| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Canadian Border Guards abandon posts - Flee for their lives |
| 2006-01-26 |
| And I thought we had a wide open border here in the U.S. BELLINGHAM - One of two men sought in a California homicide was ordered held on $2 million bail Wednesday, while the other was released from St. Joseph Hospital and booked into jail following a car chase that ended in gunfire at the U.S.-Canada border. Authorities arrested Jose Antonio Barajas, 22, of Mexico, and Ishtiaq Hussain, 38, of Pakistan, on Tuesday after they allegedly sped away from a Whatcom County sheriff's deputy at 100 mph, drove through a spike strip designed to flatten their tires, failed to stop at a border checkpoint and tore through Peace Arch Park. About 20 Canadian border guards, who are unarmed, fled for safety on Tuesday, an official of the union representing the guards said Wednesday. A Heavily armed U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent fired his gun, hitting Hussain, and a sheriff's deputy blocked the fleeing vehicle with his squad car. The Peace Arch border crossing was closed for more than 10 hours Tuesday, although traffic was diverted to another nearby crossing. A prominent member of Canada's incoming Conservative government said Wednesday the party will stand behind its promise to arm the country's border guards. After all... what good are unarmed border guards? Particulary guarding a border with armed civilians? Vic Toews, who will soon be a part of the government after serving as Canada's justice critic in opposition, said he did not relish the sight of Canadian border guards leaving their posts. Kind of sends the wrong message... Paula Shore, a spokeswoman for the Canada Border Services Agency, confirmed late Tuesday that an unspecified number of guards abandoned their posts at several crossings along the British Columbia border when they heard the wanted men were coming their way. "A few officers exercised their right to refuse to work because of what they perceived as imminent danger," Shore said. Under Canada's labor code, "any worker has the right to refuse to work if they feel they are in imminent danger," she said, adding managers took over for the guards. Steve Pellerin-Fowlie, a vice president of the Customs Excise Union, which represents Canada's border guards, told The Canadian Press on Wednesday that about 20 guards were involved. He welcomed the suggestion that the guards be armed. "What we've been calling for for years is the tools that will provide the maximum amount of safety possible," he said. |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #22 DB, I made no observation about the guards rather about the Canadian and Blue State proclivity to seek victim status. I doubt that any of us, unarmed, would have done differently than they. What we would do differently is accept being unarmed in such a job. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-26 17:53 |
| #21 Steve Janke at "Angry in the Great White North" blog is posting about the internal Canadian border secrity studies. The Liberals erased every recommendation to arm the border guards, over the objection of the BG union. The incoming Tories plan to arm the guards, let's see how that plan plays out. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-01-26 17:38 |
| #20 Will there be further fallout? The capture of the criminals was made on Canadian soil albeit in an cross-border park to which the US contributes upkeep. International organizations - except where the US and Israel are involved - respect the right to violate sovereignty in hot pursuit. If the ACLU sticks its nose in, then who knows where that will go. For the record: the shots fired were directed toward the US, and fired from the US side. And one hit its target. I like the use of SUVs by Border Officers. Crown Vics and Impalas can't ram a large vehicle with any effect. Good work! |
| Posted by: Hupith Glong7549 2006-01-26 17:35 |
| #19 two points. 1) If they got a gun and you don't, haul ass - anything else is pimping for a Darwin Award 2) if your job is to enforce law, you damn well better be armed - anything else also raises the odds of removing yourself from the gene pool. Bottom line is I don't blame them for splitting - I do blame whomever put them in that position unarmed. |
| Posted by: Unolet Shitle7946 2006-01-26 17:20 |
| #18 #15 A Mexican and a Pakistani? Despite this incident, maybe we should be focusing on our SOUTHERN border first. Posted by: Dar 2006-01-26 12:52 A Pakistani and a Mexican walk into a bar, the bartender says, "Hey! Whadja do with the guards!?" Cracks me up everytime I hear it. |
| Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 2006-01-26 16:48 |
| #17 Come to the border, make a wisecrack like that, and then see whether they're just observers or babysitters. Come on, I triple dare you. Looks like Jose and Ishtiaq already did :) Notice I said that is what the Canadian government regulates them to. I've been to Canada twice over the past two months (but not crossing at the Peace Arch but a nearby less-busy crossing) and I respect the Canadian Border guards - but I don't respect a government who 'guards' their border with unarmed 'guards' - particulary when guns are easily (and legally) obtainable on the other side of the border (U.S.). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-01-26 15:49 |
| #16 In that case they are not 'Guards' but 'Babysitters' or 'Observers'. Come to the border, make a wisecrack like that, and then see whether they're just observers or babysitters. Come on, I triple dare you. I have. They just gave me a raised eyebrow. I missed your post yesterday about giving guard protection is seems. I apologize for miss the context of the whole conversation. However, I do not miss the elephant in the room. I have two canuks I hang around with and they both would never go back to the country of their birth because of the fuck up the socialst government has made. They love their country, just hate the socialism. Canada is a country with a proud history that seems to be trying to jump off the cliff civilization death along with western europe, much like our liberal party is trying to do to the US. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2006-01-26 13:37 |
| #15 A Mexican and a Pakistani? Despite this incident, maybe we should be focusing on our SOUTHERN border first. |
| Posted by: Dar 2006-01-26 12:52 |
| #14 ...inadequate staffing levels, that is. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-01-26 12:46 |
| #13 LOL. Yeah, whatever. Arming border guards is inconsequential to the overall problem of border security between Canada and the US. It's a really, really, really small issue. You guys are screaming about guns, yet there are far greater holes in North American border security in general. And in these instances, guns wouldn't be of much help. Guns only prevent the odd case like we saw the other day...what, maybe once in 5 years. Keep in mind, we are talking about urban border crossings. Rural areas are altogether a different story. This is a big issue for the guards, however, and as I said yesterday, these guards should be armed for their personal protection. I think what Rafaei is saying is that since the guards are unarmed it would not be prudent to stay around while two armed men who have already killed come through. I'm not going to second guess the guards. They know their job better than I do. However, haveing ti call on the RCMP seems a bit too late. The RCMP would have been called regardless of whether the guards are armed or not. There is no guarantee that armed guards would have been able to stop anyone, thereby necessitating a call to the RCMP. What we are really talking about then, is not a problem of unarmed guards, but staffing levels. In that case they are not 'Guards' but 'Babysitters' or 'Observers'. Come to the border, make a wisecrack like that, and then see whether they're just observers or babysitters. Come on, I triple dare you. It seems Rafael, that you prefer dhimmitude and letting criminals walk all over you. No, I'm not a socialist, even though I live in a socialist country. You, on the other hand, prefer to focus on the relatively tiny aspects, all the while ignoring that elephant in the room. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-01-26 12:36 |
| #12 Think about it for a minute Nimble. If you were a border guard and were denied any means to defend yourself and a couple of desparados were coming through what would you do. What I'm saying is don't blame the guards, blame the Canadian Government for a stupid policy. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-01-26 12:12 |
| #11 Rafael represents the interests of victims everywhere who would rather have someone to blame than the ability to deal with a problem themselves. That's a key to the Red/Blue split in the David Warren column. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-26 11:08 |
| #10 I think what Rafaei is saying is that since the guards are unarmed it would not be prudent to stay around while two armed men who have already killed come through. However, haveing ti call on the RCMP seems a bit too late. How long does it take the RCMP to get to a crossing? Gotta be a better way. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-01-26 11:00 |
| #9 In that case they are not 'Guards' but 'Babysitters' or 'Observers'. At least that is what the Canadian government regulates them to. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-01-26 09:36 |
| #8 It seems Rafael, that you prefer dhimmitude and letting criminals walk all over you. I prefer having the option of ending said thug's pittiful life before he ends mine and having the border guards and the police having the same option. An armed society is a polite society - John Adams |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2006-01-26 09:29 |
| #7 It seems our American cousins can't see beyond the barrel of a gun. Border posts are usually in close proximity to RCMP detachments. Once the guards left in protest, the managers called the RCMP. Problem solved. As to the labour code, it's more precise to say that a worker can't be fired if he stops working for reasons of safety. And yes it also applies to cops, firemen, etc, but in these fields it would be kind of tough to prove that danger "does not come with the job". All cases are investigated by the labour board, and it is they who decide what is safe or nor for a particular job. That's what happened here. The guards stopped working because they deemed it unsafe. It was done in protest, but they do have a point, and the labour board would probably not disagree. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-01-26 07:41 |
| #6 The perps, Barajas and Hussain, were sought in connection with the murder of a guy named Ashok Malhorta, a taxi driver in SF, CA. Cops say all three men were "acquainted". I think this is sad: Unarmed Canadian border guards in 2006. Time to wake up Hosers. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2006-01-26 06:30 |
| #5 If the Canadians are just going to let the perpetrators come on in; they should atleast provide them with flights to get back home(forced extradition)! Case closed. |
| Posted by: smn 2006-01-26 03:15 |
| #4 You got the point, but are missing the important questions boys. A Mexican and a Pak. Now how would they get together? I also wonder who got wacked in CA? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2006-01-26 02:49 |
| #3 Oct. 7, 1969, Montreal police and firemen walked off the job in an illegal strike, resulting in a 16 hour wave of crime and violence. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-01-26 01:27 |
| #2 Under Canada's labor code, "any worker has the right to refuse to work if they feel they are in imminent danger,"... Whaaaaa? Cops, too? And firemen? |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2006-01-26 01:15 |
| #1 Training wiht MP45s' and the purchase of vests for the lot of them. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-26 01:03 |