Human rights and civil liberties campaigners have reacted with their predicable sense of outrage to yesterday’s introduction of body scanners at two UK airports.
The scanners allow security officers at London Heathrow and Manchester to identify passengers carrying dangerous materials. A brilliant and welcome development ensuring the safety of thousands of passengers you might think.
However, human rights and civil liberties groups have lambasted airport authorities and the UK government, speaking of their “unease” regarding privacy infringement and the “disproportionate scrutiny” which they believe certain travellers will be subject to.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) believe the Muslim community will be deliberately targeted. UK Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis has stipulated that no passenger will be targeted because of their “gender, age, race or ethnic origin.”
Call me racist if you want, but I would certainly feel more comfortable if passengers were targeted because of these precise reasons. Let’s call a spade, a spade. Everyone knows the group of people who pose the biggest risk. This isn’t a racist or discriminatory statement. It is a fact. I applaud the UK authorities for introducing this long overdue measure. I think security officers should be left do their job instead of being constrained from carrying out their duties for fear of causing offence.
When the IRA was carrying out terrorist activities in the UK, Irish passengers travelling through UK airports were stopped and searched. Did we kick up an almighty fuss? The general consensus was that it was for the good of everybody. Nowadays, anybody who is stopped and questioned is immediately “offended” and the R and D words are quickly produced.
Who is standing up for my “human right” to travel safely? Do I have a “human right” to not be blown to shreds? Surely any right minded individual wouldn’t mind being subjected to security checks if it prevented them from danger? Unfortunately, these groups have gained such a strong hold in the media and society in general that any decision made to protect the majority is immediately met with distain.
Stepping away from the racism and discrimination debate, I can’t understand why there is so much of a debate surrounding privacy. You either have something to hide or you don’t. Fears regarding sexual privacy are unfounded. The image projected on the security officer’s screen is a white ghost like image of the body – no flesh or individual features can be seen. So unless a security officer has some weird fetish for ghost porn, then it’s hard to imagine all the security staff at Heathrow and Manchester suddenly becoming aroused.
A case of political correctness gone mad is destroying the travel experience for air passengers, and causing havoc for airport workers. I wonder will they be so vocal when the next lunatic suicide bomber blows up a plane and kills hundreds of people. Where will “human rights” be then?
These measures are here to protect the majority – those who want to travel safely and securely. Surely that should be all of us. KF
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8490860.stmhttp://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0109/1224261954843.html?via=mostread
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I personally think that introducing body scanners is essential. Safety comes first. Plus, if you have nothing to hide, why would you have an issue with it?
ReplyDeleteLoving the "ghost porn" statement too!
AH
I agree with you 100%, safety is paramount.
ReplyDeleteDK
Completely agree with this.
ReplyDeleteAs AH said, safety first!
NK
So KF is Genghis Khan, who would have thought?
ReplyDeleteRacial profiling is a pretty serious attack on the civil rights of people just because of the they they choose to dress or because of their ethnic origins. Again, the topic is a good one, but we need to start drawing material from newspapers, and there is a good deal of commentary about this issue in the British press. Start referencing it, and discussing those articles, the blog can't just turn into a rant. TF
Here are some more references from yesterday's media:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.irishindependent.ie/world-news/europe/uk-airport-starts-body-scans-2043424.html
http://travelblog.dailymail.co.uk/2010/02/naked-in-the-airport-are-fullbody-security-scanners-really-something-to-blush-about.html
As regards racial profiling, I think it is essential to ensure safety. If Irish people were blowing up planes, I would fully understand being a suspect whenever I travel. Why would I object to being singled out? I would be in a risk category so it would be fully understanable to me. KF
But you cant be identified as Irish by the way you look, or dress. That's the fundamental difference. Thanks for the newspaper references, I think the Mail's article is most interesting. TF
ReplyDeleteKieran, please open your eyes for a second.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Irish were blowing up things in Britain during the 70's and the 80's, racial profiling led to the false imprisonment of the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six.
Whenever my family travelled to Ireland to see our family during this time they were subjected to invasive and vindictive searches for no other reason than the type of passport they carried and all the while being delightfully addressed as "thick fucking paddy".
Racial profiling is only a good thing for those it doesn't target or more specifically: fearful white folk. For everyone else it is little more than state sponsored stereotyping that borders on very real racism.
Statistics can be used to justify just about anything but one truism in the discipline is that correlation does not equal causation, and practicing Islam does not equal planes exploding any more than living limerick equals a higher probability of being shot.
Tightening security may very well be the prudent thing to do at the moment but where does it stop, how much danger are we really in and does it help address the real causes of terrorism?
Racial profiling does not work but it does step all over our human rights as highlighted by Amnesty:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial_profiling/sevenfacts.html
I don't want to call you a racist as this label has no positive connotations and to think otherwise is seriously misguided
LS
Finally, a row. I know I sound like a broken record, but can we keep moving things back to how the media are covering this story, with examples (and continue the row, I love rows). TF
ReplyDeleteRacial profiling has not only failed to prevent atrocities but has increased inequality and marginalisation of minority groups within every society that it has been appropriated as a means of middle class defense.
ReplyDeleteThe proliferation of supportive comments serves only to further cement the UL collective as one of white, middle class, bigotry.
Thank you for your uninformed and self centered opinions, I look forward to not reading your articles in the Daily Mail where you will no doubt get to hone your skills on gays, single mothers and refugees.
Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and read a little on Professor Heny Louis Gates experiences of Racial profiling, or perhaps a researched and statistically proven piece of journalism. Such as Robert Fisk's keynote address to the MPAC 'I dont think we westerners care about Muslims' an eloquent, experience and factual based account.
Oh dear...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn you are of course entitled to you opinion, but I would urge civility. You do not own the moral high ground on this issue, the students are having a valid discussion, and they are exploring ideas and opinions that are of course controversial, but that is their right.
ReplyDeleteTo suggest otherwise contradicts the sentiment of your thesis.
I would also urge you to reference Chamber's English language dictionary for a prescriptive definition of the word bigot, you seem to have used it confusingly. Many of these students have personally met with Dr Fisk, and have discussed many issues of importance with him. TF
To clarify, I believe it is beneficial to check everybody at airports- a suicide bomber can most definitely come from any group in society. However, I certainly have no objections to particular groups being subject to more stringent checks. On the law of averages, is an 80 year old woman from Castletroy likely to be strapped with explosives?
ReplyDeleteAs I’ve mentioned already, if I was in a “risk” group, I would fully understand being a suspect. It’s not about being offended or discriminated against, for me it is a responsibility to ensure safety.
Leo,groups such as Amnesty seem very well versed on their “rights”, but are not so informed about their responsibilities. It shouldn’t all be about “my right”, consideration for the safety of all should be paramount.
Regarding media coverage, in the Irish Times link, Shlomo Harnoy, the former head of Israel’s Security Agency’s aviation security department, said that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man who attempted to blow up a plane on Christmas Day, would not have been left board a plane in Israel because of the strict regulations which the airport authorities pursue.“Whoever is concentrating on stopping old ladies bringing a bottle of mineral water on to the plane will not find a terrorist, or the bomb. The old lady is not a suicide bomber and the bottle of water is not a bomb component,” said Mr Harnoy. He added that the young Muslim travelling alone, on a one-way ticket with no luggage (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) was an obvious suspect. This isn’t a racist statement, it is a fact of twentieth first century life.
Instead, he was let board the plane and almost killed 278 people. Forgive me if this is “offensive”, but I think racial profiling is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of 278 people.
Being referred to as a “thick fucking paddy” certainly isn't nice.It’s the situation that innocent people of risk groups are facing nowadays, but again, if they have nothing to hide, why would they object to stringent checks? It is by no means a desirable position to find yourself as a suspect, but by complying with regulations you can prove that you are not associated with scum. Surely most people would love the opportunity to prove that they have nothing to hide or be ashamed of?
You mention that racial profiling is only benefitting “fearful white folk”. Is it a problem that this group in society is being offered assurance? I would certainly feel more comfortable getting on a plane knowing that all possible measures had been taken to ensure that I land where I want to in one piece, and am not simply an unidentifiable body in the wreckage of a plane. The “fearful white folk” were killed in the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid train bombings, the London bombings and almost killed above Detroit on Christmas Day. Those of us who have escaped terrorism so far have every right to be “fearful white folk" (and it's not only white people who are afraid of terorism.)
You ask the question: “How much danger are we really in?” Last week, authorities in the UK raised the terror threat to SEVERE.
The job of airport authorities is to ensure passengers board planes safely. They should be left do this by using body scanners and by questioning those they deem a possible threat. If they question somebody who turns out to be of no threat whatsoever, then what’s the problem? The person can continue on their journey, and surely their dissatisfaction at being quizzed can ultimately lead to them, and their country people, putting increased pressure on governments to eliminate all terrorist groups. KF
John, please do not be so quick to judge me and my classmates. I think NK responds to you very well. As regards your statement of myself and the members of my class who agreed with my blog, as being “bigots” and deriding the fact that we are supposedly white and middle class, I would like to thank you for highlighting what is an extremely discriminatory comment. As NK mentioned, your statement is a brilliant example of “profiling.”
ReplyDeleteReturning to media coverage, your condescending attitude towards the Daily Mail is disgusting. In these recessionary times, I would be very grateful to be employed by any media outlet, and would see no reason not to work for the Daily Mail. If I do find work there, it would disappoint me if you do not read my articles as you say is your intended plan, as you would be closing your mind to alternative opinions and viewpoints (and isn’t that a classic trait associated with racism...??).
Yes I am white, middle class, and I certainly do not apologise for this. I never stated I have anything against any other group in society, I merely showed my support for those who are trying to protect society by introducing new measures. Their job could be made a lot easier if they were allowed to focus on risk groups, but instead, there are plenty of do-gooders on their high horses who think Mary the pensioner from Castletroy should be scrutinised even though she poses absolutely no threat. It certainly isn’t entirely ideal that all of one group should be focused upon, but because of past incidences I believe airport authorities have no other choice but to do this, and they should be let get on with their job to ensure the safety of all. KF
Kieran, to state it as fact that "everyone" knows who poses the biggest threat to society is profoundly uninformed. Unless you have proof that it is fact then obviously you cannot state it as fact.
ReplyDeleteI think you may be forgetting as well that not all muslims are dark skinned and from the Middle East. What about the white muslim population? How could you spot them in a line up?
It is a huge infringement of human rights to be singled out as a possible threat merely because of the colour of your skin or your religious tendencies.
In 2005, the London bombings occurred, which was in FACT an act of terrorism. Does anyone remember the utterly tragic death of Jean Charles Demenezes, a brazilian student shot in the head 7 times in the London underground? This is an awful example of how racial profiling can end in tragedy. This poor man happened to live in the same building as one of the suspected terrorists linked to the bombings and a severe case of mistaken identity ended in his death. Why? Because he sort of, kind of looked like the actual terrorist they were after.
John, if I were you reading the above, I would certainly take the same approach in responding. I would like to add that not all of us here at the collective are of the same narrow- minded, naive view of the world. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it is right- wing, bigoted and without substance.
Peace out.
EOB
http://www.justice4jean.org/
The idea in my blog isn’t something I have concocted in my own “white, middle-class, narrow-minded, naive, right-winged, bigoted” head (that’s the specific profile which I have been given).
ReplyDeleteProof that the group mentioned is in FACT a risk group, and that I am not the only one “that knows”: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/us/04webtsa.html
If you have evidence that there is another group in society that currently poses a bigger threat of committing terror attacks at Western airports and on Western planes, then I would like to hear which it is.
My statement isn’t a racist one, and should not be interpreted that way. It is a factual one. It requires a mature journalist to interpret it that way, before immediately branding the author something he is not. Unfortunately, due to the politically correct sector of society, any statement referring to a minority group (particularly a coloured minority group) is immediately interpreted as being “racist” or “discrimination.” I certainly do not intend to hold back my opinions so as not to offend proponents of political correctness.
I fully agree with the respected journalist Kevin Myers who has criticised the homogenous group of journalists that graduate from Irish universities nowadays. He says many univeristies “mass-produce hive-minded politically correct journalists by the hundred.”
Unfortunately, many have been made into fanatical proponents of political correctness and can’t see beyond this, thanks to the widespread emphasis placed on subjects such as media sociology and cultural studies in many journalism degrees. That is not the role of a journalist. I believe in the journalism practised by Mr Myers and his Irish Independent colleague Ian O’Doherty who are not afraid to challenge any group in society. I intend to do the same, and to never be afraid to discuss an issue regarding race, religion etc.
To conclude my part in this discussion, I am delighted that the blog received the controversial response that I had hoped it would when writing it. I hope that further opinion pieces I write throughout my career can receive as much attention, as for me that is one of the important roles of a journalist – to evoke a response. KF
Whether Kieran is right or wrong I think he has done well in sparknig a lively debate on this blog.Also, I'd like to say, although I don't agree with you, well done for writing and defending your opinions in a civil and well though out manner.
ReplyDeleteJM