Justified action and a sign of the times... or French paranoid over-reaction??

From each of your perspectives you must of course both be right.

On the one hand, racism under any guise, for any reason, and under any circumstances is quite simply unjustified in my opinion.

Having friends of all races, it has been my experience that those not normally subjected to it, or with little direct experience of it, are the one's who'll wobble (or be a little flexible - say 'if justified') on this one. I don't call them racist. Just generally disaffected and doing their best to be both morally and politically correct... to a point.

On the other hand, governments must do all they can to secure their people, protect their borders, and defend against terrorism.

I have a few friends across the racial spectrum who in different capacities work with, and within law enforcement and the judicial systems of the UK and US. It is generally agreed by them that not only is profiling a universally accepted tool of law enforcement and civil protection, it is an old and absolutely essential one. One black police officer friend working in Washington DC has told me that unless they go out with an idea of what to look for, they cannot hone that 6th sense instinct (that the rest of us might describe as prejudicial) that alerts them to danger quicker than mere civilians. Surely thats what we demand and expect of them? We forget all too easily that for people who put themselves in the line of fire, we don't cut them enough slack. They deserve all the tools they can muster... at least so says this lobby.

So how do we bridge the gap?

I would suggest there isn't one. I'm pretty sure that in principle, both qd06 and you Butterfly agree that security for all is right, and racism for any reason is wrong.

I think the gap is intelligence. Our defenders of law and order need to get much much smarter at what they do. So smart in fact that they become so distinctly different from our enemies as to be easily distinguishable from them.

For some reason, as mankind has developed smart bombs that can fly through a doll-house window and explode a teacup, we've gotten less smart at decide who to kill. I lost count of how many smart bombs were involved in 'friendly fire' incidents causing fatalities. We've got to get smarter. That for me, that also means actively seeking to engage our conventional adversaries to truly understand what their beef is and use the opportunity to at least attempt to persuade them of how their issues might be addressed. If nothing else, while people ar ein dialogue, they are least not shooting each other.

A genuine understanding of Muslims (and yes, especially the young militant Muslims) would've perhaps persuaded Tony Blair not to make a statement as glaringly, blindingly ill-informed as when he said that terrorism was not linked to UK's foreign policy in Iraq, Palestine or the war in Afghanistan. That kind of ignorance coming from number 10, is exactly where I might start infusing a little intelligence and therefore closing the gap.

It is of course a two way street, and yes, to be clear I think moderate Muslims have a part to play in this. Again, I believe intelligence is the key. For the purposes of this argument though, I'll focus on governments' and their roles.

Rubbish. How do profile a terrorist? Is he an Arab, American, British, black, white purple, green. Is his name Muhammad, Bill, Timothy, George, Mustafa. His uncle went to prison or lived in the Middle East for three years. Hmmm they profiled the Japanese, in WWII to hell with all of them for our safety lets just put them in concentration camps they all look like kamakazi pilots or spies.

Profiling is full of crap. African Americans have been profiled for so long it is a shame. I can not tell you how many times I have been stopped in America because of profiling. I just started carrying my government credentials to flash at the idiots after they fully searched me or my vehicle only because I was African American and drove a nice car.

Now I get to have fun in the stupid airports of the US and Europe with more paranoid people because I have the pleasure of having a Muslim name. Even though I now they have done a full background check on me before I set foot in the airport.

The same goes for the employees at the airports. You cannot tell me that they have not screened them thoroughly before allowing them to work. If companies and airport agencies hired them without doing due diligence in the screening process. It is not the employees fault but the employer.

I am tired of this profiling crap in the name of security it has not made anyone safer. Muslim does not equal terrorist. The same way African American does not equal drug importer or dealer. Racism in the name of safety is still racism. The same way racial profiling has not decreased the drug trade in America because the people usually transporting the stuff are not the people they profile and search.

Act your age not your shoe size

That's a tricky one. Things are never that easy, some times people get "cought" in burocratic spider nets. It sad and it's unfair, but it serves for the better purpose of ensuring security for all citiziens. I'm sure the people that have been fired were not so because it has been proved that they pose a security threat, but because it could not be proved the otherwise, that they are innocent.

And that's the price we have to pay when it comes to security in our airports or other places that could be targeted for a terrorist attack. It's not a matter of innocent until proven otherwise anymore, nowadays it's a matter of gulty until proven innocent. The authorities must ensure at all times that the workers inside terminals are absolutely innocent. Sure, lots of workers will lose out just because of administrative incompetence. Is it Paranoia? Absolutely. Is it justified? I think so. Is it an unfair form of discrimination? I am afroid so. But again, if that's what it takes to make our lifes more secure...

..but I must ask - you say giving up 'some' of your rights? Which ones will you draw the line at before you decide your 'worry about bomb attacks from Muslims..' is not reason enough to accept their forfeiture?

For better or worst, giving up some of our rights because of the Muslim Bombers of 9/11 and the British Subways seems to be the only answer. I don't like it but I worry about bomb attacks from Muslims more than other religions at the moment.

'..clashes and vandalising, combine that with high unemployment and a ruthless media and you have a country on the edge of disaster..'

By that yardstick it would look like pretty much every one of the west's big countries is to greater or lesser degrees 'on the edge of disaster'.

I must say I don't agree with that doomsday assessment. That said, the quality of domestic national security is always a relative thing and notoriously difficult to measure. The British security services will claim to their own nationals that they are the most under threat target of Al Qaeda... implying that the French, Germans and Spanish are less so. I'm pretty sure the latter three won't adopt a relaxed posture as a result. Indeed, they'll also assume the highest level of threat and be prepared accordingly. So the question isn't really, how bad is bad? Its, 'are they assessing, and managing their own risk correctly, without in fact increasing it?'

Rich democratic countries with large, highly diverse populations will forever by plagued by societal problems of poverty, unemployment, and yes, ethnic mistrust between the 'indigens' and immigrant citizens. Its almost the accepted price of economic advancement and success.

French paranoia about militant Muslims I think is a manifestation of the aforementioned mistrust and while 9/11 and 7/7 didn't help things in this regard, it certainly didn't start things either.

By the way, in that last sentence, replace 'French' with 'European' and I think the statement remains accurate.

Does Europe have reasons for this paranoia? Of course! So?? Doesn't everybody claim good reasons for every good and bad thing they do? We could all give examples ad nauseam. Hell, even al Qaeda have reasons. But we're learning that giving a reason for an action.. and justifying it.. are not the same thing!

I think we should expect more of our leaders than merely reasons . We should've all cottoned on to the reality that as citizens we've been easily convinced (or frightened) into believing anything governments intended us to. They simply ratcheted up the threat, and there in plain view was the 'reason' for action. Justification wasn't even necessary!! Only now in the advent of abject failure and loss does our anger at being hoodwinked find voice. Since Iraq and the WMD farce (etc!), I think we're beginning to be much more scrutinous of our leaders, and expect far better justification and then execution (in that order)from them. Semantics? No.

This returns me full circle to my initial question... were the French right in acting the way they did, or was this a paranoid knee-jerk reaction?

Calm down. Things are pretty bad in France at the moment, you know, clashes and bandalising, combine that with high unemployment and a ruthless media and you have a country on the edge of disaster.

I'm not saying that this measures are justified, but the french have reasons to be paranoid.

Agreed, Tendai. But, there must be some basis to these allegations...

then there is the question that if there were reason to fire these workers because of supposed "terrorist links" then wouldn't they be arrested instead of just fired?

Hmmm...I agree you're absolutely right that they don't know who to arrest so they just terminated all of them.

Could you imagine such a thing happening to any other religion or race today and it be completely tolerated? Unbelievable.

..approach to an issue that (especially) at this time requires sensitivity more than a little basic for a society as advanced as France. Of course the airports need to be secure, and of course that's why the French, like every other modern nation, has an internal secret service to counter subversive elements bent on acting against the state's interests. And this is precisely why I'm amazed that they couldn't be a little more deft and incisive in their approach. If anything, it smacks of an intelligence setup severly lacking in just that - intelligence. They don't know exactly who to arrest so hey, just quarantine the lot of them!

Unfortunately, this sort of thing is precisely what will test an ordinary law abiding French Muslim's patriotism. Thats too heavy a cost I'd say.

butt bandit!

Yeah, I'll be out again. Was at the Paloma last night.. and literally bumped into Jonah Lomu. Yeah, I'm into shameless name dropping.

I'll holler at you this evening so we can do the usual i.e. drink and sweet f.a. else. :-)

Some of the fired employees were probably terminated unfairly. The fact that they are travelling to Pakistan or Afghanistan shouldn't really matter. Considering they may be Pakistani or Afghani...somehow that point is always overlooked. For instance, I travel to Palestine quite frequently, although I am going to visit my elderly grandparents and not Hamas officials. Likewise, I am sure this is the same for many of these Pakistanis and/or Afghanis (visiting relatives and not Al Qaeda)...sounds silly eh?

Anywho, I fly on various airlines all throughout the year and keeping them safe is a priority to myself and I am sure all other Muslims...the question is at what cost?

Tendai

I thought I would reply to your question because no else has.

Are you out tonite?

Pearce