The use of full body scanners in the world’s major airports will not guarantee that another terrorist attack involving an aircraft will never happen. But, if used properly the scanner might have found the materials that the undiebomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, concealed. It may have even deterred him from doing what he did in the first place. Nevertheless there is no shortage of arguments coming from those on the left that these scanners should not be used.
The major argument against scanners that photograph people through their clothing is that they invade privacy rights. A typical example is the argument made by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. According to the association, these machines should not be used because they photograph people naked. Michael Vonn, the policy director was not impressed by the fact that the faces of persons scanned will be blurred. That would be akin to forcing people to run naked through a room but allowing them to put bags over their heads. This analogy breaks down of course when it is impossible to imagine how running through a room naked could possibly save lives.
The real privacy argument is of course that some people will be deterred from flying due to “cultural (read, Muslim) sensitivities” to being seen naked especially by members of the opposite sex. Well, no one will be forced to go through these scanners; they have the option of choosing not to fly. The way some on the left go on and on about people who will refuse to be scanned makes it seem that flying from Point A to Point B is a human right. It isn’t, of course. Procedures that can save lives should not be abandoned simply because a potential airline passenger might feel bad or choose not to fly.
The privacy argument reaches the zenith of silliness when the discussion turns to famous people. For some reason Angelina Jolie’s name comes up quite a bit in this context. Tabloids would spend millions of dollars to obtain a naked scan of a star and this is somehow worse than blowing up a plane with hundreds of passengers. Rules can be put in place to destroy the images; there is no real reason to keep the scans after the flight has landed safely. No system of security or anything else for that matter is foolproof and it is possible too that someone could put a scan into the public realm. Whatever happened to those lefties who want long guns registered on the theory that “if it only saves one life”? When people are involved there is always the possibility of wrongdoing but that is a poor argument for refusing to take steps to protect the public from terrorist acts.
Privacy is the main argument against these full body scans but there are others. The CBC warned that the scanners emit radiation. Well, if ways have been found protect x-ray technicians and others who work with radiation, then the screeners can be protected. And there was nothing to suggest that flyers who get scanned are at risk although when the machines are put into use, that will inevitably come up.
A good argument in favour of the use of full body scanners is that the Toronto Star is against them. In an editorial the paper criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper because he’s planning to buy too many machines. These lefty Harper haters would be the ones that scream the loudest if a Canadian plane was ever brought down by a terrorist attack.
And if an award is ever handed out for the most original argument against the use of fully body scanners, that award would go to those in the U.K. who say that minors cannot be scanned because the images would breach the country’s child pornography laws. Despite these reservations, the U.K. is one of the countries in the EU that is in favour of the use of scanners. Canada, for one has no intention of scanning children at the present time. After all Islamic terrorists wouldn’t bring a child with hidden explosives on an intended doomed aircraft, would they? Minors should be scanned and to link these scans to child porn is ludicrous. Police officers routinely possess child pornography all the time. Not only do they possess it but they distribute it to prosecutors who further distribute it to defense lawyers. Then the prosecutors further distribute it to judges who show juries. For some reason these people aren’t considered to have committed criminal acts because they are doing what they do to protect the public. Just like those who operate full body scanners are doing.
Contrary to what we are led to believe, none of this is rocket science; it’s just common sense. Common sense dictated that Abdulmutallab should have been stopped from flying because he paid cash for his ticket. He should have been prevented from boarding the aircraft because he had no luggage. Common sense says that when he was put on a watch list he should have been put on a no-fly list. All of the miscues could have been prevented by the simple use of common sense.
And it is common sense to use full body scanners at the world’s major airports.
