Woman STRIP-SEARCHED at Ottawa Airport plans human rights complaint

[SARgirl]

I dont know wether this  : , this  :brickwall:    , this  :whiteflag: or this  :rofl:  is more suitable here.

Oh my goodness, you're so funny, LOL.


I do have respect for authority and I do fully support authority- if you think otherwise, then don't know me at all.

If anyone makes such a claim (such as the claim that this woman has made), then it is important for the claim to be either proven or dis-proven and here's why: It is important that authorities are not feared and that authorities are respected; if the claim did indeed not happen, then those involved need to be vindicated. 

If however, the incident did happen, then something needs to take place so it hopefully doesn't happen again, so that both those in position of authority and the general public are protected.

All of the above.

Sargirl,

If you had ever been involved in a strip search of another human being you would know that it is vile and disgusting for ALL involved and it's the LAST thing an Officer wants to do.

Unfortunately it's part of the job......


[and I doubt very much it's going to be video taped, I believe they call that porn]

In the news story it says:

Archer told the CBC that border officials threw her to the ground, knelt on her shoulder, then took her into a room to be strip-searched.

If the officials threw her to the ground and knelt on her 'BEFORE' they took her into a room to be strip searched, her having been thrown and knelt on should have been picked up on some or at least one video camera.

I can see the strip search it's self not having been video tapped, but the part before that, where she was thrown on knelt on, before she was taken to the strip search room, should have been caught on a camera or cameras.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

"Archer told the CBC that border officials threw her to the ground, knelt on her shoulder, then took her into a room to be strip-searched."

Which is EXACTLY what you would remember if you disobeyed my lawful order to do something while in my "domain".

That process is called "Kneeling Aikido Ground Control" and is the precursor to the handcuffs being placed on your person with minimum amount of possible damage being done to all involved.

 

[mellian]

Which is EXACTLY what you would remember if you disobeyed my lawful order to do something while in my "domain".

Hence the question remains on what, from the perspective of the CBSA officials, the person did to provoke them from responding in that manner, and to then decide to initiate a strip-search. As most media articles, certain details are left out.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Did you read the article or just post because it sounded like fun?

 

[J.J]

SAR Girl,
I am talking from experience here. I have been involved in administering hundreds of personal searches (strip searches). They are authorized under section 98 of the Customs Act. They are performed in a private room, by persons of the same sex. They are not video taped, nor photographed etc. It is only authorized when there is a "multiplicity of indicators" and only by a senior officer ( a superintendent). Having traces of suspected herion on a toothbrush is not enough grounds. The herion and a short 4 day trip, with a ticket purchased the day before starts the ball rolling. That will generally get you referred for further examination and questioning. The subjects answers, the contents of her luggage, her criminal history, and other background info will dictate whether the officer will go a senior officer and request a personal search. At this point the subject would be detained and offered the protection of the charter (the right to counsel, caution etc).

If the subject refuses to be searched, they can be charged with hindering under the Customs Act or Obstruction. The subject will be searched using whatever force is necessary. A "loo" can also be involved. That is where you are detained for an examination of your bowel movements ( see Gaps picture). Everything has been heard and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R v Simmons).
With her travel pattern etc, I can make an educated assumption that she was a "look out". With some concerns about "opsec", I will not give to much info here, but a unit looks into all travellers and using various data bases makes a decision a passenger should be referred for further questioning. You may be surprised, but they would not know what her race was, so that would not be a factor. Also the CBSA is the most anal retentive agency when it comes to racism etc, it is not tolerated and especially not in Ottawa.

The use of force, no matter how minor, reports have to be written and it is reviewed debriefed etc. In an airport environment everything that is public domain is videotaped and yes this would have been videotaped.

When I get back to work I may look this one up, because I guarantee you there is A LOT more to this story than the CBC or subject is revealing.

You assertions and "ifs" are out to lunch and your insinuation that maybe the officers planted the herion is asinine. I have to agree with Cdn Aviator on his assumption of you.

 

[FastEddy]

Her being pushed the to ground makes it sound more like a sexual assault done under the cover of a strip search.  I am guessing she was not co-operative about being strip searched and that is what got her pushed to the ground. 

I can certainly understand a woman, who was forced into room by people she doesn't know and with no advocate she knows personally by her side, not wanting to be co-operative about being strip searched... such an act would scare many woman, myself included.  Being forced to expose my body like that would do harm to many woman and on many levels.
   

Here's a few tips for you "SarGirl", The methods that LEO's use to deal with people or situations, depends solely on the compliance and attitude of those being stopped or questioned.

Attitude, Indignace, Foul Language and Resistance are dealt with accordingly and in accordance to Training.  And I can assure there is a very short allowed time span between Routine to Full Take Down.

Many a Speeder has gotten off with a Warning, simply from "I'm sorry Officer I know I was going a bit fast, I'll watch my speed more carefully in the future". Remember you weren't stopped because your vehicle was a certain color.

It might be wiser to not comment or speculate on Area's or Situations beyond your scope of Expertise.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

WR,
are you telling me your guys wouldn't risk losing their livelihoods and then going to jail just to frame some person they don't even know?

Imagine...........

 

[J.J]

Well they are goverment employee's and we all know how smart they are.  ;D

 

[mellian]

Did you read the article or just post because it sounded like fun?

Traces of heroin (among other factors as WR pointed out) the general reason given in the article for the strip search, doubt it is the CBSA officials' reason to push her to the ground and initiate a "Kneeling Aikido Ground Control".

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Do you mean "allegedly" pushed her to the ground?

 

[mellian]

Do you mean "allegedly" pushed her to the ground?

Yes.

 

[SARgirl]

"Archer told the CBC that border officials threw her to the ground, knelt on her shoulder, then took her into a room to be strip-searched."

Which is EXACTLY what you would remember if you disobeyed my lawful order to do something while in my "domain".

It's called "Kneeling Aikido Ground Control" and is the precursor to the handcuffs being placed on your person with minimum amount of possible damage being done to all involved.

If such actions were justified, then so be it, but said actions may not have been justified and hopefully something was caught on camera to figure that out. 

I assume that, if the agents felt it necessary to take such actions, that the woman was being very uncooperative. 

If however, the agents acted unjustly and the woman's behaviour did not warrant the agents taking the mentioned actions, then actions should be taken on the agents.

SAR Girl,
I am talking from experience here. I have been involved in administering hundreds of personal searches (strip searches). They are authorized under section 98 of the Customs Act. They are performed in a private room, by persons of the same sex. They are not video taped, nor photographed etc. It is only authorized when there is a "multiplicity of indicators" and only by a senior officer ( a superintendent). Having traces of suspected herion on a toothbrush is not enough grounds. The herion and a short 4 day trip, with a ticket purchased the day before starts the ball rolling. That will generally get you referred for further examination and questioning. The subjects answers, the contents of her luggage, her criminal history, and other background info will dictate whether the officer will go a senior officer and request a personal search. At this point the subject would be detained and offered the protection of the charter (the right to counsel, caution etc).
If the subject refuses to be searched, they can be charged with hindering under the Customs Act or Obstruction. The subject will be searched using whatever force is necessary. A "loo" can also be involved. That is where you detained for an examination of you bowel movements ( see Gaps picture). Everything has been heard and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R v Simmons).
With her travel pattern etc, I can make an educated assumption that she was a "look out". Not getting to much info here, but a unit looks into all travellers and using various data bases makes a decision a passenger should be referred for further questioning. You may be surprised, but they would not know what her race was, so that would not be a factor. Also the CBSA is the most anal retentive agency when it comes to racism etc, it is not tolerated and especially not in Ottawa.
The use of force, no matter how minor, reports have to be written and it is reviewed debriefed etc. In an airport environment everything that is public domain is videotaped and yes this would have been videotaped.
When I get back to work I may look this one up, because I guarantee you there is A LOT more to this story than the CBC or subject is revealing.

Thank you for your posts.  I agree, there must be more to the story, but there almost always is.

I certainly hope the authorities are vindicated because as I said... it is important that authorities are not feared and are respected, which means any doubt cast in the direction of authorities needs to be resolved to restore things as they should be.

your insinuation that maybe the officers planted the herion is asinine.

Not everyone in the position of authority is a good person (though I suspect most are fairly decent, at least in Canada)...none the less, I can see someone saying they found traces to cover their own rear and then later on saying there was an oops, but as much as I doubt the agents having done this, it is possible and as you mentioned; such things come down to a multitude of factors and not just any one thing, so even if there legitimately was traces found, there would have been other factors which lead up to the actions taken (assuming things went as they are suppose to).

You I have to agree with Cdn Aviator on his assumption of you.

"Assumption" being the key word and an assumption which is completely 100% incorrect; you must be reading that what isn't there.

Do you mean "allegedly" pushed her to the ground?

I agree, "allegedly", is a good word to use with the details of this case... right up there w/ other verbiage along those same lines such as the word "if".

-----
I'm off to bed... my alarm goes off in less than a handful of hours and I need at least some sleep.  I'll catch up on this thread later.  Have a good night everyone.

 

[J.J]

Reading the article from the Montreal Gazette, it seems not to be as dramatic as CBC ( I know there is a surprise). By that account it sounds like the officers did their job how they are trained to and with compassion.
Sargirl,
When you make wild and baseless assertions about a criminal act possibly being perpetrated by the officers, without evidence. How can I not make an assumption about you from what I am you are writing, when there is evidence?

 

[SARgirl]

Reading the article from the Montreal Gazette, it seems not to be as dramatic as CBC ( I know there is a surprise). By that account it sounds like the officers did their job how they are trained to and with compassion.

The story seems to be much better written w/ the link provided by mariomike.

Sargirl,
When you make wild and baseless assertions about a criminal act possibly being perpetrated by the officers, without evidence. How can I not make an assumption about you from what I am you are writing, when there is evidence?

There is no sufficient evidence to validate your mentioned assumption and if your assumption was correct, then I certainly wouldn't have posted most of what I have to date. 

As I have said, 'many times', in 'various ways', including, but not limited to, the following:  "it is important that authorities are not feared and are respected, which means any doubt cast in the direction of authorities needs to be resolved to restore things as they should be".

----------
I'm really off to bed this time.  Good night everyone.

 

[aesop081]

as much as I doubt the agents having done this,

What a load of back-paddling crap. In case you forgot, here is, word for word, your first reaction:

I'm not convinced there was traces of anything found on her toothbrush. 

Your very first thought was to insinuate that the CBSA agents were lying.

 

[SARgirl]

The dogs decided to get me up... so I'm up for a brief moment.

What a load of back-paddling crap. In case you forgot, here is, word for word, your first reaction:

Your very first thought was to insinuate that the CBSA agents were lying.

No back peddling is taking place, but rather an error on my part.  The sentence you quoted doesn’t completely express my initial thoughts as clearly or as fully as they should been expressed; the mentioned error on my part.  What this sentence should have said was, something along the lines of...  “I’m not convinced there was traces of anything found on her toothbrush, but I’m also not convinced there wasn’t anything found... it needs to be investigated to confirm one way or the other”.  This is where my initial thought process was, that things needed to be investigated and proven one way or the other (at least in my head, those were my thoughts) and this is also what I mention many times throughout my posts (that things need to get sorted one way or the other), though I didn’t convey my thoughts as thoroughly and as complete, in the mentioned sentence, as I should have; my apologies.   

----------
Okay... with the dogs taken care of, I'm off to make yet another attempt to hit the hay.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

I think that this incident is just  the latest in a string of news events that just go to show that we live in a free and democratic country - where else can you stand up and make such accusations against the "authorities" in question, without fear of being dragged away and never seen again?

I think there will probably be no rebuttal to this woman's claims until the obligatory investigation is complete, so we'll just have to wait patiently in the mean time until the facts are revealed. 

Now if I was a Border Services Officer dealing with a traveller refusing to comply with a lawful order for a search, am I just supposed to say "ok" and walk away, just because she appears to be a normal law-abiding citizen (ie, not a barely-breathing crack head)?  Drug transporters come in all shapes and colours, right down to a family travelling in a minivan with bags of marijuana mixed in with the baby's spare clothes in mom's purse...  The use of force is not pretty, but it is justified for laws to be enforced.  As others have said, it's amazing what the difference in attitude can do to make things calmer for all.

My  :2c:

 

[robbiewho?]

Archer was handcuffed and she eventually agreed to be searched. "I got undressed. There were three women in the room - quite humiliating, quite degrading. I'm a big person, very conscious of my body. ... You can imagine how I felt."

That pretty much sums up the whole story for me. She agreed to the search and she was self concious.

 

[FDO]

First of all I take serious offence to the crack about being a Governmant Employee "how smart can they be". The vast majority of people on this site are Government Employees so you can keep those kind of BS comments to yourself!!

Now on to the main point. As I read this whole thread I noticed one thing besides the fact that everything was said several times. Did anyone think about the fact that maybe this womans number came up. When I went to Mexico last year as I was entering they had a woman in a booth and she hit a button. If the light went green you went through if it went red you got searched. It had nothing to do with your colour or your point of departure it was random. Is it possible that there is a number in use and every 25th or every 100th person is searched or detained for a couple of questions. Or is that too simple an answer? Or maybe she just looked like she was hiding something. Customs Officer, although not amoung my most favorite people, are trained what to look for. I'd rather have them over cautious than under.

 

[J.J]

SAR Girl,
I am talking from experience here. I have been involved in administering hundreds of personal searches (strip searches). They are authorized under section 98 of the Customs Act. They are performed in a private room, by persons of the same sex. They are not video taped, nor photographed etc. It is only authorized when there is a "multiplicity of indicators" and only by a senior officer ( a superintendent). Having traces of suspected herion on a toothbrush is not enough grounds. The herion and a short 4 day trip, with a ticket purchased the day before starts the ball rolling. That will generally get you referred for further examination and questioning. The subjects answers, the contents of her luggage, her criminal history, and other background info will dictate whether the officer will go a senior officer and request a personal search. At this point the subject would be detained and offered the protection of the charter (the right to counsel, caution etc).

If the subject refuses to be searched, they can be charged with hindering under the Customs Act or Obstruction. The subject will be searched using whatever force is necessary. A "loo" can also be involved. That is where you are detained for an examination of your bowel movements ( see Gaps picture). Everything has been heard and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (R v Simmons).
With her travel pattern etc, I can make an educated assumption that she was a "look out". With some concerns about "opsec", I will not give to much info here, but a unit looks into all travellers and using various data bases makes a decision a passenger should be referred for further questioning. You may be surprised, but they would not know what her race was, so that would not be a factor. Also the CBSA is the most anal retentive agency when it comes to racism etc, it is not tolerated and especially not in Ottawa.

The use of force, no matter how minor, reports have to be written and it is reviewed debriefed etc. In an airport environment everything that is public domain is videotaped and yes this would have been videotaped.

When I get back to work I may look this one up, because I guarantee you there is A LOT more to this story than the CBC or subject is revealing.

You assertions and "ifs" are out to lunch and your insinuation that maybe the officers planted the herion is asinine. I have to agree with Cdn Aviator on his assumption of you.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 23:59:58 by WR »

FDO

First of all I take serious offence to the crack about being a Governmant Employee "how smart can they be". The vast majority of people on this site are Government Employees so you can keep those kind of BS comments to yourself!!

I highlighted points that you may want to reread...no wait I will simplify it for you. I work for CBSA, I have for the past 12 + years. I have worked as an officer doing a variety of tasks, at the border, training and inland, ergo I am a "government employee".
I am not sure if you noticed the smiley face, but it was a joke at my expense.

There are random exams that the supervisor on duty can set the percentage, generally it is very low.

The Officer's had enough grounds to refer her and continue with the exam. There is no randomness to detaining someone, there is has to be strong suspicions to do that. This guaranteed under the Charter, so no it was not the luck of the draw for her to searched.

Customs Officer, although not amoung my most favorite people, are trained what to look for

I am quickly learning that recruiters from the Navy are not among my favourite people either...