Many of you are familiar with the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria who later emigrated to Canada. After earning bachelor's and master's degrees in computer engineering, Arar worked in Ottawa as a telecommunications engineer. On a stopover in New York as he was returning to Montreal, Canada from a vacation in Tunisia in September 2002, U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he had links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was the holder of a Canadian passport.
There is evidence that the United States may have been acting on misleading information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in seizing Arar. Arar’s removal was initially described as a deportation. However, his removal was not validated by the United States department of Homeland Security and hence his removal was more in the nature of an extraordinary rendition, a United States extrajudicial method involving the removal of suspected criminals or terrorists to third countries to undergo what are often abusive interrogation techniques. Arar is not the only person to have been subjected to this process. Another well-known case is that of Khalid El-Masri, a German born in Kuwait to Lebanese parents. El-Masri was detained by Macedonian officials at the border when he sought to enter on a vacation trip. He was handed over to American security officials and flown to Afghanistan where he underwent abusive interrogation techniques. No charges were ever brought.When Arar returned to Canada more than a year after being seized, he, too, indicated that he had been tortured during his incarceration and accused American officials of sending him to Syria knowing that torture would be practiced. Click here to listen to Arar telling his own story.
On January 26, 2007 Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology to Arar on behalf of the Canadian government and announced that Arar would receive a total of 12.5 million dollars to settle his claim. In the United States, United States Senator and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy has indicated that he will hold hearings into Mr. Arar's case. Senator Patrick Leahy has called the United State's removal of Mr. Arar to Syria absurd and outrageous, noting that instead of sending Mr. Arar a "couple of hundred miles to Canada and turned over to the Canadian authorities, . . . he was sent thousands of miles away to Syria."
Is this a case of impermissible racial or ethnic profiling? Some have argued that in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, discrimination against people of apparent Middle Eastern background has become commonplace throughout much of the West. In the first few years after the attacks, any person from the Middle-East had to be fingerprinted and photographed before gaining entrance into the United States. It has been reported that of all the people searched or otherwise stopped at the security checkpoints, people with passports from a Middle- Eastern country or a specific stereotypical “Middle-Eastern” look made up the largest percent. In response to the criticism of this increased scrutiny, some have argued that a failure to look closely at those appearing "Middle-Eastern" would be a bow to political correctness and would endanger the public.
For the most part, prior to September 11, 2001 those profiled as criminals in Western countries, especially the United States, were typically of African or Latin ancestry. Phrases such as “driving while black or brown” (a DWB), and “walking while black” became part of the lexicon as persons of color were far more often stopped, questioned and searched while in motor vehicles or on foot than their white counterparts. Prior to September 11, the principal crime concern in the airports of the West was illicit drugs, and very often African and Latin-ancestored women and men were questioned , harassed, and even strip searched by airport security officials in search of drugs.
Subsequent to September 11, as race and ethnicity based security profiling broadened to include those of apparent Middle-Eastern descent, many blacks and Latinos engaged in sarcastic jokes whose punch lines centered on the fact that they enjoyed new “company” in racial and ethnic security scrutiny. Middle-Easterners had, up to September 11, enjoyed the status of honorary white in some Western venues; or at least, it was clear that they were not to be feared in the same way that blacks or other racial minorities were. However, in a post September 11 world, “flying while Muslim” (based on the obviously erroneous assumption that every Middle Easterner is a Muslim) has joined the panoply of imagined offenses of the members of the “Other Brotherhood”.
What do you think?
2 comments:
Obviously this is delicate ground, and it relates closely to discussion we had in class a couple of weeks ago. In the interest of pursuing, say, 'criminal' justice, there might be some benefit to this kind of racial profiling. Take the example of Latin Americans and drugs. A huge portion of drugs come to the US from Mexico, Colombia, and several other Latin American countries. It has been, historically (unless someone contradicts me - it is a point I'd gladly concede) true, I would imagine, that the majority of people doing this smuggling from these regions are what we call 'Latinos'.
So scenario #1: we are government officials interested in stopping the influx of cocaine and marijuana. What is our most effective and efficient way of finding the most drugs possible before they enter the country? Not to search every man, woman or child that we come across. First, we would limit our search to passenger travel flowing from Latin America. Already we are therefore looking at a 'Latino'-heavy population. Now among these travellers, can we be more efficient? If most of the smugglers are in fact of Central American origin, does this justify our searching only this demographic?
Now scenario 2: Let's say that it was statistically true that most crimes related to child pornography were committed by whites. (I'm sorry to pick such an ugly issue, but I needed something that was enough of a 'general social problem' and was computer-based.) So the government somehow invented a race-based internet security program that scanned computers of citizens when they logged on. Only it was pretty expensive to implement, so they do it only for 'white' people. For the white people in the class - are you OK with the government invading your privacy and accessing your personal information, merely because you look somewhat like most people who have child pornography? Think of the social ills of the problem and how much more effective this kind of program could be than just waiting for more children to get hurt. On the other hand...well, you get the picture.
For anyone reading this - is this the same thing? If Muslims are 'more likely' to commit a terrorist attack when in an airport, then the solution could be to target Muslims in airports. If whites are more likely to have child porn on their hard drives, then target whites on the internet.
Or is it a different story because of the historical discrimination against the races in question in the original post?
Is there a difference because the profiling against blacks, Latins and Arabs takes place in public?
This is a fairly standard argument, but hopefully I've phrased it in a way to stimulate some discussion.
Hey dauron - very thought provoking comments!
I find your proposed hypothetical "solution" alarming, EVEN if it is justified in the name of criminal justice.
With respect to scenario #1: For arguments sake, even IF it were the case that the majority of smugglers are in fact of Central/South American descent, when you balance the need for criminal justice against the need for the prevention of similar mistreatment situations such as that of Arar, it seems that, in my view, more weight should be given to protecting each citizen's right NOT to be discriminated against on the basis of their origin and/or appearance. Conducting searches based on demographics leads down a slippery (and dangerous) slope. If you condone the behaviour for scenario #1, then you are essentially justifying the behaviour of the US govt (re Arar). While there is a severe difference between a search based on ethnic origin and that of the deportation to a foreign country (for torture) based on ethnic origin, how can one advocate the former in the name of crime prevention, without advocating the latter, especially when taking into account that the latter is dealing with a greater threat to society, namely terrorism (as opposed the drug importation).
You also need to take into account that, again, even IF it is in fact the case that Central/South Americans are the major importers of the drugs, this fails to take into account who the driving force is behind the actual operation. Do we want to punish those who are the mules, or rather would it be more valuable to convict those who are forcing the trade itself? Would convicting drug mules (who often have limited options for survival) really be serving the greater good?
Surely there has to be a fairer process, and the solution I think, in an ideal world, lies on the criminal system itself to do its job in investigating those who are in fact engaged in criminal activity.
However, considering that we do not live in a ideal world, and also considering that ethnic discrimination plagues the criminal justice system itself, I wonder if we will ever escape racial targeting?
With respect to Scenario #2, it could be argued that the situation is easier to justify in the name of the greater good, because the imposition on society at large is a lesser one i.e. accessing personal information via the internet vs. the threat of a personal limit on one's freedom through searches. However, my concern from scenario #1 remains the same. To target the white population would be to condone the racial profiling that I find distressing in scenario #1. If the government did in fact implement a child pornography monitoring system, I think it would be more valuable to scan and access ALL of those who accessed such sites, despite the costs incurred. To limit it to only the white population is to deny that the child pornography industry is an economic institution that is accessed by ANYONE looking to exploit the market for their own self-interest i.e. those who are not child molesters but who see the value in promoting these materials.
Post a Comment