the legal argument i'm using is going to rely on the precedent that came out of the case that legalized abortion in canada, and it's a different argument than in the united states.

stated tersely, what the decision in morgantaler stated was that if the state isn't going to provide for timely access to abortion, then it needs to eliminate all regulation around it because the amount of time it was taking to process decisions was infringing on the right to "security of the person". the court basically told the government to speed the process up or abolish the law - and the government eventually abolished the law (after a standoff in the senate, which isn't supposed to happen). this precedent has created some issues around the legality of the monopoly on health insurance in the country.

i want to apply this to travel rights. my argument is that because i didn't do anything wrong - and the case was completely withdrawn - it follows that any delays on deleting the prints are completely unjustified and a consequent infringement of s. 6, which states that canadian citizens have the right to leave the country. the precedent would state that if the government cannot speed the process up, the law should be abolished, so long as the infringement is not justified. but, who could argue the infringement is justified?

that would give the government the choice between speeding this up or rewriting it's legislation around fingerprinting.

the technology exists to delete these prints within minutes. there is no reason it should take months, and i should be compensated for it if it does.

i still don't know if the prints are accessible or not. this argument won't work if they aren't, but if they are then i will refuse to travel until they are destroyed, and send the government the bill for it.