Profiling policies (by Eve Garrard)

Tunku Varadarajan (h/t - JS):

In evaluating the moral fitness of "profiling," I should stress that we are identifying people for scrutiny, not punishment.
.....
I am just as concerned about catching terrorists (who may look like me) as anyone else who looks different. I can ask that the searches and scrutiny be done in a professional manner, with no insults and nothing that offends my dignity. I, too, see the absurdity of subjecting Chinese grandmothers to the same level of scrutiny as people from the Indian subcontinent at the airport check-in counter.

Do I like being profiled? Of course not. But my displeasure is yet another manifestation of the extraordinary power of terrorism. I am not being profiled because of racism but rather because Islamist fanatics have declared war on my society. They are the dark power that leads me to an experience in which my individuality is corroded. This is tragic; but it strengthens my resolve to support the war that seeks to destroy terrorism.

Not everyone agrees with the line of argument given above - given by someone who certainly stands to suffer from the policies he's endorsing. Indeed, a number of people have objected both to the policy of ethnic profiling in the search for terrorist bombers, and also to the police shoot-to-kill policy towards those suspected of intending to detonate bombs. The defence of both policies takes a similar form: it's more effective to do things that way, it increases the likelihood of preventing bombings, and thereby saves innocent lives - a claim which seems likely to be true. The objections to both policies have also taken a similar form: in both cases, it is asserted, they impinge unfairly on innocent Muslims. And it's likely that that's true too. I've argued previously that here we have two different and powerful moral claims coming into conflict with each other: on the one hand, the needs of the general good, and on the other, a central tenet of multiculturalism, namely that no policy should be endorsed which bears more heavily on members of ethnic minorities than on others.

But in the current situation, things are even more complicated than usual. The statistics suggest that the chances of a Muslim man being killed by the police are considerably less than the chances of a Muslim man being killed by suicide bombers, given that the latter make no effort to avoid killing Muslims. So assuming that these policies do indeed prevent some successful bombing attempts, then people who reject them in favour of ones which don't impinge more on Muslims than on others are actually prioritizing policies which will save fewer Muslim lives over ones which will save more Muslim lives. The only reason I can think of for doing this is that the most important thing is felt to be the avoidance of any policy which bears more heavily on Muslims than on other groups, even if that avoidance actually harms Muslims more than the alternative. So what appears to matter most isn't saving Muslim lives, but ensuring that there's no disadvantaging of Muslims compared to non-Muslims, even if a disadvantaging policy would actually be better for Muslims.

With respect to these policies, the multiculturalist agenda seems to favour form over substance, the appearance of protection over its reality, the preservation of the trappings of 'respect' over the preservation of lives. There are in fact better reasons for rejecting multiculturalism - the moral relativism implicit in it, the extreme shallowness of its conception of respect for other cultures - but if adherence to it puts members of ethnic minorities at risk, this is certainly one consideration which should be taken seriously by anyone who is concerned about their well-being. (Eve Garrard)