|
Toronto Star – August 2, 2007
When does vigilance cross into racial profiling?
Critics warn U.S. legislation protecting citizens reporting
`terror threats' could lead to harassment
Tim Harper
WASHINGTON–The imams were praying a little too loudly for the other passengers in the waiting lounge at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport that day last fall.
One passenger thought they sounded angry. Others said they became alarmed because the six clerics split up once aboard the Phoenix-bound flight, chatting amongst themselves, requesting seats near exits and asking for unnecessary seatbelt extenders.
Fearful passengers complained.
US Airways booted the imams from the flight.
When they were cleared of any wrongdoing after an investigation, they sued the airline and their accusers. The religious leaders say they were harassed and humiliated.
The passengers told police they saw a potential reprise of 9/11 unfolding.
Now, in new legislation passed by the U.S. Congress and awaiting President George W. Bush's signature, individuals who report terror threats "in good faith" will be immune from such lawsuits.
Republicans, cheered on by conservative talk radio and cable news, pushed the so-called John Doe amendment into Democratic legislation implementing the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. The amendment has been lauded in many quarters as a simple, commonsense move to aid America's best defence against another terror attack, the eyes and ears of a vigilant populace.
But it has also raised troubling questions – when does vigilance become vigilantism and when does a legitimate fear cross into racial profiling?
Some fear it could lead to open season on those who look different, dress differently or practise a different religion.
"It appears to give people carte blanche to point fingers at others they find strange or those whose appearance, ethnicity or presumed religious affiliation cause them some fear," said Hussein Ibish, executive director of the Foundation for Arab-American Leadership.
The debate also sparked a charge by one prominent Republican that the imams at the Minneapolis airport that day purposely choreographed the incident with a lawsuit as their ultimate goal.
"This is an attempt by organized Islamic groups to intimidate Americans," said Peter King, a New York Republican and onetime chair of the homeland security committee.
Yesterday, their lawyer said the six would drop the passengers, identified as "John Does," from the lawsuit, but maintained it had nothing to do with the pending legislation.
King told Fox News he had discussed the case with "people very high in law enforcement" and they had concluded the entire episode was a set-up, opening a new court room battleground between the U.S. and radical Islamists.
All the imams were released after five hours of questioning and, although US Airways would not let them on a subsequent flight, they flew home the following day then filed suit seeking unspecified damages for false arrest, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, failure to train, conspiracy to discriminate and negligence.
But the John Doe amendment is retroactive to last October so the passengers would have been removed from the lawsuit under the new law once Bush signed the bill.
"We tell every good American, if you see something, say something," King said.
Without the amendment, King said, "Americans would have been subjected to lawsuits for reporting this type of behaviour on planes and trains. Absolutely disgraceful."
Such charges of a set-up by King are "sinister and neurotic," says Ibish. He said there was absolutely no need for the law because there was no evidence the Minneapolis lawsuit was having a chilling effect on any vigilant citizens……
http://www.thestar.com/article/242341
|
