» Heh! RT @AdamBienkov: RT @duncanborrowman Michael Howard came last in Mastermind. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? 5 hrs ago

» Phrase coined! RT @LDNCalling: We mustn't condemn troubled individuals. We must reach out & Hug a Hilton. 5 hrs ago

» BBC making it sound like Tories admitted it RT @bbcpolitics: The Conservatives say a key aide to Cameron was arrested http://bit.ly/4I68k7 7 hrs ago

» Damn, what an exclusive by @cathynewman on Channel 4 News. And she's been sitting on it all afternoon: http://bit.ly/4O23qD 8 hrs ago

» Glorious! Spectator editor admits that Cameron's Tories add up to nothing: http://bit.ly/7G2SLJ 9 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • MT and friends
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Why profiling doesn’t work


    by Sunny on 4th January, 2010 at 6:33 PM    

    Quilliam Foundation have released a short briefing today arguing against profiling. They point out:

    Previous terrorism cases have shown why profiling on the basis of race, gender, age or geographic location can often be ineffective:

    1. Profiling on the basis of geography: terrorists who have attacked US airliners, including Richard Reid and the 9/11 hijackers, have been from or based in European countries. Recent arrests in the US and Canada have also shown that the US faces a very real threat from radicalisation at home and in its nearest neighbour. None of these countries are on the US’s list.1

    2. Profiling on the basis of race: Muriel Degauque, a Belgian citizen of European origin, was the first female European suicide bomber in Iraq in 2005. More recently, profiling would have failed to identify Andrew Ibrahim and Nicky Reilly, both of whom converted to Islam before going on to plot terrorist attacks.

    3. Profiling on the basis of gender: female suicide bombers have been behind many of the most lethal attacks in Iraq and Israel over recent years.

    4. Profiling on the basis of age: 50-year-old Samira Ahmed Jassim, who was arrested in Iraq in 2009, has admitted to running a network which recruited and trained female suicide bombers. Also in 2009, the Pakistani army announced that it had discovered a Taliban run school in which boys as young as nine were being trained to carry out suicide bombings.

    But who cares about these facts eh, especially ince internet debate is all about pitting Asian men against old white grannies, or the Islamic Society against the Chess Club. What could possibly go wrong once we start profiling?


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Civil liberties, Race politics, Religion






    78 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. Are We Missing The Point About Airport Profiling? « Nick Thornsby's Blog

      [...] should not be about singling people out because of one characteristic (as e.g. Sunny Hundal seems to think) - say race - but about looking at passengers who are acting ‘abnormally’. [...]

    2. Universities don’t create extremists | Sunny Hundal | World BB News

      [...] of others. Why don’t we treat them like Saudi Arabia treats Christian students? There are several arguments against [...]



    1. Old Holborn — on 4th January, 2010 at 6:34 PM  

      Offer every passenger a pork pie

      Sorted

    2. Joe Otten — on 4th January, 2010 at 6:48 PM  

      OK, Sunny, but what if somebody found a characteristic to profile on that did work? Would that be OK? Or is there a bigger issue here?

    3. Effendi — on 4th January, 2010 at 6:50 PM  

      But who cares about these facts eh, especially ince internet debate is all about pitting Asian men against old white grannies, or the Islamic Society against the Chess Club. What could possibly go wrong once we start profiling?

      I don’t know about you, but I have no idea what the above passage means, nor what ideas or points it contributes to the debate on why profiling is now, post Chicago 253, seen to be a a terrible but necessary inconvenience.

      Especially until the danger of airplane terrorism as practised by the AQAP has been dealt with.

      Even by many Muslims, such as Khaled Mahmood MP, for example.

      Do you?

    4. marvin — on 4th January, 2010 at 6:54 PM  

      How about profiling by common sense?

      Or is that impossible as it’s impossible to put common sense in to tick boxes?

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6924417/Muslim-MP-security-profiling-at-airports-is-price-we-have-to-pay.html

      Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, said: “We have seen that certain types of people who fit a certain profile – young men of a particular ethnic background – have been engaged in terror activities, and targeting this sort of passenger would give people a greater sense of security.

      “Profiling has to be backed by this type of statistical and intelligence-based evidence. There would be no point in stopping Muslim grandmothers.”

      Is there any point in strip searching Muslim or any other grandmothers???

      If the answer is no, then this post is fundamentally flawed.

      This pathetic approach of let’s-pretend-we-have-no-idea-whatsoever-of-the-profile-of-a-Muslim-terrorist because we don’t want to let Al-Qaeda we know that we’re on to them! Eh! Eh!

      Police have absolutely no problem profiling football hooligans, nazis and serial killers. I wonder why not Muslim terrorists?

      If we did have wave of neo-nazi terrorism would the Guardianistas be so petrified of ‘alienation’ by picking out white males with skinheads and flags on their jackets? They would know we’re on to them! Would probably be the answer. What a joke.

    5. Laban — on 4th January, 2010 at 7:02 PM  

      For some strange reason they’ve not mentioned profiling by religion as one of their possible options doomed to fail.

      While it’s not in the passport, name is usually a good proxy - Senil Gupta would attract less security attention than Majid Khan for example.

      It wouldn’t pick up converts under their original name, but I’d be surprised if authorities over here and in the US aren’t monitoring conversions - male converts seem to be over-represented in the ranks of potential explodees.

    6. MaidMarian — on 4th January, 2010 at 7:05 PM  

      Sunny - There is indeed a fine line between profiling and dogma and I don’t think that anyone is claiming it is 100%.

      But profiling is one of the least bad options. Whilst Marvin’s tone may be a bit strident, the points he makes are fair.

    7. Alex — on 4th January, 2010 at 7:11 PM  

      Old Holborn, are you suggesting religiously profiling Jews, vegetarians and the gluten-intolerant?

    8. Sunny — on 4th January, 2010 at 7:36 PM  

      Alex - the mistake is to take that troll seriously.

      Joe: OK, Sunny, but what if somebody found a characteristic to profile on that did work? Would that be OK? Or is there a bigger issue here?

      I’m against profiling full-stop. I just think the evidence also doesn’t stack up.

      Effendi: to the debate on why profiling is now, post Chicago 253, seen to be a a terrible but necessary inconvenience.

      So I give you several examples of how profiling doesn’t work, and you’re not sure about how it relates to a debate about the necessity for profiling. Man, you are one smart cookie. I wish you were writing for my blog!

      Even by many Muslims, such as Khaled Mahmood MP, for example.

      Suddenly a big fan of Khalid Mahmood are we?

      Marvin: Police have absolutely no problem profiling football hooligans, nazis and serial killers. I wonder why not Muslim terrorists?

      In all your hysteria - I don’t think you understand profiling as such. With football hooligans and nazi groups - they monitor people for suspicious activity from far, gather information and then swoop of they think there’s chance of violence.

      On the other hand - what you’re suggesting here is like subjecting every single football fan to a full body search if they happen to be white, and carrying a can of beer.

      No doubt you’d call that political correctness gone mad too. And then you’d scream about how society was getting into ‘identity politics’ and picking on people because of their race.

      While it’s not in the passport, name is usually a good proxy – Senil Gupta would attract less security attention than Majid Khan for example.

      You really think these people are versed in the art of South Asian or African names that may belong to Muslims or non-Muslims?
      Hell, I always get stopped and asked loads of questions and I’m not Muslim.

    9. Effendi — on 4th January, 2010 at 7:41 PM  

      Suddenly a big fan of Khalid Mahmood are we?

      oh dear! What a moronic and simplistic response, and wholly expected.

      The thing is Muslims who agree that certain types of profiling might be necessary and are prepared to put up with it are possibly a whole sight more realistic than you can get your head around.

      Possibly because it doesn’t fit into your brown/white dichotomy.

    10. lfc4life — on 4th January, 2010 at 8:00 PM  

      Here’s a novel idea lets stop invading or meddling in foreign countries bombing the crap out of others then maybe we won’t be facing a terror threat ourselves!

    11. Sunny — on 4th January, 2010 at 8:05 PM  

      Possibly because it doesn’t fit into your brown/white dichotomy.

      You’re the one in favour of profiling right - so why try and play the race card against me?

      Answer the question - you’re suddenly following and agreeing to everything Khalid Mahmood says, are you?

    12. Effendi — on 4th January, 2010 at 8:08 PM  

      How can it be a Race card? I can list 10 Muslim nations which covers every race in the world.

      Now, I know it’s a challenge for you, but Khaled Mahmood is simply making a realistic point that many Muslims are coming to terms with.

      And I know it’s a challenge to your silly brown/white worldview.

    13. Daria — on 4th January, 2010 at 8:32 PM  

      actually the only conclusion from this briefing is that SEPARATE CRITERIA PROFILING DOESN’T WORK, HA!
      just don’t separate it!

      the combination approach is the answer…
      works perfectly…

      ps actually 100 % method for whatever doesn’t exists. but random and rare failures don’t mean that it’s not worthy, everyone realises it. but not in the politically-correct issues - if the method fails once, after thousand times of perfect work, liberal minds (libareates from brains actually) start to scream “It doesn’t work! it’s useless!”

    14. Ravi Naik — on 4th January, 2010 at 8:44 PM  

      Police have absolutely no problem profiling football hooligans, nazis and serial killers. I wonder why not Muslim terrorists?

      Profiling is only effective when it is able to narrow down potential criminals, otherwise it is useless. There is no general profile of a murderer - what the police does is after a murder or a series of murders, to collect as much information about the suspect as possible in order to narrow down the number suspects. But they use that information to catch an individual who committed a crime, not use it to prevent future murders.

      So, I am not convinced that profiling based on religion or race (or religion and race and age) are effective because these groups are too broad. But the real kicker here is the idea that terrorists are unable to find individuals from so called benign groups (old white people? blue-eyed blonde people? Please clarify Marvin… ) that can assist consciously or simply duped in carrying out terrorist attacks.

      We definitely need intelligence and technology to help us in the fight against terrorism, but the idea that we are safer by having a special line for Muslims and brown people and an express lane for others, has absolutely no merit in my view.

    15. Daria — on 4th January, 2010 at 8:49 PM  

      Ravi, there has been a series of terror attacks, have you noticed? or it’s not enough and it’s still to early to make conclusion? but it’s never to early or too late to use your head…

    16. Kulvinder — on 4th January, 2010 at 10:20 PM  

      OK, Sunny, but what if somebody found a characteristic to profile on that did work? Would that be OK? Or is there a bigger issue here?

      Depends what you mean by characteristic, the overwhelming majority of child abusers are men, but i wouldn’t want anyone, especially organisations with vast profile databases like the isa, to presume i am one simply because i happen to share common metrics with abusers.

      The vast majority of sex tourism to places like Thailand is carried out by ‘white’ men, i wouldn’t support anyone making a database of ‘white’ men that logged and cross referenced all their travel plans, or the notion that all ‘white’ men should be viewed with suspicion.

    17. Kulvinder — on 4th January, 2010 at 10:24 PM  

      Ravi, there has been a series of terror attacks, have you noticed?

      There hasn’t been a single decade for over a century when the country hasn’t faced one peril or another.

    18. Sunny — on 4th January, 2010 at 10:34 PM  

      Now, I know it’s a challenge for you, but Khaled Mahmood is simply making a realistic point that many Muslims are coming to terms with.

      Would you like me to offer you some other choice quotes by Khalid Mahmood and you could tell us whether you sign up to them too. Or is it a case of - you’ll agree with whoever follows your narrative.

      How can it be a Race card? I can list 10 Muslim nations which covers every race in the world.

      I was talking about the constant reference to brown/white - but I don’t expect such subtleties to get to you.

      So you’re in favour of profiling all Muslims and stopping them at airports right?

      No different to the likes of Stop Islamisation of Europe then who think all Muslims are potential threats too.

      Well done - perhaps you can join SIOE. I hear they’re looking for more contributors. And Stephan Gash says he’s not racist too. Neither is Geert Wilders. They just want to make life harder for Muslims.

    19. Daria — on 5th January, 2010 at 12:03 AM  

      right, Kulvinder, but the latest decades are unique - because we are not allowed to name the peril, to seacrh and find the effective measures - if it could possible be found in politically non-correct area. it’s not even allowed to discuss its efficiency

      could you remind me (or yourself) by the way how the country managed to fight the previous perils? just pick one or another

    20. Joergen Munk — on 5th January, 2010 at 12:26 AM  

      Finair should make a plane like a sauna, in Scandinavian style all would be naked. the passengers fly naked and the passengers would be mainly Scandinavians and Germans as they are the only one who realy don’t bother about being seen naked. super safe

    21. MiriamBinder — on 5th January, 2010 at 12:39 AM  

      Daria, isn’t that a tad too precious? The country has managed to fight the threat of witches by burning women often guilty of no more then being rather too independent for their neighbours peace of mind.

      In more recent times … The country has managed to (ahem)resist invasion by Hitlers’ hordes by interning all foreign nationals in camps. This ended up including Dutch men, women and children, Austrian and German nationals including Jewish refugees hardly likely to be supportive of Hitlers’ aims one would have thought though this did not seem to matter. It also included the internment of thousands of Italians even before a state of war existed between Britain and Italy and included individuals who had resided in Britain for decades. Deportation of internees, some under the most humiliating of circumstances, including the torpedoing and subsequent loss of life for no other reason then that they were foreign nationals.

      By 1940 it was recognised that mass internment was far from an effective security measure and questions in Parliament led to releases so eventually only 5000 internees were left in the internment camps. Many of those released ended up actively supporting the war effort and contributing in no small measure to Britains’ ability to resist invasion.

      So, this not so far in the past experience of mass internment and deportation on nothing more then given characteristics ended up not being all that successful after all.

    22. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 1:26 AM  

      So you’re in favour of profiling all Muslims and stopping them at airports right?

      No I am saying many passport carrying Muslims understand why profiling might become a necessity and are slowly getting used to the idea of extra security measures. They hate terrorists as much as the next person and treasure their civil rights but realise why, unfortunately and by the trick of fate, they might have to undergo additional layers of selective security. It sucks but it is looking increasingly necessary in the world we live in. At the end of the day, many Muslims accept that the additional security benefits them as much as anyone.

      Now here’s a quaint little twist.

      I do remember quite clearly that you quietly supported, or rather failed to get your knickers in their usual level of twisted urgency, with the Quilliam Foundation when it’s director Ed Husain suggested that it was perfectly viable to spy on Muslims as part of Prevent. It turned out that Prevent has nothing to do with applying Security (that’s Pursue) and also Ed Husain did not specify extremists in that case, and said “British Muslims”. But you swallowed that one hook line and sinker.

      Your words:

      I think all of that makes sense. All this hysteria about spying is frankly overblown, as if people were unaware it didn’t already happen to some extent.

      I am guessing that spying on Muslims is not an assault on civil rights for you, eh?

      But now, in this case, profiling is.

      Can you please explain the inconsistency in your logic?

    23. Sunny — on 5th January, 2010 at 1:38 AM  

      Can you please explain the inconsistency in your logic?

      Simples - there’s a big difference between the intelligence agencies tracking known radicals and spying on all Muslims. See?

      Similarly - I’m all for airports having lists so that certain people known to have engaged in extremist behaviour are forced to go through more rigorous checks.

      But that is different to subjecting all Muslims to profiling. Geddit? I’ve tried to make it simple because I know you love evading questions.

      Though it’s very amusing you try and paint this as an issue where many Muslims ‘are coming to terms’ with it. Perhaps you can point me to some opinion poll showing Muslims accepting they should be singled out as potential terrorists?

    24. Sunny — on 5th January, 2010 at 1:44 AM  

      test

    25. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 1:45 AM  

      there’s a big difference between the intelligence agencies tracking known radicals and spying on all Muslims. See?

      No I don’t see. The comment was “spying on British Muslims” - in other words all British Muslims.

      Please explain, clearly if you can. this “big difference”. Just saying “See” does not cut it.

    26. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 1:48 AM  

      Perhaps you can point me to some opinion poll showing Muslims accepting they should be singled out as potential terrorists?

      I have no poll to point out. I am speaking as a Muslim of the consensus of my many non-raadical Muslim friends.

      Where is your poll to say that British Muslims would like to be spied upon?

    27. Sunny — on 5th January, 2010 at 1:54 AM  

      Please explain, clearly if you can. this “big difference”. Just saying “See” does not cut it

      I said in my post I have no problems with agencies spying on radicalised British Muslims. That is what Ed was talking about. The Guardian spun it as a story saying he was for spying on all Brit Muslims. I hope that clears it up for you.

      Me - for spying on extremists. You - for singling out all Muslims. Am I right?

      As for you playing the Muslim card - give it a rest please. I get harassed all the time despite not being Muslim and I have loads of Muslim / non-Muslim friends who don’t want to be singled out. So don’t pretend there’s some consensus you’re part of.

    28. Refresh — on 5th January, 2010 at 2:05 AM  

      ‘ Man, you are one smart cookie. I wish you were writing for my blog!’

      Don’t even joke about it.

    29. Sunny — on 5th January, 2010 at 3:00 AM  

      is it me or has it become difficult to post comments - the page just shows a blank when you try and post?

    30. Kulvinder — on 5th January, 2010 at 7:45 AM  

      could you remind me (or yourself) by the way how the country managed to fight the previous perils? just pick one or another

      debate

    31. Kulvinder — on 5th January, 2010 at 7:50 AM  

      because we are not allowed to name the peril, to seacrh and find the effective measures

      and this is bollocks, noone has denied that the predominant terror threat comes from islamic extremists, the whole ‘oh but we’re not allowed to discuss it schtick‘ in threads where the entire argument is about islamic terrorism is getting boring.

    32. damon — on 5th January, 2010 at 7:59 AM  

      In London, 13% of drivers are uninsured.
      I’m sure the police have profiles of what uninsured drivers might be driving, or look like.

      I’m really not convinced by those Quilliam Foundation points 1 to 4. ”Profiling on the basis of geography”?
      It’s about percentages isn’t it? There is higer rates of sympathy for islamist violence in different parts of the world.
      Where do you think the security services are looking right now while trying to combat the Continuity IRA?

      OT maybe, but on people being different because of geography. This story from Malawi told me that there are some major differences based on location.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/04/malawi-gay-wedding-couple-bail

      This link was on that page.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2008/jun/07/aids

    33. cjcjc — on 5th January, 2010 at 8:19 AM  

      No-one is “pitting” anyone against anyone else.
      It simply makes sense in this case, as in the rest of life, to take account of probabilities.
      Citing exceptions serves only, as the saying goes, to prove the rule.

    34. Tze Ming — on 5th January, 2010 at 8:35 AM  

      Jihadist profiling that makes sense according to Marc Sageman’s actual empirical study of jihadist terror networks:
      - middle-class to wealthy
      - educated and multilingual
      - embedded enough within the global elite to have had higher education in a Western, Liberal country
      - where they experienced racism and alienation from dominant racial/cultural paradigm
      - from an only moderately religious or entirely secular family/parental background
      - a man or a woman (duh)
      - ethnic roots in a country that experienced/is experiencing violent imperialism at hands of a Western country
      - but does not actually live there
      - isolated or distanced from their actual ethnic or familial community

      Crap, that’s me. Or, in fact, a huge percentage of people who happen to be flying from one country to another.

      If you apply Sageman’s criteria to any kind of extremism, it’s also a good indicator of what communities or groups are going to be radicalised along *any* axis - race, nationalism, etc.

      Realistic, accurate profiling of this type can be done, but obviously, not at an airport. However, the groups of people who would seem to be most at risk of becoming the undie-bomber, would also seem to be those most at risk of becoming Secretary-General of the United Nations.

    35. cjcjc — on 5th January, 2010 at 9:14 AM  

      Yes - I have no idea how this is supposed to be done at the airport, or only at the airport.
      Though no doubt there are certain kinds of behaviours in the terminal, eg checking in for a supposed 2 week trip with no bags, nervously checking rucksack every 90 seconds, etc.,which rightly raise suspicion and should lead to some further checking/searching.

    36. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 9:22 AM  

      said in my post I have no problems with agencies spying on radicalised British Muslims. That is what Ed was talking about. The Guardian spun it as a story saying he was for spying on all Brit Muslims. I hope that clears it up for you.

      And how do you intend to regulate that only criminals will be spied on? And by the way, which civil society consensus do you think you are part of by supporting spying on Muslims? Yeah, enjoy the company of SIOE.

      Even Ed Husain had to rush out a statement to retract his position on spying. But you seem cluelessly happy to be paddling on and now you’re so down the river there’s no turning back.

      Forget haebeus corpus. Fuck civil rights. Spying on Muslims as a demographic group is morally acceptable in Sunny Hundal’s world.

      What an appalling tosser you are.

    37. MiriamBinder — on 5th January, 2010 at 9:34 AM  

      Kulvinder # 30 - One was picked at # 21. There is no interest in debating. Merely throwing up smoke screens, evading and twisting.

    38. John Booth — on 5th January, 2010 at 10:16 AM  

      Fuck off Effendi. You and your Spittoon Muslim-hating thugs are the last people in the world to lecture anyone about Muslims’ civil rights.

      If you had your way, Islamic societies at universities would be banned, mosques would be shut down, and Muslims who didn’t renounce their faith would be excluded from society.

      Sunny, why don’t you delete Old Holborn on sight? This is what the BNP’s ambassador to Black Britain has to say on his blog about gun crime:

      Now, call me old fashioned but it seems that London Police have the answer. The Met are getting rather tired of black yoof shootin’ da place up, so have now decided to send in teams of armed officers to deal with Leeroy and MC Dangle and their Uzi’s. Naturally, they know where their targets are and what they look like. They are black male yoof and live in black ghettos.

      Leeroy? Uzi’s? Griffin hasn’t got lines like this

    39. steve — on 5th January, 2010 at 10:22 AM  

      This discussion seems odd to me, as a football supporter, who for the last 15 years has regualrly been photographed, videod and pulled aside when travelling to away matches purely because I look as though I “may be trouble”, never been in trouble in my life and would quite happily run away from any hassle.

      This is done in the name of preventing trouble and hooliganism and is seen as acceptable behaviour by police and the authorities. I have had to undertake regular FOI requests to ensure my image is not on any watch list and that video is destroyed.

    40. Rumbold — on 5th January, 2010 at 10:27 AM  

      I disgaree with some of what the Spittoon puts up, but they are hardly Muslim hating.

      Racial profiling will never work. Proposals like this will only increase tensions and achieve absolutely nothing.

    41. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 10:31 AM  

      John Booth, most of the writers on The Spittoon are Muslims. So only a presumptuous cretin would call us self-hating Muslims.

      Perhaps you can formulate Sunny’s answer for him, since that is how he often does things. Why is Spying on Muslims ok, but Profiling not?

    42. cjcjc — on 5th January, 2010 at 10:44 AM  

      John Booth clearly sees Muslims as a homogenous block.
      What a racist attitude.
      His head must be exploding right now.
      The Spittoon bloggers are Muslims????
      Does not compute…does not compute…

    43. John Booth — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:15 AM  

      Faisal Gazi is a self-confessed apostate. You lot like to hide behind the cover of “but we are Muslims, so if we say it’s okay to force Muslim women to rip off their hijabs, then it’s not racist or xenophobic!” You are about as Muslim as Rush Limbaugh. There is more to being Muslim than having been born with a Muslim name to hide behind.

    44. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:20 AM  

      Oh lord, it’s some takfiri pundit from Islam Channel, on the payroll of Mohammed Ali Harrath. Still on the payroll of a terrorist?

    45. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:33 AM  

      Or have you been turfed out of that gig yet. ;-)
      You know we know who you are.

    46. John Booth — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:55 AM  

      Lol. Fun guy, you are. You can praise Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips, profiling all you want: until it comes back to bite you in the ass. Ed Husain etc had enough of selling out their own community, and finally decided to stop trying to brownnose to illiberal fuckwits - he paid the price by being attacked by Murray et al on the net.

      You’ll be a cheerleader for profiling, the EDL, etc until you’re profiled at an airport. Or will you assiduously thank the authorities for strip and cavity searching your brown girlfriend or sister?

    47. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 11:56 AM  

      “John Booth”, this is a civilised forum. I suggest you get back to discussing armed jihad with the homies.

    48. Ravi Naik — on 5th January, 2010 at 12:41 PM  

      And how do you intend to regulate that only criminals will be spied on? …

      Forget haebeus corpus. Fuck civil rights. Spying on Muslims as a demographic group is morally acceptable in Sunny Hundal’s world. What an appalling tosser you are.

      Effendi, are you writing in good faith or are you just retarded? Because I got the feeling that the person you are replying to just said that he has no problems in monitoring Muslim extremists (btw, it is interesting that you conflated extremists with criminals) and *not* Muslims in general. I would assume that the person in question is indeed worried about civil rights.

    49. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 12:48 PM  

      Ravi, yes the question is in good faith. Should a question on how you propose to conduct spying on Muslims be anything other an assault on civil rights be one in “bad faith”?

      So here is the question: Why is Spying on Muslims acceptable, but Profiling not?

    50. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 12:54 PM  

      Effendi, are you writing in good faith or are you just retarded?

      As an aside, is the wording of that question, in particular the use of the word “retarded”, in “good faith”?

    51. Ravi Naik — on 5th January, 2010 at 2:38 PM  

      Should a question on how you propose to conduct spying on Muslims be anything other an assault on civil rights be one in “bad faith”?

      Do we agree that there is a difference between spying on known EXTREMISTS and spying on MUSLIMS in general? You seem to think it is the same thing.

      So here is the question: Why is Spying on Muslims acceptable, but Profiling not?

      Profiling based on religion or race is not an effective measure to prevent terrorism, it only opens more opportunities for terrorists.

    52. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 2:53 PM  

      Spying on anyone the authorities identify as an EXTREMISTS is morally acceptable?

      An extremist like Shami Chakrabarti was OK in principle?

      It would be good to know how you propose or believe that spying would always be directed at extremists. Because I don’t know if I share your confidence that it is does not transgress civil liberties.

      Airport Profiling is useful and inevitable under the present circumstances because most travellers understand that it is in their immediate interests.

    53. David T — on 5th January, 2010 at 3:04 PM  

      Would you accept - to give a parallel - focusing information gathering in relation to animal “rights” terrorism on those heavily involved in animal welfare activism? Including legal activities?

      Because that is what happens.

      For good reason.

    54. Soso — on 5th January, 2010 at 3:06 PM  

      Quilliam is against profiling because they know it will be at least partly effective. Their ‘resons’ for not allowing it are spurious and amount to side-stepping the issue. No doubt they scoured media reports in an effort to find Christian suicide-bombers, but unfortubnately didn’t come across any. The fact remains that NEARLY ALL terrorist acts these days are committed by radical Muslims.

      They’re not commited by Catholic nuns, nor Buddhist ones.

      Nor are they committed by whiter-haired grandmothers from Iowa.

      Quilliam’s mention of home-grown convert terrorists as a reason NOT to profile speaks volumes; in fact, invoking such people betrays the glaring fact that there is most certainly a direct connection between the hatred to be found in Islam’s core texts and the propensity of individuals to commit acts of violence and mass murder.

      Talk about putting both feet in your mouth.

    55. Ravi Naik — on 5th January, 2010 at 3:20 PM  

      It would be good to know how you propose or believe that spying would always be directed at extremists. Because I don’t know if I share your confidence that it is does not transgress civil liberties.

      I do not understand your point: are you against monitoring extremist activity in this country?

      Airport Profiling is useful and inevitable under the present circumstances because most travellers understand that it is in their immediate interests.

      Singling out Muslims (with Muslim names or from Muslim countries) for extra security only provides a false sense of security, specially when there are reports that Al Qaeda is recruiting European converts.

    56. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 3:22 PM  

      All true. But if airport profiling had been used at Schipol, Underpants Boy would have been apprehended before he boarded UA253 to Chicago. Directing this guy off the plane would not have been little or no direct influence of Al-Qaeda recruitment compared to what goes on in some of our universities.

      The fact that he then proceeded to burn his scrotum and not much else is immaterial.

    57. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 3:25 PM  

      Detroit, rather.

    58. Ravi Naik — on 5th January, 2010 at 4:02 PM  

      But if airport profiling had been used at Schipol, Underpants Boy would have been apprehended before he boarded UA253 to Chicago.

      If airport profiling existed in Schipol where people of one profile had to go to extra security, then Al Qaeda could simply use someone who didn’t fit that profile. The fallacy of your argument, in my view, is to think that terrorists would do the exact same thing if different security protocol are applied.

      And by the way, hiding your religion is not that difficult, is it?

    59. Ravi Naik — on 5th January, 2010 at 4:35 PM  

      I actually never heard anyone defend that we should use most or all anti-terrorism resources to secure airports, because terrorists these days like to blow up planes…

    60. Effendi — on 5th January, 2010 at 5:55 PM  

      If airport profiling existed in Schipol where people of one profile had to go to extra security, then Al Qaeda could simply use someone who didn’t fit that profile.

      That’s speculation. In reality, the profile of almost most of all the transatlantic terrorist plots have involved young men from the Arab Peninsular, South Asia or North Africa.

    61. Ravi Naik — on 5th January, 2010 at 8:05 PM  

      That’s speculation. In reality, the profile of almost most of all the transatlantic terrorist plots have involved young men from the Arab Peninsular, South Asia or North Africa.

      Do you propose to have an extra security line for people who look Arab, South Asian or North African in all airports in the world? I asked you before how would you go on about improving security in airports with profiling.

    62. Daria — on 5th January, 2010 at 9:10 PM  

      21 MiriamBinder, have you ever heard of “Hitler’s rule” in conversation?

      everythings can be carried to the point of absurdity. it doesn’t mean you have to do it. and if some rule or approach was misunderstand, exaggarated or misused in the past - it doesn’t mean that it should be rejected.

      knife can be used to hurt people and to cut some bread and feed people. it’s just a passive istrument

    63. MiriamBinder — on 6th January, 2010 at 4:53 AM  

      Daria #62 - Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate rule in debate. Just because Hitler brushed his teeth as a rule I am not going to stop brushing mine.

      Having said that, I have given you an example just like you asked for. Are you ignoring it because it doesn’t fit with the argument you were trying to get across?

    64. Tim — on 6th January, 2010 at 12:59 PM  

      These are very true facts pointed out by the Quiliam Foundation. But these are a very small minority of the terrorist atrocities carried out around the globe. The majority are by young, Muslim, Asian, males and that’s an undeniable fact. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with Muslims in general, or Asians, males or young people in general for that matter. But it is the fact.
      To me, profiling, whilst undesirable for treating people differently, is a necessity to avoid wasting time. Just as with knife crime, the vast majority of incidents involve young Black males. Profiling certainly won’t stop the problem, but it can make better use of over-stretched time, money, equipment and personnel.
      Similarly to Steve earlier, I am a football supporter and must have been videoed and photographed hundreds of times, as well as having CCTV monitoring my every action throughout every match I attend. But this is taken as part and parcel of attending football, where there are plenty of ‘extremists’ (hooligans) who have the sole intention of causing trouble.
      Also, I am of Irish Catholic family, and have several uncles who were young Catholic Irish males in London throughout the Troubles, and experienced suspicion very similar to that facing young Muslims today. Whilst it is not desirable, it was seen as unsurprising and accepted as necessary for security.

    65. damon — on 6th January, 2010 at 1:22 PM  

      I’m in Thai town right on the border with Malaysia, and profiling is commonplace. The town is full of soldiers and police, and they just pull over passing motorcycles riden by young men and check their ID cards. Same at the railway station. There’s a couple of policemen sitting at a desk at the entrance, and they just check on the IDs and record the details in a register.
      They didn’t even look up at me, or 90% of the people coming and going, just young men, who I presume fit some profile that they have.

    66. Ravi Naik — on 6th January, 2010 at 2:00 PM  

      The majority are by young, Muslim, Asian, males and that’s an undeniable fact.

      I think we have established that. Let’s move forward.

      What I think we disagree on is whether the face of terrorism will remain the same once we start having a special line for people who look Asian/Muslim, and become lax to individuals who we think could never do harm.

    67. damon — on 6th January, 2010 at 2:14 PM  

      It wont ever be a “special line for people who look Asian/Muslim”.
      It would never work like that. (It couldn’t).
      It would have to be more discriminating.

    68. Effendi — on 6th January, 2010 at 2:18 PM  

      What I think we disagree on is whether the face of terrorism will remain the same once we start having a special line for people who look Asian/Muslim, and become lax to individuals who we think could never do harm.

      Even before the onset of that sociological eventuality, should it even arise, airport profiling will, doubtless, thwart potential terrorist attempts which will save many innocent lives.

      Increased security is already in place for travellers from 14 nations to the US
      http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/04/travellers-security-screening.html

    69. Ravi Naik — on 6th January, 2010 at 2:29 PM  

      Increased security is already in place for travellers from 14 nations to the US

      That’s different from profiling based on religion or race, which is the topic of this thread.

      I am sorry to ask you again, but I am intrigued: are you are against monitoring extremist activity in this country?

    70. MiriamBinder — on 6th January, 2010 at 2:30 PM  

      I was listening to a discussion on these various ‘lists’ yesterday evening. One point which came across very loudly was the fact that these lists only work if they aren’t too long. A few hundred rather then a few thousand which is what they currently are in the main. Including a number of names of individuals they suspect are dead but because they cannot confirm it, the names are left on.

      Profiling is all very well but by and large ineffective unless you are very very specific and that would carry with it the risk that mere suspect behaviour is ignored because the individual does not fit the profiling.

    71. Effendi — on 6th January, 2010 at 2:38 PM  

      That’s different from profiling based on religion or race, which is the topic of this thread.

      The 14 countries are:
      Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism. The countries of interest include Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen

      That covers the Arab Peninsular, South Asian and African countries which includes what Tim above rightly says are “young, Muslim, Asian, males”.

      You can’t deny where the immediate threat is and avoid protecting people from this threat on the speculation that the pattern of national and racial terrorism will change in the future, which is the point you’re making.

    72. Ravi Naik — on 6th January, 2010 at 3:07 PM  

      That covers the Arab Peninsular, South Asian and African countries which includes what Tim above rightly says are “young, Muslim, Asian, males”.

      The reason why these countries are singled out is because they are centres of terrorism, and I assume the extra security is applied to all passengers travelling in and out of those countries, regardless of age, race, religion or gender. I also note that we do not have India or Indonesia as countries of interest, which you will agree have lots of young Asian Muslims.

      You can’t deny where the immediate threat is and avoid protecting people from this threat on the speculation that the pattern of national and racial terrorism will change in the future, which is the point you’re making.

      That’s not my point. Read #14 again. I am saying that profiling based solely on race, gender or religion is not effective because it doesn’t narrow down enough on one hand, and on the other, creates a false sense of security because terrorists can easily find someone who doesn’t fit that rather simplistic profile.

    73. Effendi — on 6th January, 2010 at 3:14 PM  

      I also note that we do not have India or Indonesia, which you will agree have lots of young Asian Muslims.

      And have low instances of airline terrorism compared to the other nations on the list, which is why they are off the list.

    74. Kamilla — on 7th January, 2010 at 5:12 AM  

      63 - MiriamBinder, it’s not forbidden of course, but it’s useless, fruitless and aimless… It’s more like hysteria, actually.

      What’s the point? you tell me “oh come on let’s isolate muslims and put them in camps - why not? it’s start with profiling”, I could tell you “what do you want - let the extremists go free, unite and preach hatred, but never pofile them” and then, after, we both explain that this is not what we actually mean? Just a waste of time

      what of your examples do I ignore? Holokost and witch hunting?
      they show only the fact that everything can be carried to extremes, almost any idea

      by the way what do you suggest - ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of bombers are muslims? just nevermind this parameter?

    75. MiriamBinder — on 7th January, 2010 at 8:19 AM  

      Kamilla – You asked a question and I answered. The answer didn’t fit with your preconceptions and you therefore decide to ignore it. That isn’t carrying things to extremes, that is merely stating a fact.

      Most rapists are male – that is not a hysterical outburst, it is a statement of fact. Following your reasoning every male is suspect of being a rapist. Should we require every male to first prove that he isn’t a rapist? What prove would satisfy you that a male isn’t a rapist? After all, it could be said that just because a certain male isn’t a rapist yet doesn’t mean that he won’t rape tomorrow, or next week/month/year/decade …
      All soldiers killed by friendly fire are killed by allies. Again, not a hysterical outburst but a statement of fact. Again, following your reasoning – every weapon carrying ally should prove that it will not be used in a ‘blue on blue’ incident. Of course just because a given ally does not carry a weapon today, doesn’t mean s/he won’t pick up a weapon tomorrow, next week/month/year …

      And no dear, it isn’t the Holocaust that you have ignored, it is the internment of thousands of people for no other reason but that they happened to be foreign nationals including children, Jewish refugees and Italians who had lived here for decades; with the latter being interned even before we were in a state of war with Italy. By the way, it isn’t the act of internment, and deportation, that is significant in itself. It is the fact that despite this initial broad-brushed profiling the majority of these individuals were no real threat and that many, those that survived deportation, the abuse, the loss of family life, freedom, personal property (all of which were carried out with the apparent authority, back-up and justification of a legitimate government) actually ended up being rather the opposite then a threat.

      Profiling is a very useful tool as is a hammer; but when you need to unscrew a bookshelf, having a useful hammer is no real comfort. Profiling only works if used in the correct circumstances, for the right reasons and with the right parameters. Otherwise it becomes un-wielding at best or lead to a false sense of security; the latter being that we may ignore other significant factors in individual behaviour just because that given individual does not tick the right boxes in the broad-brushed profiling categories.

      Now admittedly you can again chose to ignore all of the above on the basis that it is taking the argument to its absurd extreme. Let me explain why reduction ad absurdum is such a useful tool. It clarifies the motivating principle/s behind a proposition. Like it or not, what we are discussing is a proposition; to wit: the profiling of young, male, Muslim individuals.

      We have ‘No-Fly’ lists. Yusuf Islam was on that ‘No-Fly’ list for no other reason that he was a male Muslim who had raised money for Muslim charities. He is the same Yusuf Islam who after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, wrote an editorial saying that Islam had been hijacked by terrorists. He also condemned the deadly siege of the school in Breslen, Russia, by Islamic militants. He appealed for the release of British hostage Kenneth Bigley. He was however definitely profiled and put on the ‘No-Fly’ list.

    76. TFI — on 7th January, 2010 at 5:48 PM  

      OK strap in … I’ve a suggestion. How about we allow people to profile themselves? Considering that suicide bombers wish to ascend to heaven, why not ask people to perform and act that would damn them to hell instead?

      Consider a urinal with a UK flag, a US flag, a Bible and a Koran at the bottom. If you are prepared to take a slash over all four, you are liable for the fast queue with reduced security!

      Surely your not going to any heaven after that act? In one swoop you would filter out all those people that take this religion or nationality sh1t too seriously!

      Out of the box thinking from The Friendly Infidel!



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.