Steve Jalsevac

,

NewsBytes, Dec. 13 - TSA air passenger screening humiliations

Steve Jalsevac
Steve Jalsevac
Image

* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.com. They are presented only for your information.

Compiled by Steve Jalsevac

NOTABLE TSA SCREENING ABUSE INCIDENTS

Note: These are incidents that have received wide publicity. It takes uncommon courage for those involved to have gone public with these personal trials encountered by themselves or their family members. Undoubtedly there have been far more similar incidents of abuse that have not been publicized because of the timidity, personal embarassment or trauma that the victims have undergone.

Airport staff ‘exposed woman’s breasts, laughed’ - The Australian
A WOMAN is suing over an incident where airport staff allegedly pulled down her top and joked about her breasts in public view. The 23-year-old traveller, from Amarillo, US, is suing the US Government for the emotional distressed she says the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents caused.

NH Grandma groped by TSA blasts ‘invasive’ body search
- Boston Herald

Woman says her Lambert security screening was sexual assault
- Channel 4, Kmov.com, St. Louis
Moroney explains “Her gloved hands touched my breasts…went between them. Then she went into the top of my slacks, inserted her hands between my underwear and my skin… then put her hands up on outside of slacks, and patted my genitals.” “I was shaking and crying when I left that room” Moroney says.  “Under any other circumstance, if a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.”

Enhanced pat down leaves Grand Rapids airline passenger in tears - wzzm13, ABC, West Michigan
Before boarding a flight in Grand Rapids, a woman says the search at the security checkpoint was violent, unnecessary and extremely upsetting. “When I got on the plane all I wanted to do was sob,” says traveler Ella Swift. Swift says they told her she was singled out because she was wearing a skirt. She says the search earlier this month was very rough and left her in tears.

“The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels,” she says. “I think I yelped. I was in pain for about an hour afterwards. It just felt excessive and unnecessary.” After reviewing the incident, a TSA spokesman says officers involved in the Grand Rapids search acted “appropriately and respectfully.”

Cancer surviving flight attendant told to remove prosthetic breast during pat-down
- WBTV, North Charlotte
“She put her full hand on my breast and said, ‘What is this?’.  And I said, ‘It’s my prosthesis because I’ve had breast cancer.’ And she said, ‘Well, you’ll need to show me that’.” Cathy was asked to show her prosthetic breast, removing it from her bra. “I did not take the name of the person at the time because it was just so horrific of an experience, I couldn’t believe someone had done that to me.  I’m a flight attendant.  I was just trying to get to work.”

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine
- MSNBC
‘I was absolutely humiliated,’ said bladder cancer survivor

Young Boy strip searched by TSA
- YouTube

Woman on TSA patdowns: ‘I feel molested’
- abc actions news
Woman says granddaughter mortified seeing pat down

Ron Paul: Crotch Groped by TSA, Calls for Boycott of Airlines
- Info wars

Now you can breathe easy, Infidels: Wheelchair-bound nun searched by TSA
- Jihadwatch

Mother harassed over breast milk screening - TSA Abuse blog

Khloe Kardashian: Going through airport security is like being raped in public - NY Daily News


REACTIONS TO NEW INVASIVE SCREENINGS

TSA’s enhanced security spurs US ‘airport rage’ - YouTube

TSA boss: New pat-downs are more invasive
- Yahoo News
The head of the Transportation Security Administration is acknowledging that the new pat-downs are more invasive than what travelers were used to in the past.

Napolitano: The Ball’s in My Court Now - Ann Coulter
- Townhall
After Muslim terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria tried to detonate explosive material in his underwear over Detroit last Christmas, the government began requiring nude body scans at airports. The machines, which cannot detect chemicals or plastic, would not have caught the diaper bomber. So, again, no hijackers were stopped, but being able to see passengers in the nude boosted the morale of airport security personnel by 22 percent.

Critics say TSA comment ‘opens door to pedophiles’
“Of course this opens the door to future pedophiles, teachers, little friends and others ‘playing’ the ‘pat down game’ with children, and taking it further as the traumatized child tries to understand what is happening,” Dr. Judith Reisman told WND. “What a fantasy! Here they can molest whom they wish freely and with the imprimatur of the state, to ‘protect’ the population. If roughly one in four girls and one in six boys are identified as early molest victims, how many are to be additionally traumatized by these invasive molestations, which indeed they are.

If the Israelis can fully protect their travelers with the simple procedure of profiling, it is unconscionable for our government not to do the same,” she said.
To allow men and women to sexually molest children under the heading of ‘security’ while refusing to profile for terrorists is criminal, in my opinion,” Reisman said.


Pilots and passengers rail at new airport patdowns
- Reuters

Flood of complaints leave TSA relatively unchanged
- Townhall
TSA administrator John Pistole told reporters on a conference call Tuesday that the TSA hasn’t changed anything yet as a result of the public outcry against its latest enhanced pat-downs, but the agency is going back to the Government Accountability Office and other offices to assess whether the procedures can be modified without sacrificing safety.

TSA Administrator: ‘No Exceptions’ to Full Body Pat Downs—For Religious or Any Other Reasons
- CNS
Transportation Security Administration Chief John S. Pistole told a Senate committee yesterday that air passengers selected by the TSA for enhanced screening who decline to undergo either a full-body scan or a full body pat down will not be allowed to board planes in the United States.
There will be no exceptions, Pistole said, even for people who cite religious reasons for refusing to undergo the scan or pat down.

TSA’s Bait and Switch Airport Security Trap
- American Spectator

TSA’s tyrannical tactics threaten American freedoms - Washington Times
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has crossed the line. As if subjecting millions of Americans to X-rated x-ray scans and public groping sessions weren’t bad enough, the agency now threatens $11,000 in fines against anyone refusing to submit to humiliation at the airport.
In Ms. Napolitano’s view, Americans wishing to visit family and friends across the country exercise a privilege granted by the government. Air travel is no longer a free transaction between a member of the public and an airline.

Once freedom at airports is “locked down,” it’s inevitable that TSA will next target buses, trains and the Metro. After all, al Qaeda has attacked each of these modes of transportation in other parts of the world. Strict controls on internal travel is the hallmark of a police state.

TSA searches violating 4th Amendment?
- One News Now
The Rutherford Institute has filed a new lawsuit against the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) in response to its virtual strip searches and full-body pat-downs at airports.
A lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of pilots who refused both versions of the “first line” security screens, but the government decided to relax its rule for them. The Rutherford Institute’s suit, however, is filed on behalf of three travelers

Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening - Washington Examiner
Did you know that the nation’s airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period.

Its specialty is what those critics call “security theater”—that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. Mica sees TSA’s new “naked scanner” machines and groping, grossly invasive passenger pat-downs as just part of a larger problem. TSA, he says, is relying more on passenger humiliation than on practices that are proven staples of airport security.

Parker: The Problem is Leadership, not Body Scanners
By Star Parker
We’ve been sold, and we’re buying, the big lie that machines can replace human judgment and responsibility. How can we possibly use technology to identify and root out terrorists when the leaders of our country cannot, or refuse to identify with clarity who these individuals are and what they are about?

If Eric Holder cannot, or refuses to see a connection between Islam and terrorism, what, in his view, does define who these individuals are? We citizens are the ones paying the price, in the wasted money we’re shelling out and the humiliating invasions into our privacy So let’s be clear that body scanners are not the problem. They are the symptom. The problem is our leadership in Washington.


MUSLIMS AND TSA SCREENINGS


Muslim Brotherhood Front Group Trains Airport Screeners
- Human Events
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has completed training for 2,200 Transportation Safety Officers (TSOs) at the Los Angeles International Airport according to a press release found on the MPAC website. 

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs
- Judicial Watch

Airport Security: Let’s Profile Muslims
by Asra Q. Nomani (a Muslim)
As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim. We have to choose pragmatism over political correctness, and allow U.S. airports and airlines to do religious and racial profiling.


MORE ON SCREENINGS


It’s ‘Unclear’ If Airport Body Scanners Will Detect Underwear Bombs, Says Gov’t Auditor
- CNS

Why they frisk. Why we should let them
- Jonathan Kay, National Post ·
The people who are scanning, frisking and questioning you are trying to keep you safe, even at the expense of some of your time and dignity. If this is a trade off you refuse to make, perhaps you should take the train.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook