If you are from one of 14 countries – including Nigeria, Afghanistan and Cuba, and flying into the US you will now face enhanced screening, including body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks.
These countries have been selected because the American authorities deem to be a security risk. Many of you say this leads to profiling, which we discussed a little on WHYS last week but has continued ever since.
Nicholas Guariglia argues on Pajamasmedia.com
“that profiling our enemies wherever they may be – most imperatively, at the location and moment of attack – is not only logical, but ethical. He also says : Americans aren’t asking for a green light to discriminate against Muslims. We simply want security officials to stop asking Grandma to take her clothes off at the airport.”
Khalid Mahmood, a Labour MP, says it has become necessary to ‘profile’ passengers from certain racial and religious groups in order to weed out possible terror suspects. He said:
“I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn’t be victimisation of an entire community.”
This blogger was recently stopped entering the US believes it doesn’t work because Al-Qa`idah and like–minded terrorists can find some who does not fit the profile at airport to do their heinous crimes.
David Blackburn of the Spectator says
Profiling is not a human rights issue, being blown-up certainly is. Racial and religious profiling is not a panacea. However, profiling is essential for improving the safety of all passengers; that is self-evident.
Rod Liddle also from the Spectator last month argued that certain groups carry out certain crimes: The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. Charlotte Gore on her blog responded that the majority of crime in London was committed by whites.
So is crime carried out by certain groups? or is it perceived to be carried out by certain groups?