Friday, October 9, 2015Cloudy 12°C
Fashion & Style

Torontonian Tries to Board Plane at Kelowna Airport while Toting a Gun

Posted by Jerrold Litwinenko / May 28, 2008

20080528_snakesonaplane.jpgKelowna Airport in British Columbia has bad ass security. They know how to shake you down, and nothing gets past them. And if you don't want a hassle and a half at their security checkpoints, one thing is clear: don't try to bring a gun onto the plane - even if it's under two inches in length, has no moving parts, and is hanging from a necklace around your neck.

On Monday, Marnina Norys, a Toronto resident and PhD student studying Social Political Thought, was put through the bureaucratic and culture-of-fear rigmarole while trying to board a place in Kelowna - all because she wore a necklace with a pendant in the shape of a gun (the classic Colt45, and the actual pendant depicted in the above photo).

Hijacking a plane using a tattoo of a gun or the latest issue of Guns & Ammo magazine are just as likely scenarios.


First she was told by an agent at security that she couldn't wear it, and that the "replica" would have to go in her carry-on bag. But a second agent who was tasked with searching her carry-on bag found the gun pendant and told her that although harmless (and against all common sense) her gun would have to go in her checked baggage.

Racing back to the check-in desk, concerned that she was going to miss her flight, Norys ended up just checking her whole carry-on bag (since her checked luggage was already long gone).

At first she was angered by the experience, and she was concerned that she'd lose the pendant, but now that a few days have passed she's able to joke about the incident. In a telephone interview this afternoon, when asked why she wears a gun pendant, she quickly responded, "I grew up watching Charlie Angels," before adding that her friend Dana, a Toronto-based jeweler made it, and that it's a really well-made piece.

So there we have it. Instead of the folks at Canadian Air Transport Security investing their resources in ensuring passenger safety, they instead end up on the phone today to issue an apology to Norys and cleaning things up after a bit of an embarrassing public relations mess.

Red-tape trumps common sense, and a choice quote from an article appearing in Kelowna's The Daily Courier back up my claim:

"How do you know it wasn't a real gun?" asked Guy, a security agent with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, who also declined to provide his last name.

"Who knows if there is a gun that small that can shoot bullets? You don't know that. They followed the rules."

This silliness serves as just one more reminder - we've lost our ability to embrace logic, and the terrorists have won.

Photo courtesy of Marnina Norys.



Joshua / May 28, 2008 at 04:17 pm
See, this is what bugs me the most... the rules aren't clear even to those who have to enforce them. Why would it be enough for this item to be in her carry-on for one officer, but have to be in her checked bag according to another?

And why can't any common sense be used?
jt / May 28, 2008 at 04:28 pm
well, each of the 50 officers you see in airports need to see your passport and boarding pass.

so its perfectly logical to them to have variant decidings.
Angie McKaig / May 28, 2008 at 04:31 pm
"Who knows if there is a gun that small that can shoot bullets? You don't know that. They followed the rules."

If there *was* a gun that small that could shoot bullets, how damaging could it be? This is ridiculousness at its most rampant.
Jerrold / May 28, 2008 at 04:33 pm
I fly internationally often and I don't get overly hassled for my passport and boarding pass. At the ticket counter, entering the passenger-only area, at carry-on check, and boarding. Four times is a fair number of checks. Any less and I'd be worried about randoms getting into secure areas.
mt / May 28, 2008 at 04:41 pm
Is that picture of the actual pendant in question?

Jerrold / May 28, 2008 at 04:43 pm
Yes, the photo above is the actual pendant.
bb / May 28, 2008 at 04:47 pm
Our politicians (with the help of the mainstream media) are entirely responsible for our state of fear. Our politicians are creating and profiting from our fear.
Adam / May 28, 2008 at 04:49 pm
"...we've lost our ability to embrace logic, and the terrorists have won."

The story would be more outrageous if these security measures were all in place and <a href="";>there weren't even any terrorists to begin with</a>, wouldn't it? (Duh Duh Duhhhhhh)
mt / May 28, 2008 at 04:59 pm
If Bob and Doug McKenzie were still on TV I could see them in the role of the security guards.

"How do you know it doesn't shoot bullets, eh?"

There really ought to be a Canadian Bacon 2, there's so much new material they could play off, unfortunately.
RR / May 28, 2008 at 05:16 pm
Unfortunately the link to the artist's site is wrong - Dana Calvin's BadAss Jewellery is here:
and his work is really amazing.
Marnina Norys / May 28, 2008 at 05:20 pm
The Bob and Doug McKenzie comment is hilarious. I have to admit though, what was especially disturbing about the whole thing was the agent's response to my claim that the thing wasn't remotely threatening. She dismissed me when I said this explaining "it's what it represents," which suggests she's confusing security with censorship.
Marnina Norys / May 28, 2008 at 05:31 pm
user-pic is the link to Dana's jewelry.
Ray / May 28, 2008 at 05:54 pm
Ah Kelowna, the only airport where I have had a security check performed. They used some device to 'sniff' my back pack. This was in 2003. Kelowna must be a hotspot for terroists.
stro1 / May 28, 2008 at 06:23 pm
There's nothing wrong with being hyper sensitive to guns or even images of guns; they have but one evil and cowardly purpose. However logic should prevail and real guns should be treated like child porn, the swastika, or the plague. First we must stop their production, and ownership before worrying about their likeness. Producers of guns should be treated like producers of child porn since no good ever comes from guns. The scary thing is these security personnel have little if any critical thinking skills.
mt / May 28, 2008 at 07:06 pm
You're absolutely right, there's nothing wrong with having absolutely no rational manner of thinking when it comes to imagery depicting firearms. That's a water-tight argument.
JonO / May 28, 2008 at 07:15 pm
I'm sorry - under no definition is that a fucking gun. Neither is it a replica of a gun. It's a goddamn pendant.

These people are idiots.
David Oliver / May 28, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Not saying that this was the right thing to do but:
Kari / May 28, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Even still... they couldn't tell that there are <i>no working parts</i> on this "gun"?? She should have "pulled the trigger" to see what would've happened.
aahhrrgg / May 28, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I would have pointed it at the guard and demanded entry to the plane, or else. Try to out-ridiculous them.
Ness / May 29, 2008 at 06:22 am
Same thing happened to my friend at Toronto's airport, my friend was told to take off the pendant as its a symbol of terrorists. Its dumb but its happens all over. Watch out for those a-holes at the airport. lol.
Feldwebel Wolfenstool / May 29, 2008 at 07:15 am
What about THE CLUB I carry around , in my pants?
Shannon / May 29, 2008 at 08:31 am
Though I must say to Stro1, to equate producers of guns to producers of child porn is a bit much to say the least. Over-generalize much? I've been hunting and unfortunately had to use a gun to kill the duck. I wouldn't say that my use of a gun was anywhere near the use of child porn.
Yes, guns can be and are often mistreated but let's not be irrational.

DJ / May 29, 2008 at 09:15 am
Ye gods! By this logic we're going to have to begin banning the following: long fingernails (ooooh pointy sharp thing!), Epipens (just don't eat or breathe there allergy sufferer) and books and other printed literature that might have the words gun, knife, tactical nuke or pointy stick in them.
Kinda reminds of that scene in Airplane come to think of it...
Layton Park / May 29, 2008 at 10:07 am
Arrowheads, Pendants and Fear
By the Back Road Scholar
The Busted Knuckle Chronicles, May 28, 2008
Layton Park

Since metal detectors, x-ray machines and security guards were put in place there has not been one incident of terrorism or high jacking originating from the Kelowna airport, as opposed to the out of control incidence that took place prior to such measures. Yet, still there is no more fearful place than the security lineup at the airport.
A 39 year old woman was recently caught trying to board an aircraft, in Kelowna, wearing a 1 ?? sterling silver pendant in the shape of an antique colt 45 on a chain around her neck. Security determined it was a risk because as a security agent named Guy stated, ?How do you know it wasn?t a real gun? Who knows if there is a gun that small that can shoot bullets? You don?t know that. They followed the rules.?
It is good to see we have security agents that are on top of things. I mean it may have looked solid but perhaps she could have bitten the end off the barrel reviling a hollow barrel. Anyhow, as Guy says, you don?t know that there could not be bullets the size of a pin.
I am no gun expert, but my guess is a bullet that small could not hold enough powder to propel the pin sized bullet fast enough to break the skin even if it was held against someone. Of course, how would security know that, their job is to know what is threatening and perhaps a secret gun that size has been developed? Of course the fact that the US military and police forces everywhere pack big heavy weapons who?s size is determined by having bullets and propellants large enough to do damage might be a clue. I hope if we ever consider giving security guns we limit them to the size of the pendent. I know I would feel safer.
A couple of months previous I boarded a plane through these same doors wearing a native fringe jacket the wife had given me for my birthday. The native fellow had made the entire jacket from a Caribou including carved bone designs on the jacket and it is more a work of art than a jacket. One of these designs was in the shape of a small arrowhead.
I dropped the jacket onto the conveyer belt that took it through the x-ray machine. The operator stopped the belt and backed it up then looked again. She talked to a guard who grabbed it and asked if it was my jacket,
?It is.? I said, ?What seems to the problem.?
?It is the arrowhead sir. It has to come off.? I laughed and said, ?You gotta be kidding?? But she was not.
?I am sorry sir but you must remove it.?
?I don?t think so. I have been through security all over North America with this jacket and I am not going to destroy a work of art for a 1 ?? arrowhead.? I then asked to speak to a supervisor.
?I am sorry but she is right, this could be considered a weapon and it must come off.?
I asked to speak with the manager and the two small security guards escorted me to an office where the manager looked at the jacket and listened to his security officers as he looked over my 6? 3? 260 lbs frame. When they finished he said, ?Look at the size of this guy. If he decided to take over the airplane, do you think he really needs that arrowhead? I think he could do more damage with his pen. Give him his jacket and let him go.?
Finally, someone besides Shakespeare that recognizes that the pen is not only mightier than the sword but also an arrowhead or in this case a pendent.
What is the real reason behind such inane behavior? Is it really to protect you? The reason is fear. The agents are not afraid you will take over the aircraft but afraid that they might somehow be held accountable for making a decision and no one wants to be held accountable, responsible or liable for their own thinking.
In my book, ?Get Out of Your Way,? I explain the reason most people do not become successful is they are held back by their own fears. The manager did not make the decision because he is the manager; he is the manager because he is not afraid to make a decision. Meanwhile the poor security guards will have to rely on their union to take care of them because they are too afraid to take care of themselves.

Elle Driver / May 29, 2008 at 11:30 am
What next? Are they going to start harassing the kids who wear their H&M-bought "keffiyeh" scarves, because of what they potentially "represent"? Think of the hipsters, people!!
not-anti / May 29, 2008 at 01:01 pm
See, it's not enough to rabidly froth at the mouth about any even potential influence upon gun crime, or threaten to ban the handguns (read: ridiculously customized huge-ass unconcealable low-power Olympic-style .22LR 'race guns') used by "so-called legal" (David Miller's incredibly daft recent turn of phrase) target shooters (read: 60 year old dudes with giant beards who have been law-abiding citizens only for like, their entire lives) ...

... we actually have to "crack down" on the very visual notion of such things! Yes, we're not just battling actual street crime and gang guns, we're now embarking on a _conceptual total war on any representation whatsoever_! Because what matters isn't actual safety, it's the suggestion thereof, right? We must be made safe from all dangerous images and metaphors, in today's uncertain world.

Wait, weren't we progressive types basically lambasting the right a few years back for exactly this kind of mentality? Could someone please explain this to David Miller?
goodcookiedrift / May 29, 2008 at 01:03 pm
Now you know how us Malvern locals feel.
Tim G / May 29, 2008 at 07:15 pm
Don't let David Miller see it...he'll ban its sale in Toronto.
Bugaboo / May 30, 2008 at 12:20 am
To David Oliver, how disappointing! Your website link makes us look so much less self-righteous, witty and better than your average joe (aka airport security)!
I suggest we quash this evidence before anyone else is onto it.
Great detective work, makes me believe in the adage "so strange it must be true"! / May 30, 2008 at 06:49 am
that is crazy, what the hell is wrong with these people...i guess the problem is how do you recruit people to the airport security service

chris @
Mike P / May 30, 2008 at 11:27 am
This is a letter I sent to airport security two years ago about bringing my fish home for Christmas. They didn't let us and the fish died about a month later.

Dear Air Canada,

I am writing with a question concerning your policies on Beta fish. I am planning to take my fish (Kingsfield) home for the holidays. He's blue, eats twice a day and does little more than float in place.

I understand from your website that there are two main policies that mitigate against Kingsfield travelling home for the yuletide season:

1 - Your policy that pets are not allowed to travel in-cabin unless they provide some form of service-assistance to the traveler.

2 - At no point will more than 4 fluid oz. be permitted beyond the initial inspection point at the airport.

With respect to the first policy, I'm confident that Kingsfield's presence in the cabin would be no more disruptive to other passengers than the average cup of coffee. It is most likely that Kingsfield will make do in a jar of some sort with holes poked in the top. Does this policy extend to fish in small jam-size jars?

On the second policy, I was also wondering if the limitation on liquids would apply to Kingsfield as well. Given that he requires more than the prohibited amount to live, do you think security would be flexible on this point? Furthermore, it is my understanding that the limitation on fluids exists for the purposes of discouraging liquid explosives. Provided further, the common knowledge that fish cannot live in explosive chemicals, do you suppose they would make an exception for Kingsfield?

Any assistance or insight into these policies would be much appreciated as we make our travel plans for the holiday season.

All the best,

- Mike P.
Mike P / May 30, 2008 at 11:31 am
It occurred to me that some might want to read their follow up.


Dear Mr. Paris:

Thank you for your electronic mail message of November 28, 2006, in which you inquired about transporting a Beta fish and water on board an aircraft.

As you may are aware, passengers are permitted to bring liquids, gels and aerosols through security screening at Canadian airports provided that the items are in containers with a capacity of 100 ml (or equivalent) or less; and that the containers fit comfortably in one (1) clear, closed and re-sealable plastic bag with a capacity of no more than 1 litre (or equivalent). For more information on this subject, please visit the department's website at

The only exceptions to these restrictions are for baby formula, baby food, milk and juice when a small child is travelling and for liquid prescription medicines and essential non-prescription liquid medicines. Therefore, with respect to your question, more than 100 mls. of water in a fish bowl would not be permitted past the security screening checkpoint.

I regret that my response could not be more favourable. Thank you again for writing.
not-anti / May 30, 2008 at 11:37 am
Bugaboo, did you even read that piece? The muzzle velocity of that tiny gun is a mere 399 feet per second. An air rifle that fires pellets at 500 isn't even legally considered a firearm in Canada, for comparison.

This small revolver is just a curiosity; the breathless "... and in the eyes of the law was as dangerous as a machine gun ..." is complete nonsense. This device would be a prohibited weapon because of barrel length alone -- not due to some super miniaturized killing power it somehow possesses simply by being tiny and exotic.
RBeezy / May 30, 2008 at 01:51 pm
a gun that small could probably only kill flies and roaches. and it would make a "pew pew!" sound.
mark / May 30, 2008 at 04:00 pm
Grew up watching Charlie's Angels eh? Whatever.

Not that I'm justifying the response from airport security, but it seems more likely that PhD student of Social Political Thought chose to wear the pendant expecting a reaction.
Jordan / May 30, 2008 at 06:59 pm
So...if I'm following the story correctly, this woman was barely inconvenienced?

She had to check an extra bag and didn't miss her flight?

A few people hired to protect the public enforced a policy designed to protect the public (Read: "All metallic objects that cannot easily be examined by X-Ray or other means will be prohibited from the passenger cabin")?

And this somehow means that 'the terrorists have won'?

Come on.

This is not an example of fear-mongering.

It isn't even an example of bureaucratic bungling.

Good policy, enforced well, is all we can ask of our public servants.

And I shouldn't need to point this out, but: it *is* a good policy.

Metallic objects that cannot be easily examined are not just potentially dangerous -- they also take up too much employee time, cause line-ups, produce customer anger, generate complaints and lead to missed flights.

Most jewelry can be very easily examined.

This thing obviously took more than a few seconds to look at and to consider.

That means that it is taking too much time, and should be prohibited.

Customs has to process a thousand people an hour at lots of airports...and, speaking as a frequent flier, little delays like this are fucking terrible for everyone else.

Like I said, good policy.
A / May 31, 2008 at 12:21 am
Most people would consider having to check their carry-on bag quite an inconvenience, assuming they had packed stuff specifically for use on the plane, or they were worried about losing/damaging stuff such as medication, electronics, money. Nevermind that most airlines charge exorbitant fees for a second (or even a first!) checked bag. As someone who never checks luggage if I can help it, I'd be extremely upset if I was forced to do so over some bullshit like this.

Any idiot could have looked at her pendant for a few seconds and deemed it acceptable.
Todd Tyrtle / May 31, 2008 at 06:37 am
It gets crazier. Someone was just turned back at Heathrow for wearing a shirt with a transformer *carrying* a gun.
SuperSparky / May 31, 2008 at 06:58 am
Hey, I have an idea. How about not being a pinhead and wearing jewelry that you obviously knew would be controversial and "push the envelope". How about keeping your bottles under 3 ounces, and pack all metal objects in your check-in luggage. How about leaving your custom iPod battery pack at home, and wear a shirt that isn't going to raise controversy just because you think you are someone special and entitled to make your 5 minutes of fame pointing out "injustices" or "ridiculous" red-tape.

People are just simply trying to catch their flight without having some jackass with a political ax to grind up their ass holding up the line!

The one lacking the common sense was the idiot wearing the jewelry! Duh! It's an airport you moron! Things like bombs and guns aren't funny or cool, even if fake, on jewelry, or on a T-shirt. Keep the politics and comedy away from the airport.

I happen to be glad for the anal-retentive officers. Perhaps, they'll catch the real thing one day. They are far from perfect, but I happen to be glad they are there. I'd sure hate to see another day like 9/11. Oh how memories fade too quickly now days.

Stop your whining and show some adult responsibility for once!
John Doe / May 31, 2008 at 11:15 am
why should we have to make it convenient for the airport employees? we are the ones spending countless hours on a cramped stuffy plane so why cant we carry on comfort items.Why should we pack our carry on with non-metal objects(Seriously what are u going to use on a plane that is metal?). security is there to make us feel safer but if i ever get stopped for wearing a shirt that someone doesn't like i'm gonna bitch like all hell cause its just a damn shirt so what if the guy is holding a gun. What if it was a picture of a police officer holding a gun on that shirt would they still have made him change that? I think that they have taken this WAY to far
sue / May 31, 2008 at 11:58 am
I stumbled upon a similar subject last night but the guy stopped by security was wearing a transformers t shirt depicting a robot with a gun for an arm
B. Gonzalez / May 31, 2008 at 07:32 pm
You are an idiot if you think it was about security. It was about political correctness you dope! Kids get suspended from school for making a gun gesture with their hand. The gun is a symbol of racism and intimidation to liberals - all except the AK-47 anyway.
itsalljustaride / June 2, 2008 at 08:45 pm
"and wear a shirt that isn't going to raise controversy just because you think you are someone special and entitled to make your 5 minutes of fame pointing out "injustices" or "ridiculous" red-tape."

Or how about you wear whatever the fuck you want to since this (and Canada, and the UK) is a free fucking country. How is a t-shirt with a cartoon robot on it threatening? You sir, are a tool. I'm pretty sure this guy just likes the transformers. You know that movie that was in almost every theatre worldwide without so much as a peep about some kind of controversy other than the fact that Michael Bay sucks ass.
Finn Bakker / June 3, 2008 at 05:19 am
"If there *was* a gun that small that could shoot bullets, how damaging could it be?"

Of course, given the logic these people are applying, you don't know that scientists haven't somehow shrunk the power of a STAR down into that baby. For all we know, pulling the trigger causes a BLACK HOLE to envelope us all.

And then, you know, the terrorists win!
Kiki / June 3, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Face it, there are no "terrorists"... the heads of our corporate/military complex are the only real terrorists.
Newfy / June 4, 2008 at 01:37 am
Canadians are so stupid! HA HA HA HA!!
Bill / June 5, 2008 at 02:11 am
There was some kid that was made to take off a t shirt in an airport because it had a picture of megatron on it. Somehow a picture of a cartoon robot with a gun on a t shirt is also dangerous
Curious / June 5, 2008 at 10:51 pm
One can get a doctorate in "Social Political Thought?" That makes underwater basket weaving sound downright practical.
Melissa / June 7, 2008 at 05:30 pm
that was funny but real stupid. The goverment is becoming rediculous over some things.
Brian / June 8, 2008 at 09:47 pm
@Jordan: It may be a good policy sometimes but for situations like this it is extremely foolish. Also a single piece takes virtually no time to look over.@SuperSparky: A shirt is a shirt is a shirt. I do not think I am alone in my practice of wearing whatever shirt I happen to pull out of the drawer first. You are assuming that because the item is controversial than the person in possession of the item has an agenda. The pendant: maybe. The T-shirt: Yeah Right.
Dan / June 9, 2008 at 06:50 am
I applaud the airport authorities for their zero-tolerance approach in policing shitty jewelery.
Damas / June 10, 2008 at 06:43 pm
I had the same thing happen to me while i was trying to fly from London to Shannon airport, but in my case I had a belt buckle with rhinestone studded six shooters on it.

They offered to put it in my checked luggage for 15 pounds or confiscate it. The belt buckle wasn't even worth that much, so the whole situation seemed ridiculous, just like this.
cribcat / June 11, 2008 at 10:48 am
She looks dangerous to me.
Anon / June 14, 2008 at 03:49 am
a few weeks ago, i forgot to take my knife out of my purse before going to the airport. i got through with no problem, and i didnt even know i had it on me until i was home. airport security is useless.
misc. / June 15, 2008 at 04:17 pm
<a href="";><;/a>

even more shocking in my opinion
Dan / June 16, 2008 at 06:59 am
I sell earrings identical to this necklace in my online shop:

I never dreamed this could happen!
Ane / June 16, 2008 at 09:55 am
The EXACT thing happened to me here in Norway to. I had a Final Fantasy sword/gun jewelery on me and the took it away from me ):
Harrison / October 4, 2008 at 10:30 pm
THis is no joke, when I flew out of Kelowna I was forced to surrender to flies, for fly fishing. Hooks so small that it is almost impossible to stick yourself.
brefeliacealo / November 13, 2008 at 05:27 am
Buy remedy medications at our drugstore without a remedy. We hawk trade-mark-celebrity and compel generic equivalents of FDA standards approved recipe drugs at the end of one's tether with fully-licensed overseas pharmacies.

from stem to stern our growing network of intercontinental pharmacies, you can redeem up to 70% on generic and mark-personage medications. position generics manufactured on management certified facilities which muster or outrun the highest US chow and medicine authority and rapturous trim structure standards.

Whenever you city an society with, you can lean confirm that you are receiving the highest property medications dispensed by fully licensed and competent druggist's professionals. All medications being dispensed from our cosmopolitan pharmacies see or outrun the highest US subsistence and medicament oversight and humankind condition format standards.
clemm / January 24, 2009 at 01:17 am
If we all exercised our right to bear arms, and carried a gun everywhere all the time, this would not even be an issue. Alot of this was the result of 9/11. We got caught with our pants down. If the people on those planes had known from the start what was going on, I don't think it would have ever happened. I don't believe it can ever happen again. Armed or not I believe American Patriots will fight back from the start. Those people are true heroes. They gave their lives in war against this country the same as any other war heroes. They just didn't know they were in a war at that time. We must stand strong. and we must not trade off our rights for security, riches, or any other reason that might sound good at the time. Its our rights, as they stand that has kept this country strong. Country's and city's that enforce strict security, have more criminal and terrorist activity than those that don't. In my opinion anyone that wants total government security and control, is free to move to any of the many countries that already have such security measures. I like my freedom, leave my country alone.
James Smith / February 5, 2009 at 09:58 am
One thing this does show is that airport security employs people so stupid that they otherwise could not get a job.

I am not a professional terrorist, but I can think of many ways to get a weapon on an airplane and none of the security rules would even slightly inconvenience me. What do you think a real terrorist could do? The security people are so amazingly stupid I wonder how they find their way to work every day.
CORELLIE replying to a comment from Angie McKaig / February 9, 2009 at 01:49 am
Jim Smith / February 9, 2009 at 06:20 am
Corellie, you have made what is arguably the most stupid comment on this or any other subject I have seen.

I suppose if you are wearing an item that is offensive to me, I can demand that you remove it.

For example, a shirt with religious connotations. After all, it is religion that has caused the terrorist problem to start with. So if you wear anything religious, it is offensive and carries "certain connotations" and to "preserve a certain aura" and a "certain non violent atmosphere" you must remove it. I don't care if it is christian, jewish, isalmic, or whatever. All have connotations of violence. Off it comes!
Sean / April 29, 2009 at 06:50 pm
I'm more worried about getting tasered to death at a B.C. airport than some chic wearing jewelry.
Commenting has been disabled on this post.
Other Cities: Montreal