Submitted by Yardbroom
“Racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a “predictable” manner” – Wikipedia
The recent landing of an American commercial airliner at Detroit Airport in America and the subsequent arrest of a Muslim man, a 23 year old Nigerian national, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and an “allegation” made that he had explosives sewn into his underpants, has caused governments on both sides of the Atlantic and farther afield, to re-examine airport security arrangements.
Governments in Europe and America are at the vanguard in considering full-body scanners which display an image of traveller’s naked form on a screen for airport staff to scrutinise. Apart from the indignity, embarrassment, religious and cultural issues involved the question of human rights have yet to be addressed.
Reports indicate that Amsterdam, Schipol airport is to install 17 scanners, the European Commission have not as yet given their approval. With some machines having been tested at Heathrow and Manchester airports and with Prime Minister Gordon Brown not registering any disapproval; BAA let it be known that they will install the machines as quickly as possible in England.
It has been said that because of the time required to process passengers through airport security systems, some measure of profiling will have to be done for an effective system to operate. With the word “profiling” being used by some, although not by Governments at the moment – Shama Chakrabarti director of Civil Liberties UK stated: “Whether on the street or at the terminal suspicious behaviour is a sensible basis for search by policing professionals: race or religion is not.”
An argument can be made that there is no speculation of the profile of the persons committing certain acts, they have been apprehended and have readily confessed, so on clear proven evidence there is no doubt.
The question can be posed would it be fair to a specific religious, ethnic or racial group to be subjected to such intrusive full-body screening on the basis that they fit the profile, would they have reasonable grounds to be aggrieved. Some would say that that discomfort has to be weighed against the protection of a wider public.
Most of us are travellers and use aircraft but even if we are not, could it be reasonable say to profile a certain religious or ethnic group in Barbados because of a belief that they are more likely than others outside the profile, to engage in drug taking or other unlawful activities? Profiling has not got to be only about full-body scanners at airports.
When Governments make important decisions they must consider that minorities can become permanently disadvantaged if those decisions are arbitrarily taken in haste; under the guise of being for the greater public good. Does that mean decisions should never be taken that impact on the rights of minority groups? No it does not.
What it does mean is that a measured approach is necessary and it should be evident to any “reasonable” person, that such has been taken.
When that has been achieved there is less latitude to accommodate and fewer fountains from which to flow; those who unmercifully seek to destroy the way of life we enjoy; and show no evidence of being able to replace it with something better.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.