Tantrums, comparatively speaking

Jean-Pierre Blackburn's airport meltdown has received considerably less ink overall  in the papers, it seems, than the Guergis tantrum. Granted, this is no doubt because Blackburn's tale lacked  hurled footwear and insults to a province. But -- and I just throw it out for discussion -- might it also be that we have slightly more tolerance for men losing their tempers? 

Green Party leader Elizabeth May, in a new blog post, argues that we should have zero tolerance for bad ministerial behaviour at airports, whether they come from men or women. And she cites the precedent of Alan Redway. 

Airport Tantrums


I am writing a blog about this because I think I am the only person in
political life who remembers Alan Redman.  Alan Redman was a Progressive
Conservative MP in the Mulroney government.  If memory serves, he was a
Minister of State in a lesser portfolio until his airport misadventure. 
Unlike recent bad behaviour from Cabinet members, he was a real
gentleman, so no tantrums were involved.  But Alan Redman made the
mistake of a little joke in the security line up.  He suggested with a
laugh that the businessman traveling with him might have a gun and to be
sure to search him properly.

The fact he was a Cabinet member did not merit him any latitude at
security.  He was charged.  He was demoted.  And he was very contrite
and genuine in his apology.

Perhaps if people could be reminded of how these incidents used to be
handled (penalty for foolishness, not expecting MPs to get away with
behaviour the average citizen could not evade, real apologies), perhaps
if we remembered how a more minor incident was handled, we might insist
on consequences for those in public life today.

Comments

[Blayne Haggart]

I'm actually in favour of more Cabinet-level airport freak-outs: it only makes them seem more human.

Anyone who's been through a Canadian airport in the last eight-and-a-half years knows that it's become an incredibly stressful and unpleasant experience in which grown adults are forced to submit to insane rules that do nothing but provide the illusion of security. So Jean-Pierre Blackburn tried to take more than 100 mL of tequila onto a plane and then got upset when they tried to take the bottle from him. Good for him: after dealing with Canada’s insane and insulting airport security rules, I’d need more than 100 mL to calm down, too. And who knows where the bottle would have gone? Fruits of one's labour, indeed.

(Seriously: how would you use a bottle of tequila to hijack a plane? I know I’d also need at least two sticks of gum and a piece of string.)

As Mary Lou Finlay colourfully put it in an Ottawa Citizen article a couple of months ago, we have a "system that … subjects little old ladies and parents with babies to the stupidity of removing their coats and jackets and shoes and belts while some minimum-wage ape paws through their personal belongings in search of a stray nail file with which the owner undoubtedly intended to take out an airliner."

The only thing uglier than forcing one person to submit to the will of another is when the dominated person is forced to do something that she knows is stupid, wrong and/or counterproductive. Daily, thousands of Canadians at airports across the country are forced to submit to rules that any thinking person knows are ridiculous and humiliating.

The surprise isn’t that these two Cabinet ministers flipped out: it's that this doesn’t happen more often. But maybe if our betters are humiliated enough times, they’ll try to restore some sanity into our airport security systems.

[Sarann]

Let's not forget these insane rules were instituted by this very same bunch who are missbehaving. Their rules: so follow them and be treated like the rest of us. I am 73 years old and I was patted down in the Calgary ariport at 4 am when I was returning from Europe last summer. I felt like having a melt down but I sucked it up.

[Gabby in QC]

Your site is not accepting my comment.
I don't know if it's because it's too long.
I broke up into two parts, but still no go.

[Gabby in QC]

Another try ...
My comment is rather long and thus was not accepted by the server, so here it is in 3 parts.

Part 1
I hope you'll forgive me, Ms. Delacourt, for posting some points I raised a few days ago elsewhere. I realize journalists love stories that have "legs" but the story about Ms. Guergis's incident has received more than enough exposure and condemnation IMO, but without some relevant questions being raised. And now, it’s under a new angle, the gender issue.

I do not condone Ms. Guergis’s behaviour in that instance. But I believe the MSM failed to ask some pertinent questions.
1. Why was a report of Ms. Guergis’s alleged behaviour sent to Wayne Easter, Liberal MP, rather than to Transport Minister Baird, whose ministry deals with transportation issues?

2. Why is the letter writer’s identity withheld? Not that I expect or wish any repercussions upon the person, but why the “witness protection”?

3. Reports were written about Ms. Guergis throwing her boots in the airport, as you do here, Ms. Delacourt, calling it "hurled footwear", creating God knows what kind of picture in the reader’s mind.
It turns out what she actually did is slam her boots into the bin provided for the boots. I believe there is a difference. Shouldn’t reporters aim to be as clear as possible and not create false impressions or images?
Some may wonder where I got that information about the bin. It was available for everyone to read from the letter writer him/herself, posted by Kady O’Malley here (you’ll notice it was -- oh my! redacted!): http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/helena-guergiss-adventures-in-prince-edward-island.html

[Gabby in QC]

Hopefully this works
Part 2 of a lengthy comment
4. In the anonymous letter, the Air Canada rep. states: “On February 19th at the Charlottetown Airport, Air Canada Jazz staff was informed via telephone that a certain “V.I.P.” would be late arriving for Air Canada flight #7677 to Montreal. …”
IOW, the Air Canada desk knew a “V.I.P.” would be arriving late. They probably even knew that the late arrival was a federal minister. So why insist on the usual procedures? Why not expedite matters, both for the “V.I.P.” and the other passengers who had already boarded? Did they think the minister was a terrorist threat? Or is it conceivable the Air Canada rep. was trying to show the “V.I.P.” who’s boss?

5. Some reports stated the minister launched into an obscenity-laced tantrum, as one columnist described it. Yet in the letter, she was quoted as saying “F*****g Happy Birthday to me!” Directing the F word at herself is hardly the equivalent of launching into an obscenity-laced tantrum.

6. Ms. Guergis has also been severely criticized for saying “I guess I’m stuck in this hellhole.” Her critics have assumed she meant PEI, which of course has fuelled Wayne Easter’s fuming fulminations. But is it not conceivable that the “hellhole” referred to the airport and not to PEI?
If recent travellers were asked about their experiences in an airport, I’d bet some of them might use words far more descriptive that “hellhole.”

[geo]

Isn't that the truth.

From Persichilli's article today:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/782554--persichilli-it-s-politics-as-usual-as-deficits-mount-up#article

"Many of us in the media play along with this charade, spending time on such pursuits as calculating how many medals in Vancouver the government needed in order to win a majority in Ottawa."

The media seems over possessed with these "easy to write about trivial stories"
It would be nice to see the media write articles that have some substance in government business that really affect Canadians....but then again that would involve doing research and work.

[Gabby in QC]

Part 3, previous attempts failed

7. Ms. Guergis APOLOGIZED! She admitted her outburst was wrong.
What else do her critics expect her to do? 
Do they expect a public self-flagellation? 

What is the point of demanding an apology, if once given, it is deemed wanting or unacceptable? 
No, it’s not an offence that demands a resignation, nor is it a case of ministers thinking they are “entitled to their entitlements.”
It is a simple question of a stressed human being, for whatever personal reason, blowing a gasket and recognizing it was the wrong thing to do. It should have ended there, after her apology.
But of course, then there would have been no fodder provided for talk shows, blog posts, and histrionics in the House.

For Liberal MPs and many in the MSM and blogosphere that continue to denounce Ms. Guergis’s behaviour but failed to seek for all of the information or ask pertinent questions, I offer these words of wisdom: “Forgiveness is a virtue of the brave.” Indira Gandhi

[ConEd]

Good God what a surprise Gabby is in full Conservative apologist mode. I am sure if Guergis was a Liberal or New Democratic it's be a different story.

Can you believe this tripe? Guergis got VIP treatment, had the flight HELD for her, inconveniencing a full plane load of ordinary Canadians and yet that is still not good enough for Gabby. No, Guergis should have been waived through security? Come on.

It is no wonder that Guergis and Blackburn act so entitled, their supporters believe they deserved to act so.

As for Blackburn, I guess cabinet minisers are the potted plants for gov't policy, and that's all. Blackburn was actually at the photo opp announcement when the new airport regs were brought in. So I guess his input was integral, as it obviously stayed so upfront in his memory.

[Gabby in QC]

As for Ms. May’s reminder about Alan Redway’s own misadventure, 1991 and 2010 are worlds apart. There’s been a whirlwind of change in the way people interact, what they say and do in public, and the tenor of the language they use. Ms. May should be the first to recognize that, she who wagged her finger in the PM’s face during the debates, practically accuses the PM of wanting to destroy the planet, and lambasted the PM in a blog post for supposedly breaking religious and political protocol based on what later turned out to be a fabricated news story. She's not exactly a paragon of circumspection!

==========
ConEd at 09:13 PM, I simply asked some questions I think should have been asked, and yes, I suggested a different take on the Guergis incident. If that makes me "an apologist" so be it. But I'd rather ask questions and try to understand people's behaviour on my own terms rather than just swallow whatever someone else thinks.

It seems you've misunderstood the "V.I.P." angle.
“On February 19th at the Charlottetown Airport, Air Canada Jazz staff was informed via telephone that a certain “V.I.P.” would be late arriving for Air Canada flight #7677 to Montreal. …”
Nowhere does it say the flight was HELD for Guergis. Neither you nor I know what the scheduled departure time was, nor what the actual departure time was, so you cannot make that assertion.

[MyThought]

And - no one, not even the media is asking an important question. Blackburn knows the rules, so why did try to get away with taking a bottle of Tequila in the first place? Because he, in his arrogance, thought he could get away with it.

No excuses, he know the rules.

[Cam]

Gabby- try a little research. Guergis and her staffer entered the security search area at "flight time."

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/helena-guergiss-adventures-in-prince-edward-island.html

It's one thing to try to justify this incredibly outlandish treatment of ordinary Canadians, it's another to ignore information in order to do so.

As for what "everyone else" thinks I guess that includes senior members of the Conservative gov't who continue to leak unflattering things about Guergis.

[Gabby in QC]

A correction for ConEd: in my March 22, 2010, 12:34 AM comment I said "Neither you nor I know what the scheduled departure time was." Upon re-reading the anonymous letter from the Air Canada rep. I see the scheduled departure time was "1725 hours" and "At 1720 ... Helena Guergis and her aide Emily Goucher were at the Air Canada counter ..."
So, we do know the scheduled departure time -- my mistake.
We also know that at 1725 hrs., the scheduled departure time, Ms. Guergis and Ms. Goucher were still in the preboard area. So I suppose in effect the plane was HELD for Ms. Guergis if she was still in the preboard are at departure time -- again, my mistake.
However, as I stated earlier, this entire incident could have been avoided if the Air Canada staff, knowing a "V.I.P" was running late, had expedited the procedure -- not because special treatment is due to politicians, but because a minor problem, the V.I.P running late, could have been solved with minor inconvenience to all concerned.
========
Cam at 01:18 PM, you choose to view it as politicians expecting special treatment. I view it as being practical & being able to use a little discretion. I doubt that Ms. Guergis fits the profile of a terrorist.

BTW, could you name which "senior members of the Conservative gov't" continue to leak unflattering things about Ms. Guergis? If you mean former director of communication for the PMO Kory Teneycke, or conservative TV and G&M pundit/blogger Tim Powers, or former campaign manager and TV commentator Tom Flanagan, I doubt they qualify as "senior members of the Conservative gov't". Like anyone else, they are free to express their own opinion and their own interpretation of events, which is what I've done here.
If anything, their views confirm another opinion I hold -- not everything that conservatives think or say are dictated by the PMO.

[Cam]

Gabby, let me tell you about my little friend, Google.

here's the reference to the senior members.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/threat-to-sue-does-little-good-for-helena-guergis/article1501057/

[Gabby in QC]

My dear Cam, I'm glad you're a friend of Google, as I value its friendship as well.
But ... where are the names of the purported "senior members" of the Conservative GOVERNMENT in the link you provided?
Bobby Fife gossip about "senior" Conservatives, without any names attached, is not convincing evidence enough for me.
If Fife's gossip proves to be true, i.e. Guergis on her way out of cabinet, watch for the same hyenas who are now denouncing her accuse Harper of not valuing women in cabinet.
It's time to move on to the next pseudoscandal.

[Cam]

I don't want to exhaust this anymore, but seriously Gabby, beside some research methods you need to apply some critical thinking. Dimitri Soudas is the first person from PMO to demand a retraction or an apology from media when they feel the media have got it wrong. Yet no demand from Bob Fife (king of the Conservative scoops) or CTV for an apology for this story, and no denial issued from PMO? Think about it.

I don't mean to pick on you. They are lucky to have such a strong supporter. I do question whether they continue to deserve that support.

[Gabby in QC]

I don't want to belabour the point either, Cam ... but the fact remains you've yet to cough up actual names of the "senior members of the Conservative gov't" you alluded to. Not strategists, not pundits, not sympathizers, but ACTUAL members of the government.
You question my research methods, but you referred me to a G&M that does not name the names you alluded to.
Just because Bob Fife drums the "senior Conservatives" meme does not necessarily make that claim true. You'll forgive me if I don't believe everything I hear, whether it's on CTV, CBC, or Global, so I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic, if I can put it that way. And no, don't jump to conclusions -- I seldom watch American news, and I don't have FOX.
You also state Dimitri Soudas often demands a retraction from media. Dimitri Soudas, to my knowledge -- I don't follow him on any of the "social" media like Facebook or Twitter -- simply puts out corrections to what he thinks is incorrect information, whether it be from the media or members of the opposition.
I doubt he's been demanding "retractions" from the media, for if that were the case, he wouldn't have time to do anything else, AND he would never again be approached for an interview on programs like Power & Politics.
Let's leave it there, shall we?