Racial profiling

[bluedevils]

and how many of you are on the recieving end of racial profiling? I was just talking to a co-worker of mine yesterday. He rolls down all his windows and puts his hands out the window when apporaching police road blocks. It is sad that this type of stuff happens. I don't think it is right, but I can't say I know what the police have to face everyday as well.

To me this type of issue cannot be black or white (no pun intended at all) and must be carefully weighed in the grey.

[Rhisiart]

Originally Posted by fryke

Is this really a honest question? (Replying to the first post...) Of course you have to screen everyone the same way. I don't understand how people start to throw every inch of their humanity over board only because "the other side" does. I thought this was taught in kindergarten.

Yes, it is an honest question. Racial profiling is apparently what many security experts want (and most likely already practice). They are not suggesting that screening does not apply to everyone, but rather that extra measures may have to be taken for young Muslim men, regardless of their racial ethnicity (i.e. including East-European Muslims).

Is racial profiling unfair? What if White Supremists were on the rampage, attempting to kill as many non-Christians as they can. What if they planned to bomb airlines, subway trains or fly planes into skyscrapers? As a white male faced with this threat I would quite happily submit myself to whatever extra security checks were necessary, regardless of what country I live in. I wouldn’t take it personally.

In numerous polls, nearly a quarter of young Muslim males in Britain showed support for the bombing of London, Madrid and 9/11. With figures like these, what on earth are the security forces expected to do? To imply that those responsible for passenger safety have lost their humanity is a lazy argument. Neither you nor I have to make such difficult decisions. In the opinion of those assigned to protect us, pragmatism over-rides cultural and religious sensitivities.

Looking at the wider picture, my own view is that Bush and Blair are as much as part of the problem as some young Muslim males. Islamic radicalism preceded Bush and Blair’s legacy, but these two deluded idiots have worked damn hard to create exactly the right conditions to allow it to flourish. Perhaps a change of leadership and a radical change of foreign policy in the Middle East might obviate the need for draconian security measures at our airports.

[Cat]

It might be idealistic, but things like consitutions, which are at the base of our democracies, are based on ideals. When we stop following them, we become no better than totalitarian oppressive regimes. Of course it is a slippery slope, so we may argue back and forth until it is too late.

Is racial profiling unfair? What if White Supremists were on the rampage, attempting to kill as many non-Christians as they can. What if they planned to bomb airlines, subway trains or fly planes into skyscrapers? As a white male faced with this threat I would quite happily submit myself to whatever extra security checks were necessary, regardless of what country I live in. I wouldn’t take it personally.

This reverses the legal situation. You are taking steps to prove your innocence instead of the accusers taking steps to prove your guilt. By officially sanctioning racial profiling as a security policy, we declare a part of the population as unequal to the rest and treat them differently: we criminalise them, we assume guilt instead of innocence. Pro-active, pre-emptive justice is done. Even if there is no crime, we actively go looking for evidence to condemn them. At that point we have already sacrificed our human dignity, so what is left to protect? What are we saving and kepping secure by perverting it? Freedom? Democracy? We are losing them step by step with very little neeed for terrorists to actually blow up things. If you start fighting back by becoming an undemocratic police state, then you have already lost. Being a democracy means being vulnerable. Accepting to die for you ideals involves accepting the risk of being blown up by extremists rather than taking up arms against them. Already the romans discovered that normal warfare can never best guerrilla tactics. It is a useless waste of values, life and resources. This translates very concretely and pratically into amounts of money spent versus results obtained. I repeat: bullets are an expense, food and education an investment. The war has caused more loss of life and money than all succeful terrorist attacks up to now. Can't you think of a more efficient way of dealing with the situation?

[Rhisiart]

Cat, you make a very intelligent and convincing argument here. Yes we ought to show more courage, behave in an ethical manner and thus defy those that wish to terrorise us. As far as thinking of a more effient way of dealing with the situation, I will give that some thought.

I assume the war you refer to is Iraq, which is undoubtedly a total waste of life and resources, all in the name of Bush and Blair's Christian fundamentalist idea of democracy-making.

However, it is difficult to marry the need to hold the sort of convictions that you display (and you are of course right), with the day to day fear that some lunatic somewhere, white, brown or black, wants to kill your children in the belief that God will reward him in Paradise.

Nevertheless, I agree with what you have said in principle, and principles are important if we want to live in a fair and equitable society.

However if I am sitting on a plane with my family next to two agitiated Pakistani young men, I will watch them like a hawk. I don't mind dying for the ideals you aspire to, but I would do everything in my power to ensure my kids aren't going to.

[Qion]

Originally Posted by Cat

This reverses the legal situation. You are taking steps to prove your innocence instead of the accusers taking steps to prove your guilt. By officially sanctioning racial profiling as a security policy, we declare a part of the population as unequal to the rest and treat them differently: we criminalise them, we assume guilt instead of innocence.

You're not really taking any "steps" to prove anything. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. We're not talking about strip-searches and full-body cavity checks, we're talking about running you over with a wand, having a pat-down, and going through your pockets. That seems fairly "human" to me, as it's potentially *saving* the lives that would have been lost.

Originally Posted by Cat

Accepting to die for you ideals involves accepting the risk of being blown up by extremists rather than taking up arms against them. Already the romans discovered that normal warfare can never best guerrilla tactics. It is a useless waste of values, life and resources. This translates very concretely and pratically into amounts of money spent versus results obtained. I repeat: bullets are an expense, food and education an investment. The war has caused more loss of life and money than all succeful terrorist attacks up to now. Can't you think of a more efficient way of dealing with the situation?

Sure, you just said it. Die. Die for our ideals, die for the very thing which you purport is saving us. Maybe in the long run Cat, but we're talking about profiling right now.

Like rhsiart said, I think you have a good argument. I guess the reason I'm arguing is because it's a bit off-topic. I would love to be able to lean back on philosophy and live idealistically all the time, but that doesn't mean I won't protect my family from a lunatic with an AK and the idea that killing me will send them to heaven. That's just not my type of thing to die for.

[billbaloney]

Originally Posted by Qion

You're not really taking any "steps" to prove anything. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. We're not talking about strip-searches and full-body cavity checks, we're talking about running you over with a wand, having a pat-down, and going through your pockets. That seems fairly "human" to me, as it's potentially *saving* the lives that would have been lost.

You may want to discuss the concept of the "slippery slope" with Cat, the resident academic philosopher. Here in the United States we have a seemingly endless number of instances these days of the over-application of what Congress thought it approved, or what "the people" thought they asked for.

The problem, Qion, is you never get what you want. If you think you want a racially-driven yet mild regime of extra inspection for the dark-skinned among us, what you really get is a racially-charged situation where an entire population gets painted with the brush of suspicion, which inevitably leads to fear, misunderstanding, and hate on both sides. And that, of course, leads to less security.

For instance: perhaps you'd like to take a walk through a high school in one of the poor neighborhoods in the Bronx, where because the population is overwhelmingly people of color there are guards at each door, metal detectors, and a general feeling of "control the black kids, they're all potentially gangsters". Perhaps your advice for them is, "Well, most gang members in America are black and in cities; so you should accept this if you really want to help make society safer."

Do you see why that's a bad argument? It's not because you can't make a logical argument in favor of it; witness the painstakingly constructed essays on the right in the United States in favor of just this kind of racial profiling. It's because principles themselves have real-world effects, and those effects can undermine other, more important principles.

In America we interned every Japanese citizen during WWII. The logic was sound:

1. The Japanese are attacking us.
2. The Japanese could have spies among the U.S. population.
3. These spies are most likely Japanese.
4. If we intern every Japanese person in America, we have most likely interned any possible Japanese spies.

The results undermined more important principles, i.e., our constitutional defenses regarding equal protection, search and seizure, and the inalienable right to liberty.

[Qion]

Look, I'm not a moron. I understand fine what Cat has to say. My entire argument was based upon the fact that this is a situational topic, not a world topic. "Should we allow racial profiling in airports in Britain for this particular event?" Hell yes! Where are you coming from, lecturing to me about American history and insinuating that I don't understand the potential outcomes of a racist society? Hello, we're not talking about a worldwide society! We're talking about some bloody airports! Would you really like to get into some ugly, political, nationalistic, racist, byast, religious, humanitarian argument with me? Go ahead... but damn... make sure you understand where somebody is coming from before you go off on a tangent and lecture to them like they've never taken a history course before.

[billbaloney]

I'm not making an argument about your intelligence. I am arguing that you can't ask this question -- "Should we allow racial profiling in airports in Britain for this particular event?" -- in isolation.

To ask the question and demand that it be answered strictly per se is disingenuous, or impossible, or both. My point about high schools in the Bronx, and Japanese internment, is that they both represent situations where society has tried, and failed, to implement an "isolated" policy of racial profiling.

Perhaps you can suggest, as a student of history, a situation where racial profiling was implemented as part of an isolated policy that had no far-reaching and negative side effects, and that achieved its stated goal.