I guess I’m still all mixed up about this profiling business.
It seems our progressive friends are of two minds about profiling.
On the one hand, they tell us local police, Border Patrol agents, TSA officers, the FBI, CIA and all other law enforcement, security and intelligence personnel should never consider race or religious background when doing their work on behalf of national security and public safety because an innocent party might be affected in a negative way as a result.
I understand that position. I disagree with it. I think it is extreme. I think it doesn’t make sense in a practical sense when split-second decisions need to be made. I think people charged with guarding the lives of the public should consider all available evidence. I think it makes no sense to disregard any clue when you are in this line of work. It seems to me like a policy designed to fail.
After all, we can look at successful anti-terrorist practices in other countries – Israel, for example – to see how such information can be used without stripping people of their rights and with only a modicum of inconvenience while saving lives.
In earlier commentaries on this topic, I explained how I myself have experienced this kind of profiling while frequently traveling to Israel for 40 years. It might require me to spend more time in a security check than someone who doesn’t have an Arab face and an Arab surname. But, at the end of the day, no one loses his or her life, no one is subjected to torture, no one blows up a plane.
That’s why I have actually welcomed this kind of profiling as I travel. It means I’m safer. If I’m traveling with my wife and family, they are safer as a result of this minor inconvenience that I sometimes experience.
Profile me, I have exclaimed! It’s not lynching. It’s not genocide. It’s not violence or torture. It’s simply a means of protecting the innocent as efficiently and effectively as possible.
But here’s where I get mixed up as to the motives of the so-called “progressives.”
Aren’t they the ones behind the growing bias and prejudice against police officers, whom they seem to characterize generally as wanton racists who victimize blacks and other minorities routinely with no more motivation than the fact that they can?
In doing just that, are the Black Lives Matter movement and its offspring just as guilty as the worst profiler by casting such a wide net in their condemnations – effectively endangering the lives of all police officers and making their job more difficult to do?
In other words, it may not be racial profiling, it may not be religious profiling, but aren’t the groups and individuals behind these movements actually doing just what they supposedly condemn – namely unfair group stereotyping that actually results sometimes in violence against innocent people only because they wear a blue uniform?
Do you see what I’m getting at?
You’ve probably noticed, like I have recently, that more and more police officers are being targeted for violence. They’re being hunted down deliberately because they are police officers. It’s like a target has been painted on the backs of law enforcement officers around the country – because of a handful of bad cops and far more misunderstandings over incidents in which police have actually done nothing wrong.
At what point do we begin to blame those who dehumanize police officers as “pigs” for the violence that befalls some of them?
Right now, one of the two major political parties is embracing this kind of prejudice, this kind of bigotry, this kind of law enforcement hatred.
It’s not just one or two irresponsible radical groups perpetrating these myths against police. The biggest political party in the country is doing it.
It strikes me as just another form of bigotry and prejudice. But, in this case, it’s actually costing real lives of brave men and women who are simply dedicated to protecting the public.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].