Hand cuffed to a chair, humiliated with tears streaming down her face, an otherwise law abiding citizen looked up to see a dozen police and security officers around her discussing what they were going to do with her. She didn't know it, but it was her attitude that was going to ruin her day. We live in a culture of changing values. It sometimes feels like everyday there is a new bylaw or piece of legislation that restricts the way Canadian citizens live their lives, from how many cars we are allowed to park in our driveways to how far out into the wilderness one must venture to smoke a cigarette or partake of another tobacco product. I would like to address a new form of social deviancy that is finding its way onto the evening news. There is no formal name for this deviancy yet, but I will try to name it in this report. The deviancy that I am speaking of is the act of not paying the proper respect to authority figures, with a special emphasis on disrespecting authority figures in airports. I believe that the treatment of travelers in airports is destroying the freedoms guaranteed to the citizens and visitors of this country. This is a topic that should be addressed because it weighs the benefits of increased security at the cost of personal freedom and privacy. After the 9/11 terrorist attack in the United States, the populations of the west seemed to cry out for more security from the governments that are supposed to protect them. The unintended consequence of thinking airports need more security is that airport authorities began to think of themselves as above the law.

Anyone paying attention to the new security measures being implemented in Canadian and United States airports will have been informed on the actions of these citizens and the sanctions brought against them for their insolence. The journey from law abiding citizen to full blown criminal terrorist is only as far as a drive to the nearest airport. The first thing one must do is to decline a highly invasive and potentially dangerous back scatter machine that takes naked photos of travelers. The next thing that the new terrorist must do is to decline to be patted down by a stranger in a government outfit. Those actions coupled with even the slightest eye roll or insolent comment will see the deviant terrorist on a national "no fly" list, charged, and in some cases imprisoned. The new criminal is brought to justice for all to see as they are usually cuffed, stripped, and put on display to show all the other passengers the fate that awaits them for failure to submit to these new procedures. Recently a man in the US named John Tyner was not allowed through airport security after being singled out for enhanced screening. During his screening he warned the airport security agent that if he was sexually assaulted, he would press charges against the agent. This comment earned him a ten thousand dollar law suit and eviction from the airport. Imagine if every would be rapist had that sort of authority over their victims, there would be a lot of rich rapists walking around in the world.

The failure to obey offends those in positions of authority who demand respect for their positions. From a very early age we are taught that people in authority like parents, teachers, police, and other civil servants are who we turn to for help should the need arise. We are also told that we should respect these people, not for any specific reason, but because they are in a broad sense "the authority". This is supposed to keep the balance of the law abiding and the law breaking citizens for some reason. I hesitate to say this because I know that it is not true for all civil servants, but for some, they like the power and control that they are given over others. These people are the ones who stress the importance of showing respect to authority, and they do not hesitate to bring the full force of their authority to bare on someone who is not appropriately subordinate.

Under the auspices of protecting the public from terrorist, police and security agencies have an arsenal of social controls and sanctions at their disposal. When traveling, the most important issue to the traveler is that they reach their destination unharmed and without a criminal record. This is often used to the advantage of law enforcement as they can say that it is faster and safer to submit to the wildly invasive security procedures than to stand up for themselves as sovereign human beings. Often the threat of being singled out is enough for most people to submit to the control of the authority, and no more social control is needed. If you are the one who is immune to social stigma and you would like to stand up for yourself then you will come face to face with a system that is slanted in favor of law enforcement. Recently another case involving a woman who was trying to get on a plane was handcuffed and had her ticket ripped up for asking questions about the new security measures. Most of the measures used in these situations would probably be considered informal, because rather than abusing most of the travelers, they are only singling out a few as a warning to others who would dare question their authority.

My initial reaction to what was happening to travelers was a typical one that most people have. If you decide to ride an airplane you have to waive some rights as a citizen. The safety of fellow citizens sometimes outweighs individual liberty, and that is a small price to pay for keeping our skies free of terrorist. But after thinking about it for a while and doing some research into the issue, I have decided that the methods of control used against law abiding citizens in the vain attempt to capture terrorists is as useless as it is stupid. More people are killed every year in north America from jay walking than are killed by terrorists. Is that because our protection is so great that they can't get through? hardly, the TSA in the United States has never caught a terrorist, let alone prevented an attack. This is just an Orwellian look at the future of North America.

So now we are faced with what to do when we decide that we need to fly somewhere. Do we bite the bullet so to speak and submit to any and all invasive screening? Or do we opt out and refuse to go along with this game? I for one don't think that a person should be seen as a threat for standing up for themselves. Being able to stand up to authority and say "what you are doing is wrong", should never get anyone into the least bit of trouble. I think that more in depth discussion and study of this topic is something that is sorely needed in our society. Perhaps we should be trying to discover how to get the authority to learn to respect the people that they are supposed to be protecting.