Racial Profiling? Breaking a Taboo

According to article 1 of the Belgian “Anti-Racism Act”, discrimination is “each form of distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference, which has or may have as its aim or consequence that the recognition, the enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social or cultural sphere or in other areas of social life, is destroyed, affected or restricted.” Advocating discrimination “on the grounds of someone’s so-called race [so-called, because races do not exist according to the politically-correct politicians in Brussels], colour, descent or national or ethnic origin” is a criminal offence.

Consequently the following observations could not be made in the Belgian press, or in any country with similar laws or attitudes. The first quote is from Jonah Goldberg in The Chicago Tribune, 18 August 2006:

[R]oughly 99 percent of jihadi terrorists are of either Middle Eastern or South Asian descent and 100 percent of them are Muslim. Critics of racial profiling say that it wouldn’t have stopped Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) or Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber). This is a red herring. Nobody ever proposed that race should be the only factor [in scrutinizing airline passingers], or even the most important factor. But why can’t it be one of those 30-plus factors? [...]
The terrorists we’re looking for are overwhelmingly young male Muslims from places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why is it morally superior to inconvenience old Mormon women of Swedish descent – for no reason at all – as much as young men from Pakistan?
Two alleged members of the British liquid explosives plot were young men of British descent who converted to Islam, and one was a woman with a child. Only a fool would advocate a system that, as a rule, deliberately excludes such people from scrutiny. But isn’t it equally foolish to spend vast sums on machines designed to interpret the facial twitches and sweat glands of millions of passengers out of an irrational phobia of racial profiling?

And here is Daniel Pipes in The New York Sun, 22 August 2006:

The sad fact is, through inertia, denial, cowardice, and political correctness, Western airport security services [...] search primarily for the implements of terrorism, while largely ignoring passengers. Although there has been some progress since the attacks of September 11, 2001, most involves the scrutiny of all travelers’ actions. [...]
The airport disruptions following the thwarted London plot prompted much discussion about the need to focus on the source of Islamist terrorism and to profile Muslims. In the words of a Wall Street Journal editorial, ‘a return to any kind of normalcy in travel is going to require that airport security do a better job of separating high-risk passengers from unlikely threats.’ [...]
[T]he chances of Muslim-focused profiling being widely implemented remain negligible. As the same Wall Street Journal editorial notes, ‘the fact that we may have come within a whisker of losing 3,000 lives over the Atlantic still isn't preventing political correctness from getting in the way of smarter security.’ [...] I predict that effective profiling will only come into effect when many more Western lives, say 100,000, have been lost.

Some argue that it is only fair that the authorities should scrutinize Muslims, even if the vast majority of Muslims are moderate. The problem of Islamists is primarily a problem of the whole Muslim community, they claim, and cannot be adequately countered if the Muslim moderates do not speak out against the extremists in their midst, which they have not sufficiently done so far. Perhaps, they say, racial profiling might convince the moderate Muslims that they urgently need to eradicate the extremists in their midst if they want to save the good reputation of their community.


A co-worker was making the point that North America (esp. the United States) was safer than anywhere else because human life was apparently worth more here...

I countered with Europe, Australasia, etc. He replied that the higher value of human life here was evidenced by the fact that police have fewer powers in America, as opposed to say continental Europe, and the individual has more rights.

I may be the only one who feels this way, but I believe I have more to fear from Islamic guerrillas, and criminals (domestic and foreign), than from the average policeman.

The extent of liberal democracy is truly interrelated (generally) with a society's level of wealth and sense of national security. The individualism/communitarianism scale must be adjusted to reflect current realities. And no, I am not referring to the Patriot Act - I am referring to immigration, tourism, and racial/ethnic/religious profiling. Nor am I referring to Iraq, which I believe was a mistake (not Afghanistan*), but to the ghettoes in London, Paris, Hamburg, the rest of Europe, and in North America where Islamism "breeds."


*Afghanistan was under the dominion of Pakistani-sponsored Islamist tribes; indeed, the Coalition received the support of the Northern Alliance a moderate Muslim and pro-democracy faction, which had been engaged in a civil war with the Islamists since the departure of the Soviets...

How many murders need to be

How many murders need to be committed before the stupidity of the Belgian Anti-racism Act becomes clear to all? I hope it will be less than the number of foreign leaders accused by the Belgian law of crimes against humanity before it got abolished.

When will Belgian politicians and journalists start doing something about the stupidity in their midst's in stead of fervently pointing to others?

Belgian leftists keep on pouring out their stupidities into laws and Belgians just have to accept this? Belgians are being accused of some vague crime (the crime is categorised under 'racism') of which they don't get the details and they are not allowed to know who is accusing them. Who voted for this? Who is paying taxes for this?