Space and Place in the News
Source: Toronto Star (online) http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/273749
“Airport Security a ‘con game’”
This article discusses the gaps in security at Pearson Airport as well as other North American airports. The “restricted areas” in our airports are being criticized for being less secure than they ought to be. The “gap” in security exists because, although passengers are being screened, precautions are not being taken as seriously when it comes to checking employees and cargo loads, including mail and food crates which are brought onto planes.
The issue of security has been focused on the “front end”, where passengers are boarding, but the “behind the scenes” is being ignored. This depicts the kind of assumptions that take place regarding those who enter the airport as “travellers” and those who work in the airport. The assumption may be that the “restricted” areas, or “behind closed doors” where employees work, are “safe” and secure spaces, while other areas of the airport need tighter security.
For example, while passengers are hassled to remove clothing and have their luggage screened though x-ray machines, cargo and food crates often go unchecked, assumed to be “safe”. As well, employees who work around the plane are not hassled like passengers. This could be because those who work in the space of the airport, day in and day out, are assumed to “belong”. They are included in that particular space, and therefore the issue of security is overlooked. On the other hand, passengers may be seen as “intruders” or “foreigners” to the space of the airport, making them the targets of interrogation.
It is interesting how some Canadian airports are now using biometric passes to screen employees and this has created “gated communities”, where only employees can have access. Heightened security in these areas means that this space is restricted and monitored as to who enters and exits. This allows police to track down who was in the area. This is an example of how space can be segregated from other areas, allowing only certain individuals to enter.
The article also mentions that the government is taking a greater interest in more rigid security measures possibly to create a public perception of security. This would demonstrate how space is constructed--the airport can be constructed as a “safe” place. After all, passengers who are preoccupied with the stresses of travelling need not also worry about their safety. Particularly after 9-11, the airport needs to “rebuild” its reputation as a safe place to reduce passengers’ anxieties.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I completely agree with you, I found that you made a great argument. I would also add that Canadians allow for airports to become very strict places because it protects their security. Due to the tragic event of 9/11, it has forced airports to take on these measures in order to protect vast amounts of people. We as passengers follow these strict rules of not carrying anything that might seem as a threat to others. However, there is an illustration of Marxism because there is inequality and domination by the workers. Many people from the Middle East or South East Asia are treated unfairly when being checked because they may be a threat since the terrorists came from these areas. It is unfortunate that innocent people are stereotyped of being dangerous just because of how they look. A Caucasian person is not seen as a threat, but for example a Muslim person is viewed negatively and is searched thoroughly. However, these people cannot reject the demands of the workers because their power can forbid these people to pass security. It is clear that people are just doing their job to protect everyone, but it is unfair how some people are treated as terrorists when they are not. Anyone is capable of being harmful, no matter what ethnicity, religion, or gender they may be. If Canada wants to protect their citizens then everybody should be treated equally since anyone could be a threat.
Post a Comment