Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Flying this past summer, I was pulled over for one of those random, in-depth searches: shoes off and so on. Although my mother would object, it is possible that superficially, I could be mistaken for a terrorist. But beside me, there was an older WASP woman also selected who could only be a terrorist in some parallel universe. I wondered why everyone's time was being wasted. Why not use "indicators" to check certain people more thoroughly?

Returning to Canada, it was obvious to me that Canada Customs profiles people for luggage checks.

There have been several murders in Toronto this past summer and many of them seem to be young black men killing young black men. To catch the criminals, it has been suggested that police make spot checks of (target or profile) young black men. Many disagree with this idea.

The State has monopoly powers and these powers must be restricted if the individual is to remain free. This is the logic underpinning Trudeau's Charter of Rights and the US Bill of Rights. Both documents limit the powers of the State. The US version refers to "unreasonable search and seizure". Ours refers to "equal benefit of the law without discrimination".

But it seems dumb to ignore useful information when trying to catch a criminal.

I read an article recently which made me think differently about this.

First, detaining 14 Middle Eastern men is neither more nor less an infringement of civil liberties than detaining 14 passengers chosen at random. Either way, 14 people have their liberty infringed.
True. But I thought... Is it fair that innocent Middle Eastern men (or innocent young Black men in Toronto) must bear the cost of these searches? The author had a suggestion:
Second, just because you detain particular people, it doesn't follow that you've got to treat them unfairly. Being detained and questioned is a burden; it's inconvenient and it's demeaning. But there's no reason that burden has to be borne entirely by the detainees. To spread the burden, all the airlines have to do is give each detainee a $100 bill for his trouble.

Landsburg - Slate

I don't know if this particular solution is feasible for random searches for guns but maybe the solution's principle can be used.

Posted
Flying this past summer, I was pulled over for one of those random, in-depth searches: shoes off and so on.  Although my mother would object, it is possible that superficially, I could be mistaken for a terrorist.  But beside me, there was an older WASP woman also selected who could only be a terrorist in some parallel universe.  I wondered why everyone's time was being wasted.  Why not use "indicators" to check certain people more thoroughly?

On the surface it makes sense that if you're looking for terrorists you should be stopping Arabs and Pakistanis. That's where the terrorism is coming from. It certainly makes no sense to be pulling elderly women and hot blonde chicks out of the line to check out more closely. Well--- maybe the hot blonde chicks :P

But it leads to a situation where if you happen to look arab or pakistani, much less if you ARE Arab or pakistani, you're going to face hassles wherever you go (which is probably happening anyway), even though its entirely undeserved in your case. This is why so-called racial profiling is frowned upon. In cities, it leads to young black men being pulled over by police far too frequently, so that they build up a resentment towards police and society. I mean, if wherever you go people eye you suspiciously, and any cop nearby wanders over to ask your business, how welcome are you going to feel?

On the other side of the equation, shouldn't the population of young men from the middle east and Pakistan bear some of the burden for the largely undenounced behaviour of their brethren? Suicide bombing is supported by all too many in the Muslim world, terrorism by all too many more, and religious fanaticism by millions, tens of millions, really, with many tens of millions of more at least tacitly in support. One of the London bombers was returned "home" to Pakistan for burial, btw, and his burial was attended by thousands of people who treated him as a hero.

As for young black men in Toronto - why is it that whenever you have a club which features hip-hop or reggae you're going to have shootings and stabbings? Why does there have to be a murder every year at Carribana? Why does much street crime involve young black men in a city which is made up of so many different races and ethnic groups? What is it about the culture of young black men which causes this year after year after year? And do they not bear a burden for society's efforts at reigning in this kind of violence?

There really isn't a good answer. I'd suggest young black men who are dressed ghetto and gang style, or even slovenly or casual, probably get stopped a lot more often than young men of any other ethnic group. And I don't see any human way of doing anything about this. It's only natural. And it's been shown to happen in cities all over North American, and by cops of all races. Even Black cops are more likely to consider young black men suspicious than young white men.

For me, when it comes to guys likely to blow up airplanes, do the profiling. If you're arab or Pakistani and don't like that, well, sorry.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted
On the other side of the equation, shouldn't the population of young men from the middle east and Pakistan bear some of the burden for the largely undenounced behaviour of their brethren?

By this logic, middle aged white guys from the US should bear the burden of the decisions made by Bush et al, and therefore actions taken by Middle Eastern regimes against them are justified. After all, they all look alike, don't they?

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

Nelson Mandela

Posted
By this logic, middle aged white guys from the US should bear the burden of the decisions made by Bush et al, and therefore actions taken by Middle Eastern regimes against them are justified.
Well, Melanie, the middle aged white guys have paid for Bush's decisions - through their taxes. Now, before you say that taxes and money are not comparable to the lives of 2,000 young Americans, think again. By paying those extra taxes, the middle aged white guys have had less to pay for medical insurance (private as we all know in the US). As a result, some of those middle aged white guys died earlier than they otherwise would have. The US has 300 million people - more than 10,000 die every day.

More important, did you read the Slate article?

What if people who suffered the hassle and insult of searches were compensated - but the rest of us had to cough up the dough?

If Northwest had had a policy like that on Annie Jacobsen's flight, it would have paid out $1,400 to the 14 Syrians. Assuming there were another 200 passengers on that board, they could have covered that cost with a $7 hike in ticket prices.

I am guessing that Annie Jacobsen would have been thrilled to pay a $7 surcharge for the comfort of knowing that her Syrian co-passengers had been thoroughly vetted before takeoff. The Syrian musicians, in turn, would have picked up a hundred bucks apiece in exchange for, oh, 15 minutes or so of answering questions. How many musicians do you know who would turn down a gig at that hourly rate?

The idea is win-win all around.

Posted
On the other side of the equation, shouldn't the population of young men from the middle east and Pakistan bear some of the burden for the largely undenounced behaviour of their brethren?

By this logic, middle aged white guys from the US should bear the burden of the decisions made by Bush et al, and therefore actions taken by Middle Eastern regimes against them are justified. After all, they all look alike, don't they?

Apparently you are unfamilar with the term "logic". Perhaps a cursory lesson might be in order.

You can, to some degree, hold Americans responsible for the actions of their government, given they elect it. If you could demonstrate that Bush's actions logically led to any kind of real justification for the "actions taken by Middle Eastern regimes against them" you might have some kind of point, though I'm not entirely sure what kind. However, the actions taken by Bush were in response to actions already taken against them, sooooo, what you seem to be trying to say is that "logic" would hold the actions taken against Americans to be retroactively proper because of the actions taken by Bush in response ot them.

Maybe you could have another try?

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

I'm just trying to follow your logic, not agreeing with it. If any young man of middle eastern origin is to be held accountable for the actions of others, doesn't it follow that any middle aged white American should be held responsible for the actions of other middle aged white Americans?

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

Nelson Mandela

Posted

August - my 13 year old daughter is flying by herself for the first time in a couple of weeks; I'm paying the extra $ for a flight attendant to accompany her, even though she is past the age for it (to her immortal embarrassment, I am told). If there were an extra charge for extra security, I would gladly pay it, even though I know that there are no guarantees. I wonder how the people who would be targetted for this program will feel about it, though? My husband and son would likely be stopped each time, and both would laugh and take the cash, easy money. Maybe that would be the reaction of some, or even most; I can't say. But I think it opens the door to racial profiling in other areas, and it casts suspicion on everyone who is not white. You may argue that the suspicion is already cast and this is just a response to it, but it legitimizes discrimination.

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

Nelson Mandela

Posted
August - my 13 year old daughter is flying by herself for the first time in a couple of weeks; I'm paying the extra $ for a flight attendant to accompany her, even though she is past the age for it (to her immortal embarrassment, I am told).
Is it non-stop? Transfer? Who is at the other end? International? - If it's a first time, I would do the same as you, without question.
If there were an extra charge for extra security, I would gladly pay it, even though I know that there are no guarantees.
I would hate to make the choice: standard security or superior security. I would hate more to make the choice if her friends knew my choice.
My husband and son would likely be stopped each time, and both would laugh and take the cash, easy money. Maybe that would be the reaction of some, or even most; I can't say.
Easy money? Well, that's the point. If young black man in Toronto laugh about being stopped for gun checks because it's "easy money", then that's one problem solved for ordinary people in Toronto.

Now then, if young black men in Toronto start approaching police cars to get the "easy money", then Toronto taxpayers may have another problem.

Posted
I'm just trying to follow your logic, not agreeing with it. If any young man of middle eastern origin is to be held accountable for the actions of others, doesn't it follow that any middle aged white American should be held responsible for the actions of other middle aged white Americans?

Certainly. That's why I pointed out that you could indeed use a sort of community blame against Americans for the actions of the government they elect. However, you can't put the cart before the horse. Bush's actions are in response to attacks on Americans, not the cause of them. The first attempt to take down the WTC happened well before his time.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

RE::on the surface it makes sense that if you're looking for terrorists you should be stopping Arabs and Pakistanis. That's where the terrorism is coming from.

I guess a Timothy McViegh type terrorist would slip by your security EH? :angry:

Posted

RE::Bush's actions are in response to attacks on Americans, not the cause of them.

I believe all of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia that flew those planes into the WTC!

So Bush attacks Iraq????

I can understand Afghanistan because that was in fact a terrorist training ground!

Now Bush is thinking about attacking Iran.

WOW!!! Smart boy!!!

Posted
I'm just trying to follow your logic, not agreeing with it. If any young man of middle eastern origin is to be held accountable for the actions of others, doesn't it follow that any middle aged white American should be held responsible for the actions of other middle aged white Americans?

Certainly. That's why I pointed out that you could indeed use a sort of community blame against Americans for the actions of the government they elect. However, you can't put the cart before the horse. Bush's actions are in response to attacks on Americans, not the cause of them. The first attempt to take down the WTC happened well before his time.

You may be able to hold all voters, and non voters, responsible for the government they elect, and the actions the government chooses. But can you really hold people responsible for the actions of others just because they share a skin colour, or a country of origin? I have origins in Ireland, but that doesn't make me an IRA supporter, and I don't feel I should be held accountable for their actions. Suggesting that all young men who can trace their ancestry to the Middle East are accountable for terrorism is equally absurd.

August - I am being maybe a bit over the top here - it's a nonstop, domestic flight. She's flown several times with us, but never alone, so she will just have to endure my paranoia; you know that the word "mother" is embedded in the word "smother", after all!

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

Nelson Mandela

Posted

The controversy about racial profiling is simply because it involves one of our hot-button sensitivities around race. If experience and intelligence observed that all terrorist were wearing gang colours, would we have an objection if they detained anyone with gang colours? Would that be discrimination?

Our discomfort with racial profiling is not because it is not practical or that it doesn't make sense (because it does), it is because of the implications and where such a policy may lead.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,927
    • Most Online
      1,554

    Newest Member
    BTDT
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...