The recent events in the United Kingdom have brought, yet again, the debate about profiling to the fore. Advocates argue that because much of the terrorism witnessed in the world since September 11 has originated with Muslims, it makes sense to focus attention on Muslims that might be boarding planes or public transport. The argument is that, given finite resources, it is better to expend those resources checking people who belong to one of the several ethnic and religious groups with a known association with terrorism or politically-motivated violence. On the other hand, the argument opposing profiles can be distilled down to these points: if you target Arab males, terrorists will recognise your ‘blind spot’ and start using non-Arab women or teenagers as suicide bombers; and it is an undesirable infringement of our civil liberties to subject specific ethnic or religious groups to special attention in this manner.
In any case, in order for it to be effective, the government would need to know the religion (and political persuasion) of a person before they board a plane. This may be easy in the case of women in hijab but not in the case of Muslim men who are often indistinguishable from non-Muslim men. Therefore, such schemes would work most effectively if people’s religion was recorded on their passport. This raises a number of further issues: what would compel a person to record their religion truthfully given religion is ultimately a personal matter and simply the adoption of certain ideas and rites; and can we stomach a society where each of us is walking around with a document marked ‘Jew’ or ‘Muslim’. I think not.
Now before I continue, I am not suggesting that profiling is effective or that it wouldn’t open up a new and potentially more dangerous security blind spot. Personally, I’m opposed to it fo reasons of pragmatism, effectiveness and, of course, fairness. However, if a government is going to subject Muslims to increased scrutiny simply because we fit some vague ‘profile’, then they should at least pay us for it. For this reason, one can conceive of a system that would possibly ‘work’: compensate people that are searched or subjected to increased scrutiny with money. For example, the government could provide everyone that was quizzed for 15 minutes with a cheque for $100 or an amount dependent upon the time taken to conduct the interview. Firstly, this would mean that people subjected to such scrutiny would, at least theoretically, feel less resentful and upset by the experience. Secondly, it means that the ‘cost’ of this additional security is being shared by all taxpayers and not just by Muslims and those who look like Muslims.
There are, of course, some details that would need to be resolved. The setting of the compensation is difficult because how does one calculate a rate of payment that would ensure that the majority of profiled travellers are not left feeling disgruntled by the process? This could be achieved by offering a focus group of travellers — across profiled and non-profiled groups — the opportunity to denote the minimum amount they would require in order to be happy being searched or interviewed. There are possibly other methods to discover an appropriate price, but this seems the simplest.
I would be interested in learning what our readers — particularly the Muslims — think. Would you be happy being profiled if you knew that you were going to be paid an acceptable amount of money for the trouble? Or do you think that this would be an incentive for non-Muslim travellers to behave suspiciously in order to earn a quick $100? Or, would this see a sudden rush of Muslim air travellers resulting in the system being overloaded? Or would no amount of money properly compensate for the humiliation or loss of dignity associated with the process?
(Note: In case it isn’t clear, I’m not actually advocating profiling nor do I think it’s a good thing. I’m merely interested in understanding whether a balance can be found between the demands of some of these “security experts” and our own desire not to be treated differently to everyone else in public.)
12 comments ↓
Bro, I hope you understand the huge comedic potential of this essay
Perhaps, but my point is that if people are going to subject us (Muslims) to extra scrutiny and impose on us additional delays when boarding planes, they should, at least, pay for it.
You cannot put a price on the dignity of a people.
Also, I feel that by condoning any of these unreasonable measures Muslims perpetuate the myth that all terrorists belong to us. In such trying times even if the measures were deemed reasonable the majority of muslims will reject them out of hand citing another example of injustice by western governments.
How many more band-aids need a nation wear?
Abu Shaheedah, I agree. I doubt the government would ever pass such laws in Australia as I think even the Attorney-General realises that such measures won’t really make us safer. I’m also not sure that the issue has much traction with ‘ordinary Australians’; many of whom would also find themselves being subjected to further investigation because they look swarthy or were carrying carpets with foreign patterns in their luggage.
The other point worth making is that even though we don’t have a official policy of ethnic profiling, people get profiled all the time. For example, citizens arriving in Australia from certain countries often get quizzed about what they were doing there after they pass through passport control at the airport.
Whether we like it or not, it will happen and we wont be compensated for it. They majority of terrorists today are Muslims, so it may seem logical to target Muslims in order to cease terrorism. Sooner or later we will all be wearing badges.It happened to the Jews under Nazi Germany, it will happen to the Muslims under Western Democracies.
Believe it or not, I actually think that may not be a bad idea at all. If you gave each person a coupon for a discount on their next flight or some other compensation option, more people (Muslim and non-Muslim) would want to go through the tougher security therefore bringing more security.
I don’t think that giving a discount coupon on the next flight would cause more people to fly. (If it did, then that would be good for the airline industry)
People would plan to travel lighter and opt for the high security.
This is sort of similar to Steve Sailer’s “buyout plan” which I don’t find to be a bad idea:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051106_buyout.htm
Tariq, the issue is whether people can be singled out and interviewed in such a way that they don’t feel humiliated. I suspect if someone was dragged off in chains, for example, no amount of money would compensate. Assuming it could be done without offending a person and they received appropriate compensation for their troubles, then it might work.
I was actually going to write something about Sailer’s Buyout Plan. For some people, it would probably give them an opportunity to make hijra or return to the Old Country that they might otherwise have never been able to afford. There are plenty of people that hate living in the West and would love to go overseas to live. The key here, of course, is that any such plan would need to be completely non-coercive otherwise it would be oppressive and unjust.
Tariq: How can more security be brought by ordinary citizens volunteering themselves for more stringent security checks? All that would do is provide an illusion of security, which seems something the government prefers as it allows more opportunities for exploitation.
Imagine effective security measures which deal with the root cause of the problems? But that would be to easy and would afford the people a few extra brain cells to actually think about life.
Abu Shaheedah:
Like Amir, I look at this from a pragmatic point of view. Something must be done to prevent terror attacks. And I agree that profiling, as an official policy, will not work in that the terrorists will get someone who does not fit the profile. (How many blue eyed, blond haired, very European looking Syrians are there for example?)
Amir:
Here in America (depending on security level) people are randomly selected to go through extra hand wanding, take their shoes off and their carry on luggage is searched.
I envisioned a process in which the person would voluntarily select the above process.
I don’t mind going through the above process if I’m selected. I have been selected at times, and other times I have not. But then again, I don’t fit the ‘profile’ (Arab)
I look at all of it as an unfortunate fact of life. Yes, the vast vast majority or Muslims have no intention to commit any harm, but I am willing to go through the process *IF* it will protect us from another attack. Even better to get some compensation
But, in the end this is all theoretical
It just wont work. The assumption here is that you can tell, by looking at someone, that they are a Muslim.
Sorry, but I am blond haired, blue eyed, 6′2″ tall, born in Germany, carry an American passport, and I am a Muslim. Alhamdulillah.
If you look at me on a normal day you’d be more likely to think I am a biker(I have tattoos), red neck, or if I am in business clothes, just a normal “John Doe.”
Dig deeper, and you would see the things that CANNOT be seen by profiling. I am a Muslim convert of 8 years, I am married to a Saudi woman, I speak Arabic, I have traveled all over the world, and have two new boys.
I have a Western name, I have government and military ID. There are a lot more of us out here than some might think. If they think profiling will make them safe, they are lulling themselves into a false security.
It wont work. Their time and money would be better spent getting to the roots of the issue, and no that is not Hizb’Allah, Hamas, or Muslim extremism. It is the despots in the “Islamic” world and Western foreign policy.
Nice blog, by the way.
Assalamu ‘alaykum
I comment only to commend your wonderful short post in contrast to our anger here in Manchester which often paralyses the debate.
The Muslims really need to take this flying hassle quite seriously - as many things, there are sure to be disadvantages and possibly a benefit or two as well.
As someone who flies to Europe quite regularly (and I look very obviously “Islamic”), I am certainly being forced to think again of whether I can be bothered with all the stress I am forced to go through. I support the idea of a sum - say £100 - per extra search, because that’d be great for me (obviously), make the other passengers totally jealous (know that there’s nothing better that gets rid of bigotry and xenophobia than knowing someone else is making some lolly whilst you’re getting nothing), and the airlines themselves will soon realise that this is an untenable situation and ultimately, as I read recently on a Pilot’s forum, when the airline and airport authorities and staff put their foot down and stop all this paranoia, the sooner we might get back to some normality.
But until then, the Muslims won’t take their holidays in Europe, won’t rush to expand business there, and will not get involved as much as we are needed in the European debate circles that will actually help to resolve this mess. This last point is a combination of a few people like myself who are involved in various European West-Islam think-tanks as well as some Muslim MEPs (Member of the European Parliament) as one of the most prominent of them recently confided to me.
A plus point? All the standard economic benefits for the home country and one less set of cliched jokes for our new group of Muslim Comedians to use about the Muslim and his experience at the Airport…
Jazakallahu Khayran brother for making people think a bit for once.
They already do an unofficial sort of profiling, and it’s not exclusive to Muslims, but it takes far longer to get through airport security if you look vaguely ‘Mediterranean’ or ‘Arab’ - I’m very aware of this as a Jewish woman with black hair, dark eyes, and olive skin. I thought it was normal to have your luggage searched and your passport and face closely scrutinised, until I started going on holiday with my blonde, blue-eyed, very un-Jewish boyfriend and saw just how quick and easy the process can be. If it’s going to happen anyway, we might as well be compensated for it!
Leave a Comment