right to travel? you "know a guy..." thats it?

I would have thought someone who spends their life looking for loopholes and ways to circumvent rules and regulations would be better at reading.

[tehmastermonk]

actually a valid passport is only one way to travel. you can contact the other country yourself and swear an affadavidt, and offer an indemnity bond or insurance policy. the government passports are jsut a middle man babysittong you guys and doing your paperwork for you.

if you do it yourself you can file all the documents yourself and enter contract with that govt and provide that as proof and it is valid because it is indemnified. go ahead, make some phone calls to a commonwealth country and make arrangements, and they will tell you what documents they need. and when they say passport, ask them for another legal document.

i have heard rumors.. but can not confirm, but some have apperantly used the bible as thier passport since it is a binding legal document. not sure about taht one tho... esp if that country is muslim or somehting...

again i am NOT anti government. jsut anti corruption and anti corperate rule. it is defacto.

we need government. but we need a gocernment taht folows the rule of law and does not compell its agents to abandon those oaths at thier convinence, so they can exersice control
over things that a 12 year old aught to be able to manage.

imagine a world where the government did not dare lie anymore, and did not dare break any promises...but lived in view of a people that know how to keep them from becoming nannys over them...

for as it is now, you dump your dirty diapers off in the chute and grab some clean ones and be on your way. you r govt administrates all your affairs, makes your decisions for you, and in a sense has to impose thes bullshit rules and crap over you because the general public is irresponsible as a colective whole. the indiviual person is smart, and somewhat responsible to a ddegree, but put that same man in a group and watch the chest beating and penis measuring come out. a mob is stupid. dangerously stupid. and needs to be controled.

you need your nanny. so i dont knock you at all for defening your views. you see us as a threat to your benefits. in fact, we are not. if you wanna live in an incubator, go ahead.

i believe it was dante that once said:

"the ultimate end of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

you may use your facts as a lamp post, for support rather than illumination if you like, but in the end, you are still a one legged man in an as kicking contest.


but there is always another way. you are only aware of the way your government has told you. they wont tell you how to live without them! cos then you wouldnt need them so much!

imagine a country where welfare was not needed exept for those that were truly crippled in some way... and everyone had a job, and was able to decide for themselves how to be goverend instead of these rediculous contracts of adhesion...

[BoostedNihilist]

My father put his life on the line in WWll. I stood for my country to four years.
Neither he, nor I, nor ANY OF THE VETERANS I have spoken with at their Legion agrees with you.

Interesting you would argue semantics yet stake your point on hearsay...

They are all sickened by the way you so called adults are allowing the rights they fought for to be taken from you.

I think the true test of this idea is whether or not we are willing to fight and die for those rights again. It is all well and good to get up on your soapbox but in the end rolling heads is the only point universally understood. I must say though there is a distinction to be made between your grandfathers fight for ideology of a society and your fight for personal freedom. That war was a broad stroke for the overall principle of democracy. Your fight is a micro battle based on distortion of language and principle.

You are abandoning them. They would never accept that they needed government permission to travel in their own country, and now this is what you folks are doing. And you are attacking those who are standing for the rights they fought for

Spare me the hyperbole. Those 'abandoned' vets you speak of are probably receiving a military pension. They probably have 2 pieces of ID and probably have been sick enough to have to use our services. You speak for those as if you are their representative. When you gathered your 3rd party opinions you probably walked them into an answer, as you try to do here. People can be sheep, all they need is a shepherd. You are not my shepherd and neither is the government I choose to support. When I feel the need I will be the first one to pick up a machete and lop a mofos head off but now is not the time and your argument here is insignificant and infantile. Your own subversive ideals are your problem with society.

We all know that the 'squeaky wheel gets the grease' Yeah, that works when talking about cars, but in politics and justice quite often the squeaky wheel gets totally fucked.

squeak squeak squeak

[BoostedNihilist]

imagine a country where welfare was not needed exept for those that were truly crippled in some way... and everyone had a job, and was able to decide for themselves how to be goverend instead of these rediculous contracts of adhesion...

At least communism works on paper.. this... I don't know...

[Rockie]

i have heard rumors.. but can not confirm, but some have apperantly used the bible as thier passport since it is a binding legal document.

Stop...you're killing me.

[Huge Hammer]

My father put his life on the line in WWll. I stood for my country to four years.
Neither he, nor I, nor ANY OF THE VETERANS I have spoken with at their Legion agrees with you. They are all sickened by the way you so called adults are allowing the rights they fought for to be taken from you. You are abandoning them. They would never accept that they needed government permission to travel in their own country, and now this is what you folks are doing. And you are attacking those who are standing for the rights they fought for.

Shame on you all.

Rob

Hey Rob

Straight up question.

Did you actually serve in the Canadian Forces or is this another word game where you are implying that you did?

[Widow]

And of course, in your fairytale society, everyone can also be trusted to put his/her fellow man/woman on an equal footing.

Please explain how "asking" to see, rather than actually "seeing" the ID could possibly acheive the screening requirement?

[tehmastermonk]

People can be sheep, all they need is a shepherd. You are not my shepherd and neither is the government I choose to support. When I feel the need I will be the first one to pick up a machete and lop a mofos head off but now is not the time and your argument here is insignificant and infantile. Your own subversive ideals are your problem with society.

We all know that the 'squeaky wheel gets the grease' Yeah, that works when talking about cars, but in politics and justice quite often the squeaky wheel gets totally fucked.

squeak squeak squeak

sad. you would be the first to lop a head off. that is a man a fellow human being your talking about. as they say and you seem to prove true, "patriotism is the virtue of the viscious"

by killing another you only double the evil in the world. look at the massive violence in those wars, and yet, tyranny still exists. teh hate and shit is still there. violence faught it back, but did not solve the problem.

and you choose to support a government that would send you in to do this? i dont deny the necessity of wwI and wwII. a sad and necessary evil. but the wars these days are faught for the wrong reasons. its all commerce now. i would love a world taht resovles its conflicts in a better way.. have you ever actualy shed blood with your bare hands and had to look a human being in the eye while he died? i dont think you would talk so tough if you ever were put in the spot to back those words.

there is a reason the military has to train men to kill. its to condition your phsyche to be able to handle it afterwards, so yer chees dont slide clean off yer cracker.

[Dash-Ate]

Seriously? 14 flipping pages of this BS?

The sheer thought of this annoys and offends me.

there there


Misc. / Political Debate / Aviation Humor
This forum is for political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. THIS FORUM MAY BE FOUND OFFENSIVE TO SOME READERS. PLEASE DO NOT ENTER IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED. We reserve the right to remove messages that we deem inappropriate or posted in poor taste.

Moderators: sepia, I am Birddog, sky's the limit, ahramin, just curious, lilfssister, Doc, bandaid, Sulako, weather + the "invisible" Widow

[BoostedNihilist]

sad. you would be the first to lop a head off. that is a man a fellow human being your talking about. as they say and you seem to prove true, "patriotism is the virtue of the viscious"

I'm not bound to your definition of the value of a life. Be that as it may, if those 'at the top' were scared they might be ousted as the result of a coup I am positive they would have no problem killing me to protect themselves. I thought that is what this all is about... protecting yourself. I am just not naive enough to believe that those who wish to rule respect anything less than mortality, as accountability of course.

by killing another you only double the evil in the world. look at the massive violence in those wars, and yet, tyranny still exists. teh hate and shit is still there. violence faught it back, but did not solve the problem.

Exactly. With or without war tyranny will still exist. Even the ancients knew that there could never be a world without evil, that is why they never proclaimed to have eradicated evil. Besides, the definition of an evil changes with perspective so I guess I just don't get what you are trying to say here.

and you choose to support a government that would send you in to do this? i dont deny the necessity of wwI and wwII. a sad and necessary evil. but the wars these days are faught for the wrong reasons. its all commerce now. i would love a world taht resovles its conflicts in a better way.. have you ever actualy shed blood with your bare hands and had to look a human being in the eye while he died? i dont think you would talk so tough if you ever were put in the spot to back those words.

They would never send me to do 'this' because I never put myself in that position. When I speak of rolling heads the heads of which I speak belong to those in the government. I support them insofar as they provide me with 'essential' services, but in the large scheme of things you would be hardpressed to find me killing anyone for something someone else told me was right.

Furthermore, I have seen more suffering than I care to admit. All that suffering has done for me has enlighten me to the fact that at the end of the day if you are alive, fed and sheltered the rest is mere selfish pedantic tripe.

[Widow]

Furthermore, I have seen more suffering than I care to admit. All that suffering has done for me has enlighten me to the fact that at the end of the day if you are alive, fed and sheltered the rest is mere selfish pedantic tripe.

Well said.

Please explain how "asking" to see, rather than actually "seeing" the ID could possibly acheive the screening requirement?

[tehmastermonk]

you tell me. since its your policy, your company either wrote it or accepted it, the fancy lawyers that work for WJ should be able to answer that in court! hence the judicial review.

there is screening, and then there is denial of anything other than one said criteria. do you realize that establishes an assumption that an udentified person according to that limited criteria is assumed to be a liar?

nay! as it is in several forms of maxims in law, the burden of proof lays upon the accuser and not the accused.

so with your assumption that all are liars untill they produce your criteria of ID, to that i sad I AM who I say I AM and preserve and excersise my right of self determination. you prove me to be a liar. i will not accept that accusation and i will not sublit to its obligation to produce proof of claim under that criteria, but will offer an affidavidt. or do you presume and call a notary a liar too? think about it.

you dont realize how sneaky these presumptions creep ito your thinking.

perhaps you think i just twisted the law around and got all clver and stuff to suit my convenince again i dont know but look INTO the law not AT the law.

in order to do that you need to observe what the implications are that go with those words, and know what assumotions are being expressed if any, and unless that assumption is adressed it is presumed to be true.

so review your policys, and look through the letters and see what assumptions are being implied, and presumed true if not questioned. at first, look for nothing else, but for the assumptions and implications behind every sentance, usung thier definitions not our common folk talk.

[Widow]

since its your policy, your company either wrote it or accepted it, the fancy lawyers that work for WJ should be able to answer that in court! hence the judicial review.

Do you only read the posts that fit your agenda? Over and over it has been pointed out that the Identity Screening is a requirement of Transport Canada's Passenger Protect program - including domestic flights. We've even supplied the links, over and over.

I do not work for WestJet or the government of Canada - few here work for either. It is not my/our policy, it is the government's policy. Their legal editors had a good go at the regulations before they were published. The rule was clearly announced, customers are reminded on ticket purchase - that contract that Rob agreed to, remember?

There is a remedy - the same as you pronounced for the ability to travel between commonwealth countries without a passport. BE PREPARED IN ADVANCE. Rob knew the rules, was not prepared in advance, and there is a remedy available to him without ABUSING the court system. He states he has been in contact with the OOR.

Please explain how "asking" to see, rather than actually "seeing" the ID could possibly acheive the screening requirement?

you tell me.

If all they have to do is ask, and not see, then there would have been no point in presenting non-gov't issued ID either. You cannot screen by asking, only by seeing.

IMPORTANT: The name on the identification that is provided must match the name on the boarding pass.

Now what's your answer? What do you think was the intent of the rule?

[tehmastermonk]

my point still stands on the assumptions, as for whos policy it is, it is west jet that accepted it and was written by another i forget the name... easa or something. anyhow west jep adopted that policy and transport canada agreed with it since it was found satisfactory to them, but neglected to its duty in that it did not consider all minorities within this country.

as for the peace keeping and public saftey issues, i accept those, and i do agree. something has to be done to protect the nation. and preventative maintainence like screening is a good thing. however again, it is about the criteria of the word "valid".

there is an assumption in law that is,the inclusion of one must mean the exclusion of all others unless expressly stated otherwise.

and this is a good example of why freemen dont trust statuory law. its tricky that way.

screening is totally consistent with the rule of law and the right of personal saftey.
now we all know that a terrorist on a suicide mission will pass that screening. however few terrorists are that extreme. therefore that process is helpful and the need for it is clear.

but again, where does one draw the line? at what point is it an invasion? and at what point is is it indignifying? i never seen WJ poicies as to when they can pull you into a room and put on the rubber glove...

what protects the public from its protectors? the policies are all fine and dandy untill you get a 22 year old kid with a shiney new badge and some pepper spray and a taser out to save the world.

and no where in any of this do i see that west jet is obligated to reject anyone that fails this criteria,it is again, another assumption. west jet would be fully within its rights and obligations to the govt and the public to accept an affidavidt and a bond backing it. that is pretty credible i would say.

[Widow]

And your policies are all fine and dandy until you get someone who wishes to take advantage of the system rather than change it.

Notorized affidavits backed by a bond can be faked far more easily that gov't issued ID.

I consent to be governed by the force of law that rules the society in which I choose to live. In doing so, I am entitled to vote in the elections which decide who shall make decisions with respect to how I am governed.

I am not always happy with the choices my fellow citizens make, or the choices made by those who govern. But I have lived in other countries, and visited many others worldwide, and I do choose this country as mine.

By making this choice, I have not given up my right to object or to use the system and other methods in order to affect change.

I'm done with this thread.

[AuxBatOn]

My father put his life on the line in WWll. I stood for my country to four years.
Neither he, nor I, nor ANY OF THE VETERANS I have spoken with at their Legion agrees with you. They are all sickened by the way you so called adults are allowing the rights they fought for to be taken from you. You are abandoning them. They would never accept that they needed government permission to travel in their own country, and now this is what you folks are doing. And you are attacking those who are standing for the rights they fought for.

Shame on you all.

Rob

FYI, Rockie has put more than 4 years of his life standing for his country (ie: in the military)

[flystraightin]

The duty for an airline carrying people domestically...

Sorry, Rob, but airlines have no "duty." They exist to make money and they can accept or refuse it from whomever they wish.

[flystraightin]

This information is included in WestJet's Condition of Carriage. These requirements go above and beyond the Identify Screening Regulations, but have been approved by Transport Canada and are included in the Terms and Conditions of the agreement one enters (and agrees to) upon purchasing a ticket on WestJet Airlines Ltd.

If you do not agree to these terms and conditions, a refund in the form of a credit file will be created for the amount of the unused portion of your flight. At this point, any contract with WestJet Airlines Ltd. is void.

that is on an international ticket. and there is that word including again....however i dont think you were speaking legalese there so, sure fine fair enough. but case not closed..

the conditions of carriage are different from domestic to international.

You are correct, the Conditions of Carriage vary between Domestic, Transborder, International and Charter flights.

I cited this information from an internal General Reference document for domestic travel, actually. It's also posted on westjet.com and the government's Passenger Identity Screening Regulations website, as posted above.

and furthermore, where is the remedy for those that have no govt id?

The remedy is to rent a private aircraft or use another form of transportation.

what if a homeless guy with no id has a family emergency and has to fly?

Sadly, he doesn't.

[tehmastermonk]

The duty for an airline carrying people domestically...

Sorry, Rob, but airlines have no "duty." They exist to make money and they can accept or refuse it from whomever they wish.

airlines do have a duty actually, lots of them. but in robs case, they had a duty to the contract. they broke it off based on an unlawful policy.

count yourselves all blessed that this is happening now instead of if Robs father was on deaths door...for if that were the case rob would become an injured party in several ways, and that would garantee class action lawsuit status. and there are a few tort clais he could perfect to do it.and someone's bond mught get liquedated. in the very least.

[Rockie]

tiggermmouth, you misunderstand taxes, where they go, ane what they are for. you are operating on assumptions that income tax pays for these things you listed. thats not correct.

freemen dont oppose all taxes.those roads you talk about, they are not yours. they belong to the queen. and when i buy gas, the taxes are already incorperated into the price.

i pay the taxes that provide a benefit or service to society. what service to you does income tax render? read one of my lingwinded posts where i explain taxes, and jurisdictions and stuff and how all this applies. your benefits come from the public sector, wich is fiction. disneyland.
fiat currency

Do you know why you guys are a burden on society? It's because you live in a house built to a standard set by a government you do not support by paying tax. You have running water and electricity built by government infrastructure spending that you do not contribute to. You use a health system you do not pay for, and are prescribed drugs that are proven safe by a government agency you do not pay for. In fact, the food you eat is also safe because of a government agency you do not pay for.

The safety standards where you work are created and enforced by a government agency you do not pay into. The labour law that protect you are a result of government agencies and people you do not contribute to.

The airplane Menard wanted to fly on is built, maintained and operated according to regulations made by a government department that gets its funding from taxes you refuse to pay. If he had the misfortune of crashing on that flight the people who would search for him and pull his ungrateful ass out of the woods are in a military he does not pay for.

Your freemen kids go to schools paid by taxes you do not contribute to, are educated by teachers paid through taxes you do not contribute to, and are taught a standard curriculum set by a government department you do not pay for. Your kids are bused to school by a driver who has to maintain a standard set through licencing that you do not support.

You live in a free and sovereign country defended by a military you do not pay for. The economy you live in is managed by a government you don't pay for, and that same government protects your interests through international agreements negotiated on your behalf, which you also don't pay for. If you are trapped in a foreign country and need help, you could go to a Canadian embassy that you don't pay for, show them your Canadian passport that you don't recognize and they will do their best to protect you, maybe even fly you home like they did to hundreds of Lebanese Canadians a few years ago. None of which you pay for.

You aren't freemen, you are freeloaders. You piggyback on other peoples efforts without contributing, and you make work for honest people by fighting the system trying to get your free ride. If every person, agency, business and organization spent their time like you do nitpicking the letter of the law instead of the intent, this society would grind to a halt.

You are all hypocritical frauds.