The Real Purpose Behind The Imam Publicity Blitz
Posted on December 17, 2006
What would you think if I told you there was a bill before Congress that is being promoted by the NAACP, CAIR, Amnesty International and the ACLU, and that this bill has been dead in Congress for two years because it is complete idiocy? What if I told you that this bill is about to be resurrected by the Democrats who sponsored it: John Conyers, Nancy Peolsi and Russ Feingold?
The bill is the End Racial Profiling Act of 2004 and in spite of the feel-good name is just another milestone on the road to total anarchy.
Indeed, it looks to be a bill that would only make our defenses against terrorists be weakened in the name of political correctness. Some are saying that this bill could have been the motivation behind the Imam publicity stunt on America Airlines.
But the report on the Iranian website, which has appeared on a variety of Muslim websites worldwide, had a larger primary focus. After the imams incident, it quoted Bray as saying Muslims want “new, broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling.”
The report is optimistic that Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, will lend his support to new legislation. Ellison, it says, has expressed his opposition to “such racial and religious profiling.” Ellison, through a spokesman, declined to comment.
One piece of legislation in the works is the End Racial Profiling Act. It is an important priority of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whose district includes one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Conyers introduced the bill in 2004 and 2005, but it went nowhere. Now the alignment of forces may be changing. Conyers will probably be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes next month.
Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a “proud” cosponsor of the Profiling Act in 2004, is the incoming House speaker. And in January, Ellison, who represents the district where the imams incident occurred, will take his seat in Congress.
The act, although it doesn’t as yet impose large penalties, would bar any federal, state or local law enforcement agency from “relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.” That would include questioning, searches and seizures.
One of the act’s central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.
What would the effect of such a law be?
“A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety,” said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview. He worked at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues for 6 years.
There is only one hope for rational people … VETO. I sincerely hope President Bush has the backbone to do just that. If not, we’re on the road to hell and traveling in the fast lane …
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “The Real Purpose Behind The Imam Publicity Blitz”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Aside from the presumptive violation, it’s a really good bill. I’m not sure how you’d avoid such a provision, though. Bias in any single incident can be rationalized away. It is usually only obvious when you look at the aggregate.
Any suggestions on an alternative?
Oh yeah, and I abhor language like this:
He doesn’t need carte blanche. Just find out what he recommends and add it to the bill.
The First question you should ask if you truly back the Tenth Amendment is does Congress have the jurisdiction necessary to pass this bill.
According to my source they use the equal protection under the law clause of the Fourteenth. They also say it is in the Fifth which is an incorrect claim. I assume they mean due process of law clause as well since it is in both the Fourteenth And Fifth Amendment.
These two clauses alone do allow separate by equal treatment as decided by Plessy v. Ferguson. The valid point brought up by Brown v. The Board of Education is if the results of the Segregation are equal treatment even if the law treats the segregated population equal. A question I have that was not addressed by either court is whether the U.S. Constitution’s purpose of creating a more perfect union will be allowed if segregation of this type is allowed.
.
If the Imam publicity stunt on America Airlines is covered by this bill then this bill is garbage since there is no clear indication that any racial profiling was used. The question brought up by the stunt is whether Americans are wise enough to sense something is not right even if the individuals involved appear to be Caucasian non Hispanic Americans of European Decent. I hope they are but I do not see legislation rectifying the situation if they are not.
My source also mentions that Americans of African and Hispanic decent are stopped more often and searched. There is a social economic difference between both those groups and non Hispanic Whites. Social economic difference is traced to higher rates of blue collar crime among the poor as they attempt to get ahead through fair means of foul and to poorer condition of their vehicles which leads to them getting stopped more often to vehicle violations. There are other social economic factors such as high cohabitation levels, divorce levels etc. that are also known to lead to more rebellious attitudes in the children and more violence in the participants. The lower socio economic classes tend to die younger also. The bill fails to recognize or address the social economic factors and thus is just a form of oppressing those trying to carry out the rule of law.
My source:
http://www.amuslimvoice.org/html/body_end_profiling_act.html