Georgetown University journalism professor and Muslim reform activist Asra Q. Nomani thinks that United States air terminals have sided with political correctness for far too long. A new, more realistic approach to airport security is needed. Racial and religious profiling would deal with airport security concerns in a more practical fashion, she argues in a recent Daily Beast op-ed. This serves as a pointed judgments of the perceived ineffectiveness of the Transportation Security Administration’s present security methods. Source of article – Feminist Muslim reform activist argues for racial profiling by Money Blog Newz.
Spiritual ideology causes racial profiling
Nomani explains that racial profiling within the United States of America is necessary. This is because organizations will commit terrorist attacks because of religious ideology. Beginning with 9/11 and moving forward with numerous smaller incidents in the U.S. including the recent potential vehicle bomb threat in Portland, Ore., Nomani asserts that terrorism has been perpetrated in large part by Muslims. In Nomani’s estimation, the proper response by airport security – while difficult – would be racial and religious profiling. But there would be a twist, according to Nomani – it would be realistic profiling.
"Profiling doesn't have to be about discrimination, persecution or harassment. We are not arguing that the TSA should send anyone named Mohammad to be water-boarded somewhere between the first-class lounge and the Pizza Hut," writes Nomani.
Nomani recommends danger evaluation with racial profiling
Those with nothing to hide at the airport should have no reason for concern, Nomani states. In a recent debate over the issue of racial profiling, she said: "Profile me. Profile my family.". She said she is willing to be subjected to profiling because "we within the Muslim community have failed to police ourselves." Following recognizable "trouble signs" for terrorism via profiling would solve the issue, Nomani argues.
30 percent were undecided at the beginning of the debate while 37 supported spiritual and racial profiling and 33 percent were against it in the audience. After the debate, 49 percent voiced their support for racial profiling, while 40 percent were against it and the remainder was undecided. The debate seemed academic. That was good. Racial profiling and religious profiling may or may not actually be liked. It is not seen exactly yet.
Articles cited
BYU
law2.byu.edu/jpl/Vol%2017.1/Macdonald%20pdf.pdf
The Daily Beast
thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-29/airport-security-lets-profile-muslims/?cid=hp:mainpromo5
Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
youtube.com/watch?v=Hmqok62n1Wo
No comments:
Post a Comment