KEY POINTS:
Airport testing for traces of explosives will soon be introduced in New Zealand's international airports. The move will see US-bound passengers routinely taken at random and tested for traces of explosives on their carry-on bags and documents.
Security officers are also set to be given new search and seizure powers. Is airport explosives testing a sensible move or an over-reaction?
Here is a selection of Your Views:
Stephen (Christchurch)
To Arron: Dude, since you proudly been promoting racial profiling, may I remind you, that Richard Reid the shoe bomber was a white guy just like you. He wore a business suit just like you did. How do we all know that you are not some white convert to radical Islam? Eh? Perhaps the reason you are trying to introduce racial profiling is, so that you can get away doing whatever you were trained to do in the terror camps am I correct? I guess, since Indonesians look oriental, why can't we also start it on the Chinese? So let's see, my explanation now covers, Europeans, Orientals, Middle Eastern people, Africans, and anyone who looks Middle Eastern that is Latinos, so the whole of mankind is covered. Let's hope, you are not the next Richard Reid, or John Walker the American Taleban.
Arron
I reckon there would be a hell of a lot of Middle Eastern people (Muslim or not) that would feel a lot safer flying and would not be annoyed at all if the explosive testing was specifically targeted at their own race, with additional random testing for the WASPS, who believe it or not are very unlikely to be disguised fundamentalist Muslims. As a WASP, I have no objection to being tested, but would feel more safe if there was more intensive targeted testing on those races more likely to be Muslim. Has anyone got the latest statistics on the demographic make-up of suicide bombers or attempted suicide bombers? Guarantee there is not very many teenage white girls or old white ladies. Quite possibly a large proportion of young Middle Eastern or African males? Reality may be harsh for the left to take but it doesn't make it any less real.
pCb (Auckland)
Too many simplistic arguments against. It's not about attacks against NZ (even the Rainbow Warrior was against an agency not our country) it's about our being a staging post to parts 'American'. As for profiling, I don't see too many WASPS willing to give their lives away by blowing up aircraft while still being in it.
Jon (Hamilton)
Yes, well, of course, Arron. All Christians are white and all Muslims are Middle Eastern so, all whites can be trusted and all Middle Eastern people are smuggling bombs. How could I be so careless? Clearly we must all look at coloured people with suspicion and only trust those with white skin. After all, there would never be any reason for a white person to be smuggling explosives. You have shown me the error of my ways. But wait...
These Muslim terrorists are cunning too the way they disguised themselves as white people and blew up the Rainbow Warrior. Great trick, making it look like it was the French who were behind it. Managed to keep up the pretence all the time they were held captive, too. Perhaps we'll need to check the "whites" as well in case they're cunningly disguised Muslim terrorists.
Ditch the racist worldview, Arron, and learn that you can't just look at a person's race and decide whether or not (s)he's safe.
Concerned Pilot
How can this be a drastic measure? We are talking about potentially saving lives. We must understand that we live in a world, ridden with terror. As we saw in the September 11 attacks, the terrorists had no concern for the causalities. They will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. It has been said that 'When there is a will, there is a way'. In this case, I would not disagree. However, this measure means that anyone with such intentions, will have one more hurdle to jump and hopefully it will be one hurdle too many. So it is not a question of "Should we implement such strategies?" but rhetorically "Do we want to save lives?"
Soprano
It'd better to be safe than sorry, you can't say "NZ's not susceptible to a terrorist attack", any country is nowadays.
Hamish
Sounds like an over reaction, but I wonder how much we as NZ have to do with the decision. It is only for flights to the US.
Arron
Poor old Jon doesn't understand that it is Muslims doing the terrorist acts, and a higher proportion of middle-eastern, black Africans and Indonesian people are muslims. Therefore it makes statistical sense to target a higher proportion of the testing at these racial groups. There is nothing racist about it, it is reality. Grow a backbone and don't be so sensitive, it may save your life one day.
It'll never happen here
So it's all a big waste of time? Is it because we are such a peaceful nation or because people don't sneak into the country under cover of false passports. Perhaps it's because out immigration checks are so spot on and we bring in only good wholesome people. Get over it and understand we live in a horrible world where nations with weak border controls are a conduit to get at the target nations.
Jon (Hamilton)
Hardly surprising the security is being beefed up in light of recent events and a certain amount of media overhype of the failed "terrorist" attacks (trying to link those bungling amateurs to Al Queda being a bit of a stretch). Bungling morons lacking even a 4th-form level of chemistry notwithstanding, there are real threats to airlines (though not as much as the media would have us believe) and increased security is warranted. I certainly hope we do not wind up with the blatantly racist racial profiling as currently practised by the UK and the USA. I also hope, in light of their openly racist posts, that "Arron" (don't you know how to spell "Aryan"?) and "Margot" both wind up being detained for 16 hours and cavity-searched.
Hyperborean
This nebulous idea of 'terrorism', state-sponsored* or otherwise is clearly a means of creating fear in both the civilian & non-civilian [indigenous] population. Primarily as a means of facilitating their control & manipulation much more easily [any traumatised population is more easily controlled & manipulated manipulated into thinking & believing things that will further the agenda], just like Machielelli stated; 'the ends justify the means'. Terrorism, or the threat of it, which, incidentally, seems to thrive under 'Socialism', also serves as an acceptable [or perceived so] basis for introducing new legislation legislation that, had we a constitution to speak of, would be considered 'unconstitutional' & would otherwise be perceived as unacceptable by those upon whom it is imposed. Fear is the master Think about it.
[* One may conclude that the majority of terroristic events receive their approval and funding from those who stand to benefit most from its consequences].
Jeni the Best
I used to think this stuff was a time waster until some guy decided to try and take his chainsaw on board a flight from Wellington to Nelson. Not a brand new chainsaw but one that was well used and had remnants of petrol in the tank. Luckily, thankfully, the pilot took great care with his luggage and personally checked what was going in and stopped the chainsaw from leaving. I heard him explaining to the guy that if we took that up we would all blow up and he wouldn't be reaching Nelson in one piece. So I'm happy if the airlines want to take extra precautions, but I'm hoping the queues don't get much longer.
Wendy Bell
Yes, I am in favour of testing flyers for explosives. I don't mind if I have to arrive three hours (current time requested) or six hours ahead of boarding time. If this is going to make it safe for us to travel, then so be it.
Ross Whenmouth
I expect that there will be a lot of false alarms when testing people who have handled firearms and/or ammunition. Modern gunpower can contain varying quantities of nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin (also used to make dynamite and gelignite), di-nitrotoluene (or DNT, which is in the same chemical family as TNT), nitroguanidine, and other explosive chemicals.
As one of the many lawful firearm users in New Zealand, I hate to think what explosives my jacket (and other items of clothing) might test positive for.
Stuart Young
I am extremely worried by this development because I am absolutely certain that there will be false positive tests. I have been the victim of a false positive test at Auckland Airport for drugs I have never been in possession of amphetamines, never had anything to do with them yet the inside of my bag when swabbed by customs staff tested positive. There have been many scientific studies of drugs on banknotes that suggest that the tests for drugs are so sensitive that almost 100 per cent of banknotes test positive. I'm sure that the same thing will apply for explosives, the tests will be so sensitive that there will be many false positive tests. So I'm very worried that innocent travellers will be taken away from their families and consequently will miss their flights causing hardship and mental anguish and I bet they won't refund the cost of the tickets and I bet they won't even catch a single extra terrorist.
Bri Auckland Windler
Wake up guys! This is the price we all have to pay for the idiots who perpetrate the crimes and those civil libertarians and silent supporters who want total freedom of the individual. Everything has a price if you want a "free" world. Some innocents will suffer but once again that is the price we all pay. It may be you next time who has to pay but at the end of the day get used to it and think that if you aren't guilty, why worry or are you too precocious that you are above the rest of us? Many explosives can be detected by the machines/dogs etc and so they should be. The cryers about over-reaction I bet have never seen an explosive work I have and it is devastating!
Tony Lee
Clearly it's an overreaction. Before all this hoo-haa over 'terrorism' there was never any problem. Now all we're doing is making people seem guilty because of the way they look or because of their faith. What if they have bad foot odour? Grounds for explosives checking?
What if they have a fever/flu/cold? All shaky and nervous is what they would act like.
Adam
There are three things that you rely on when flying; the plane must be well maintained, the pilots have to know their stuff and the security has to be spot on. Everything else is just window dressing. If any of these fail then you have a problem and one that can't usually be fixed at 35000 feet over the ocean. I have no problem with anything that is done to make flying safer. For those people who complain about over reactions and having the hassle of searches, we should have an airport with little or no security for them to use. If one was available, no one would use it.
London
What a time-wasting idea. Who could be bothered blowing up NZ? Does anyone really expect an attack on NZ? Nope, well, apart from the NZ Herald staff who are major time-wasters.
Arron
This is okay as long as it is not only random but targeted at certain racial groups as well. While boarding at Sydney myself and other (white) business associates were "randomly" tested while some guys that looked fresh out of a Jemal Islamia training camp waltzed straight through. The testing at Sydney is a sham, as long as they write down that they have tested x number of people they are happy, while they shy away from testing at risk people because of fears of being accused of racial profiling. Sorry to burst the bubble guys, but someone who looks as though they run a Dominion Road kebab shop is probably more likely to blow up the plane than an 80-year-old white granny. Bring in racial profiling now!
John
I don't understand why we have to go overboard with all this so called security. We aren't in bed with the Americans and we have kept our noses clean. I have nothing to hide so why should I be hassled for explosives?
Merlin
As a regular international traveller I've no problem with any increased security measure at airports or on the flight. What really bites though is the number of extra people employed to do these new tasks. What used to be 20 minutes in immigration has now risen to as much as an hour during busy times, and it's all down to lack of sufficient numbers doing the security checks.
Murray
Absolutely. No one should be perturbed by this proposal. New Zealand is not a 'safe' country in relation to cowardly terrorist attacks, so the better and more extensive precautions we take, the better it will be. No doubt the Keith Lockes of this world will leap up and down, but quite frankly we have no alternative. If you refuse to be searched you don't travel. It's about time we upgraded our precautions. Just look at the headline in this morning's Herald about our budding Northland terrorists. We don't need them, we don't want them.
Mike (New Plymouth)
I think that as a traveller this is a positive move by the authorities. The honest traveller has nothing to worry about. This makes it safer for them to travel. As for those pillocks who want to kill, harm and destroy people, families and property, lock 'em up and throw away the key. Greater security at airports is going to increase and as the terrorists get smarter the security will evolve with it. We, as the travelling public, had better get used to it and the longer waiting time. After all, it's for our safety.
MDC
I don't think that it is an overreaction in today's world. If people have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear do they? I'd prefer to know that I could board a plane without worrying about being blasted out of the sky.
John O'Hara (Auckland)
The current paranoia over liquid explosives is a clear overreaction based on hysteria rather than reason. The first recorded case of an attempted use of a liquid explosive on an aircraft was in 1994, it was unsuccessful (and for good reason) and therefore ignored as a risk for 12 years without any incidents. Anyone taking the time to look on the web on how to make one will find its extremely difficult to make and even if 3kgs was made on board its insufficient to do any structural damage to the aircraft. However just as Heathrow last year was senselessly surrounded by tanks when there was a threat of ground-based shoulder held missiles being used on inbound aircraft its good PR and good to keep the population subservient, nervous and not to focused on more embarrassing issues. Allowing large quantities of highly flammable duty free liquor on board airliners, packed in glass bottles (which when broken would make great weapons) unrestrained in overhead lockers remains a far more credible threat but one that is conveniently overlooked. Perhaps terrorists are not duty free drinkers, or maybe the revenue from the sales of duty free is of more importance than the genuine risk to passengers and crew.
Margot
Banning Islamics from flying (or immigrating) would make more sense. They are the crazies trying to blow up innocent people.
Wayne
Please remind me. Who exactly are the criminals here? If it is not me - the tourist - then why am I being treated like a common criminal? Yes, this is an over-reaction like so many of these so-called security checks.
Alan Wilkinson
It's madness. Has all this US paranoid airport security ever caught a single real terrorist? The only one I ever heard of was the 'shoe bomber' who was caught by passengers. Let the passengers defend themselves properly and let the government do what it does best - waste our money - without giving it more excuses to do so.
Daniel
Air New Zealand operates 747 - 400 aircraft, not 747 - 200 aircraft as your article states.
