Nine Saudi tourists visiting Los Angeles last week were picked up by the police and held for interrogation all because someone thought they looked “suspicious”. After being questioned, they were released. It’s doubtful whether sightseeing Scandinavians would ever find themselves in the same boat.
In November last year, a passenger on a US Airways flight raised concerns about six American Muslim scholars who had prayed before take-off. The complaint resulted in the men being detained for several hours, questioned and told they were banned from flying on US Airways.
In August 2006, a plane winging its way from Amsterdam to Mumbai was actually escorted back to its airport of origin by F-16 fighter jets ostensibly because a party of Indians had with them notebook computers and cell phones.
A similar sort of profiling took place at London airports following the recent attacks. Most cars being stopped and thoroughly checked on the approach to those airports were those being driven by people of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance.
The British government appears to have quietly altered its policy on racial profiling. New security czar Adm. Sir Alan West recently urged Britons to slough off their national characteristic of never telling tales in favor of being prepared to snitch on their neighbors, which when translated means their Muslim neighbors.
This isn’t exactly British, he said, but “anyone who’s got any information should say something because the people we are talking about are trying to destroy our way of life”.
Sir Alan missed the irony in his statement. What he is basically asking his compatriots to do is to change not only their way of life but their national character in order to prevent others from attempting to do the same.
The problem with inviting people to snitch and poke their noses uninvited into other people’s business is that it opens the doors to racists, troublemakers, zealot do-gooders and pranksters to cause havoc among Muslim communities.
This will also leave Muslim families vulnerable when a simple argument with a vindictive neighbor or a revengeful former friend could end up with their home being raided by police in chemical suits.
The consequences of snitching could even be lethal as 24-year-old Mohammed Abdul Kahar can attest. A year ago, he woke up to the screams of his younger brother. Assuming the house was being robbed, he slowly walked downstairs clad only in boxer shorts and T-shirt, when he suddenly heard a big bang and realized he had been shot.
He was then dragged down the rest of the stairs by people he thought were burglars and was only informed that they were police once he was face down in agony on the street outside. He claims the police beat him after they shot him. He was “lucky” in that the bullet just missed his heart.
The brothers were held by the anti-terrorist squad until their innocence became apparent. Whoever had tipped them off had either deliberately or accidentally got it wrong.
When free the brothers held a press conference and demanded an apology. “I’m a law-abiding citizen,” said Kahar. “I was born and bred in east London and I love my town”. My own crime is being Asian and Muslim, he said.
The people who argue in favor of racial profiling often cite Israel, which unashamedly racially profiles travelers and citizens and claims doing so has kept the country relatively safe. Before flying on the Israeli national carrier El Al, for instance, travelers are asked whether they know anyone in Israel or in the occupied territories and if they answer with the name of a Muslim friend, family member or acquaintance, they are subjected to extra security measures.
Profiling, say its proponents, eliminates large queues at airports and targets the people considered most likely to offend. They say little old white ladies are such low risk that it’s not worth wasting time frisking them down.
The anti-profiling camp, on the other hand, maintains racial profiling is deeply offensive to the very people and communities needed to help with the fight against terrorism. We need those communities on our side, they say, but if they feel under siege they are not likely to be cooperative...and who can blame them?
There is also the argument among security experts as to whether profiling is the way to go. For instance, profiling would not have prevented Richard Reid dubbed “the Shoe Bomber” from boarding his flight as he is a Briton with Anglo Saxon/Jamaican origins.
And it’s worth recalling a 1986 incident when a bomb was detected in the luggage of a pregnant Irish woman, which she said her boyfriend had placed in her bag without her knowledge.
If wannabe terrorists know they are certain to be racially profiled, then they will surely go out of their way to recruit people who will slide under the radar by reason of their ethnicity, age, sex or profession.
In fact, “the doctors of death” as they have been dubbed by some of the British newspapers were thought of as “clean skins” or men without criminal records not considered to be high risk due to their profession. Their involvement in the attempted attacks on London and Glasgow airport came as a complete surprise to Britain’s security and intelligence forces.
American and British authorities must consider another factor before racially profiling citizens and visitors. In America such profiling runs contrary to the US Constitution, while Britain is constrained by human rights laws and opposition from human rights organizations.
In countries where the ugly face of racism is ever present beneath the surface I believe that everyone should be treated equally even if this means inconvenience for all. Once we start picking on people because of their color, dress or ethnicity, we’re on a very slippery and dangerous slope.
