Forms of racial/sexual profiling in air travel.

[glazbagun]

Just curious as to the majority view on this given the recent fuore over the guy suing BA over "treating men like perverts" for their policy of not sitting unnacompanied children next to men, which amounts to sexual profiling. (I should add that I'm unaware of the details of their policy and wether it's a preferential policy implemented poory or compulsory thing executed to perfection).

Would those opposed to such profiling also be opposed to racial/cultural profiling at airport security? For example- more searches/full body scans for those statistically more likely to be interested in blowing up a plane as categorized by race/country of origin?

So, if the former is (which it may not be) sexual profiling based on your statistical likelyhood of being a perv.
and the latter is racial/national profiling based on your statistical likelyhood to want to blow up a plane

which do you oppose, if any?

[ewenm]

I don't live my life in fear (in these cases of paedophiles or terrorists) and feel civil liberties are already over-infringed in the name of "the greater good". Judging someone based on their religion, gender or race is such a broad brush approach that it will identify far more innocent than guilty.

[Mondeohdear]

Do you think Asian passengers are all made to sit at the back of the plane? If an Asian passenger was asked to move because of their race I would be equally adamant about how wrong it is as I am about moving all male passengers in case they're paedos.

[glazbagun]

Mondeohdear said:

Do you think Asian passengers are all made to sit at the back of the plane? If an Asian passenger was asked to move because of their race I would be equally adamant about how wrong it is as I am about moving all male passengers in case they're paedos.

Who said anything about what I think? However if you take the time to actually read the post before replying with your knee-jerk assumption of what I asked- I was comparing the low level sexual profiling that evidently goes on when choosing a seat for an unnacompanied minor to sit on a plane (which many PHers find intolerable) with the racial profiling that doesn't go on at security, where many have said it may have merits.

If you would like to start a poll on wether or not we should have segregated planes, be my guest, but it's not relevant to the question.

Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 20th January 14:48

[Mondeohdear]

glazbagun said:

Mondeohdear said:

Do you think Asian passengers are all made to sit at the back of the plane? If an Asian passenger was asked to move because of their race I would be equally adamant about how wrong it is as I am about moving all male passengers in case they're paedos.

Who said anything about what I think?

Your views in the other thread seemed to indicate that the sexual profiling of passengers is discrimination but not prejudice, I imagine the legal case will be going on under anti-discrimination law. I realise now you're appealing to some PH Daily Wailiness with this survey so that when the majority come along and say the two things are totally differetn we can start another debate.

ETA Having see your edits I see what you're getting at. However, the racial profiling doesn't involve saying where in the plane somebody can sit. Had a thought, maybe the legislation should be changed so that all male travellers have to undergo a CRB check before travel.

Edited by Mondeohdear on Wednesday 20th January 14:53

[mrmr96]

Is this like stopping and searching more black men than white women, despite more street crime being comitted by black men than white women?

[ewenm]

mrmr96 said:

Is this like stopping and searching more black men than white women, despite more street crime being comitted by black men than white women?

Which is fine as long as the person has done something to prompt the search, rather than PURELY the fact they are black (for example). IMO you should need more evidence than race/gender/religion to suspect someone of something.

[odyssey2200]

AFAIK a Perv/peado has never caused a plane to crash.

Where as ......

[Mermaid]

odyssey2200 said:

AFAIK a Perv/peado has never caused a plane to crash.

Where as ......

More airlines than just JAL will crash if that line of thinking starts to affect air travel.

[mrmr96]

ewenm said:

mrmr96 said:

Is this like stopping and searching more black men than white women, despite more street crime being comitted by black men than white women?

Which is fine as long as the person has done something to prompt the search, rather than PURELY the fact they are black (for example). IMO you should need more evidence than race/gender/religion to suspect someone of something.

Ok, so coming back to airport checks. There have been white people try to blow up planes, and there have been asian people try to blow up planes. If we looked at the number of attempted terrorist attacks on airlines in the last 10 years and this showed a bias to more white people or more asian people trying to blow up plates - should we subject one group to more security checks than the other?

In an ideal world everyone would undergo the rigourous checks, but if we work on the assumption that checking everyone that rigourously isn't practical, then can race be used to identify people on whom more rigourous checks should be made? How would you feel if you were in the group subject to more rigourous checks based on your race?

[5unny]

I don't see an issue with racial profiling but then there will come a point when these Islamist groups will simply send in white, black or oriental converts to carry out the actual act. Like Richard Reid or that young chap Nicky Reilly who almost blew up a cafe in Exeter last year.

[Soovy]

There was some cock on the radio this morning saying that "a disproportionate number of the people searched at airports are asian muslims".

Well sorry mate but a disproportionate number of the people strapping on bombs and murdering us are as well.


C ntery.

[ewenm]

mrmr96 said:

ewenm said:

mrmr96 said:

Is this like stopping and searching more black men than white women, despite more street crime being comitted by black men than white women?

Which is fine as long as the person has done something to prompt the search, rather than PURELY the fact they are black (for example). IMO you should need more evidence than race/gender/religion to suspect someone of something.

Ok, so coming back to airport checks. There have been white people try to blow up planes, and there have been asian people try to blow up planes. If we looked at the number of attempted terrorist attacks on airlines in the last 10 years and this showed a bias to more white people or more asian people trying to blow up plates - should we subject one group to more security checks than the other?

In an ideal world everyone would undergo the rigourous checks, but if we work on the assumption that checking everyone that rigourously isn't practical, then can race be used to identify people on whom more rigourous checks should be made? How would you feel if you were in the group subject to more rigourous checks based on your race?

I don't believe race is a reliable indicator of increased risk - it's definitely an easy indicator but how many terrorists have been caught, randomly, at the airport purely based on their race (rather than additional intelligence)?

[mrmr96]

ewenm said:

mrmr96 said:

ewenm said:

mrmr96 said:

Is this like stopping and searching more black men than white women, despite more street crime being comitted by black men than white women?

Which is fine as long as the person has done something to prompt the search, rather than PURELY the fact they are black (for example). IMO you should need more evidence than race/gender/religion to suspect someone of something.

Ok, so coming back to airport checks. There have been white people try to blow up planes, and there have been asian people try to blow up planes. If we looked at the number of attempted terrorist attacks on airlines in the last 10 years and this showed a bias to more white people or more asian people trying to blow up plates - should we subject one group to more security checks than the other?

In an ideal world everyone would undergo the rigourous checks, but if we work on the assumption that checking everyone that rigourously isn't practical, then can race be used to identify people on whom more rigourous checks should be made? How would you feel if you were in the group subject to more rigourous checks based on your race?

I don't believe race is a reliable indicator of increased risk - it's definitely an easy indicator but how many terrorists have been caught, randomly, at the airport purely based on their race (rather than additional intelligence)?

I don't think you've answered my question.

[ewenm]

Answered the first one: can race be used as criteria for more rigourous checks? On it's own, no IMO. It is a very easy criteria to apply. With that opinion, the second question is not relevant, however...

Would I be annoyed if I was singled out due to my race? Yes, I'd be asking what other criteria I'd failed on or if it were a purely racial basis. But then, assuming everyone was courteous and polite, I'd put up with it. If I was being treated as guilty, rather than as someone who needed extra checks, I'd be annoyed.