“Racial” and “Religious” Profiling Now — or Death Later

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke12/9/15
“If You See Something, Say Something™” the DHS slogan goes (yes, it is trademarked). “It takes a community to protect a community,” the feds continue. “Informed, alert communities play a critical role in keeping our nation safe.” No doubt. But the best information in the world is of little use if social pressure prevents one from disclosing it. Such was the case before the San Bernardino tragedy, when a man living near terrorist Syed Farook’s Redlands home noticed suspicious-looking Middle Eastern men in the area. But he “decided not to report anything,” wrote CBS Los Angeles, “since he did not wish to racially profile those people.” Ah, the power of a lie — to silence. And to kill.

And it’s time to kill that lie. This starts with grasping a simple truth: There is no such thing as “racial profiling” or “religious profiling” per se. There is only good criminal profiling and bad criminal profiling. The good variety considers all relevant factors, based on sound criminological science, regardless of political concerns. The bad kind discriminates unjustly among those factors and only allows greater suspicion and scrutiny of people who aren’t politically favored.

For example, I’m a member of one of the most profiled groups in the nation: males. Police view men much more suspiciously than women because men commit an inordinate amount of the crime. If this is just, however, shouldn’t we apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of crime? And if considering racial factors is “racial profiling” and must be eliminated, isn’t considering sexual factors “sex profiling”? Shouldn’t it also be forbidden?

Of course, racial factors are considered all the time. If a white man is cruising a bad neighborhood in an expensive car, the police may stop him because they know the probability is relatively high he’s there to buy drugs. And at one time part of the profile of someone in the methamphetamine trade was “white,” as white motorcycle gangs used to be its main players.

Profiling is simply a fancy name for the “application of common sense.” As economist Dr. Walter Williams has pointed out, it’s a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, an Israeli airport-security agent could make far better judgments if he could spend a month living with every prospective traveler, getting to know him and his family. But since this is unrealistic, the agent has to assess probabilities based on the little information he has. And rest assured that the Israelis scrutinize young Muslim men far more closely than elderly Norwegian grandmothers.

We all engage in profiling, as it’s necessary for survival. If a person avoids a group of rough-hewn young men walking down the street, refuses to buy a car off a sleazy-looking used-car salesman, or if a child is wary of petting a strange dog, the individual has engaged in “profiling.” To refuse to thus act would be as silly as a cat not avoiding dogs because there are the odd canine-feline friendships. It could win you the year’s Darwin Award.

Doctors practice profiling, too, when they assess the diseases and conditions for which a patient should be screened. To use some examples Dr. Williams has cited, Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate; black men have a prostate cancer rate twice that of white men; and physicians check women and not men for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop it, and recommend prostate exams for men over 40. When a doctor does this, is he guilty of “racism,” “sexism” and “ageism”?

Reality: if he didn’t consider these relevant racial, sex-related and age-related factors when conducting his duties, he’d be a bad doctor. In light of this, let’s finish the following sentence: If a policeman doesn’t consider relevant racial, sex-related and age-related factors when conducting his duties, he’s _ ___ _________.

Oh, note that any politician, activist or voter who encourages him to be a _ ___ _________ is a bad citizen.

And there are many relevant group-related factors for authorities to consider. Men account for 81 percent of all violent-crime arrests; those aged 15–24, though only 14 percent of the population, account for approximately 40 percent of all arrests; and 96 percent of all crime in NYC is committed by blacks and Hispanics. Should these facts be ignored by authorities?

There are belief-oriented factors in crime as well. There was quite a bit of terrorism in the 1970s, perpetrated mainly by left-wing groups such as the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, anti-Vietnam War protesters and the Black Panthers. Thus, harboring these groups’ beliefs was part of the terrorist profile. Today, almost all the terrorism bedeviling us is committed by Muslims. Should authorities in 2015 play the three-monkeys game and ignore a clear-cut and consistent belief-oriented association with terrorism?

FACT: “Muslim” is now the most relevant factor in the terrorist profile. Anyone who denies this in political correctness’ name is hurting our country and should be shamed, stigmatized and ostracized. He should hear: “You’re a bad person. You’re a malefactor. And you’re aiding and abetting terrorism.”

Mind you, even those who rail against good profiling — using the propaganda term “racial profiling” — profile using racial factors. They just do it all wrong. Immediately after the San Bernardino shooting, MSNBC suggested it might be the work of pro-lifers (profile: “white”). CNN opined that it could have been perpetrated by militia types (profile: “white”). It was the kind of dishonesty inspiring some leftists to claim that white people are our biggest terror threat. Yet this assertion uses a raw-numbers comparison of murderers from a group representing 62 percent of the population with those from a group representing less than 2 percent of it, conflates a category with a creed (non-ideological mass killings with Islam-inspired incidents), and confuses acts of deranged minds with global jihad. Moreover, as I illustrated last year using statistical analysis, it’s a myth that whites commit in inordinate percentage of mass shootings.

Despite this, we’re supposed to believe criminal profiling is criminal itself when applied to some of the most criminally inclined groups. You can profile men. You can profile the young. You can profile whites. But profile Muslims or some other thought-police favored group, and you’re told you’re bigoted. It isn’t consistent application of good criminological science that indicates prejudice, however. Rather, that’s reflected in refusing to do so, in discriminating when applying that science — in contravention of its own findings.

During a presidential debate years ago, Ambassador Alan Keyes, a black man, was asked by a moderator if he’d be upset if a policeman stopped him because he was black. Keyes responded (I’m paraphrasing), “Yes, I’d be upset. I’d be upset at all of the young black men who committed crimes and caused authorities to look upon me more suspiciously.” We can all get offended, or pretend to be offended, by reality. But since I as a man want to be safe from crime, I accept that “male” will often be part of a criminal profile. If a young person wants to be safe from crime, he’ll accept that “young” will often be part of a criminal profile. If a black person wants to be safe from crime, he’ll accept that “black” will often be part of a criminal profile. Now, here’s another sentence to finish: If a person calling himself Muslim wants to be safe from terrorism, he’ll accept that “______” __ ____ __ ___ _________ _______.

If a politician can’t fill in those blanks, then that’s precisely what he’s shooting in the war against Muslim terrorism.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (623 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to “Racial” and “Religious” Profiling Now — or Death Later

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Very good analysis. I will note that an article I read yesterday (on NRO, I think) computed that about half of all terrorist acts in America are committed by Muslims, who make up about 1% of the population — which thus makes a Muslim 50 times as likely to be a terrorist as a non-Muslim. I suspect the ratio of terrorism-abettors is likely even higher. (On the other hand, terrorism-enablers includes a lot of white liberals, which would greatly lower the rate.) And much of the non-Muslim terrorism is by radical liberals (Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front).

    • David Ray says:

      ELF & ALF pull their crap on a constant basis. Some Weather Underground gents tried to blow up a Fort Dix dance, but the idiots blew themselves up by accident, so it resulted in a happy ending. (The bombs had nails, hence their design was to kill.)

      All three groups have something in common . . . they’re all coddled by a suck-up press.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Profiling is simply combining information and analysis to reach a judgment about something. Of course, the Leftists Vandals have vilified “judgment” so that many in the society as a whole have had this normal human ability anesthetized.

    FACT: “Muslim” is now the most relevant factor in the terrorist profile.

    It is a sad fact, that wherever there are a significant number of Muslims, there is trouble with the rest of the population. I will list just a few examples.

    1. China. The Uighur population in Western China have been responsible for a number of terrorist attacks.
    2. The Philippines. The Moros in the south of the country have been fighting non-Muslims for centuries.
    3. Indonesia. During the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990’s, the Muslims killed hundreds and possibly thousands of Chinese Indonesians. I saw one large area completely burned down by the Bumis. (Muslim indigenous people)
    4. Burma. Over the last few years there have been ongoing fights between the local Muslims and Buddhists. The Muslims have been loosing this fight.
    5. Thailand. There has been off-and-on tension along the Thailand/Malaysia border for years. This is again between Buddhists and Muslims.
    6. India. Thousands have been killed in sectarian violence between Muslims and Hindus. We all recall the terrorist attack in Bombay some years back, which elements of the Pakistani army or security service appear to have had some part.
    7.Afghanistan. We all know the story.
    8. Iran. We all know the story.
    9. Russia and the C.I.S. One of the worse areas of violence after the demise of the USSR was in Chechnya. A hot war went on for several years. There have been problems in the Caucasus region for some years. Many of the jihadis fighting in the Middle East appear to be war-hardened veterans from their fight with the Russians.
    10. The Middle East. What can one say?
    11. North Africa. The military in Egypt was able to put down the Muslim Brotherhood, but not before much damage was done. There have been several on-going civil wars in the area which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Libya is a shambles. Hopefully, Algeria, Tunis and Morocco will be able to maintain the gains they have made.
    12. Northwest and West Africa. Think Boko Harim. There have been troubles in Nigeria, Mali and the area for some time.
    13. Sudan. The Muslims from the North carried on a war against the animists in the South for years.
    14. Somalia. What can one say?
    15. Europe. Pressure has been building over several decades and I believe we will see more “Paris” slaughters in future.

    When one starts a conversation with Muslims or liberals about Islam, one often hears of the “great” contributions the Muslims made to the world and of their glory days. But if one looks closely at majority Muslim states today, one generally sees poverty stricken lands with poorly educated people who are unable to keep up with modernity. In those Muslim states which have wealth, it is generally based on the extraction of raw materials, mainly oil and gas, which the locals would not have been able to profit from except for outside, non-Muslim, help.

    One must ask the question, “is Islam the reason these countries are held back?”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Several centuries ago, a Muslim scholar announced that all worthwhile knowledge had been acquired. Anything else would be antithetical to Islam. So whatever Islam allowed up to then, ever since it has been completely primitive. The only difference between one dysfunctional Muslim culture and another is in how harmless or harmful each is to everyone else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *