In Security

I'm at Heathrow, airside with 2 hours to spend before my flight leaves. Security was swift, I arrived very early for my flight.

I’m really lucky to be flying when I am – not only did my flight in from Los Angeles arrive a week before the day of the raids, the raids happened 5 days ago, and airports have had enough time to adjust. So I have my laptop, and a small carrier bag. And, of course, the raids happened, and no plane fell out of the sky last week.

Not so lucky was the brother-in-law of my taxi driver. He runs a takeaway and internet café in Reading. On the day of the arrests the police shut his shop down, parked their cars outside and spent time analysing his computers. From what I gathered from my taxi driver, the media “told lies” and implied that his brother-in-law was involved, and the family is suffering from the comment (and from the loss of income).

The question of racial profiling has been in the media (and on the West Wing Episode I watched recently). It’s difficult. No-one wants to see an offence of “travelling while Asian” (much as driving an expensive car and being black or Hispanic can have you pulled over in the States).

That said if the police and security forces have credible evidence then it makes sense to focus on people who fit the profile, given the threats at hand.

I wouldn’t support race-based profiling for low level stuff, as it too easily can become prejudice-based, and expectations can breed crime – the teenager who is stopped, and decides “well they’ll treat me like a criminal so I may as well become one”.

But what do you do where, as JFK said - someone is willing to trade their life for yours and a few hundred others?

My answer, for now....

For low level crime, race based profiling will cause more problems than it solves. When someone is willing to trade their life for the deaths of hundreds, then evidence based (and not prejudice based) profiling is a necessary tool.

I make the distinction between evidence and prejudice based. When I conducted training on the Human Rights Act for NZ Tenancy Services I used to explain that it's legal to make decisions based on the individual character of a person, but not to make assumptions about a person based on a stereotype.

For example, if you want a reliable tenant who pays on time, then a landlord in New Zealand can’t just refuse to let to someone who is on a benefit based on their stereotype that beneficiaries tend to be unreliable. Rather, they need to look at the individual. If you want a quiet tenant, you can't assume that tenants who are Maori or Irish will have lots of parties. You need to treat people as individuals, not as stereotypes.

Back to the question of racial profiling - Police and Security forces will need to do evidence based profiling, with a recognition that this will be unfair on the innocent. I'm grateful that I can fly today, and hopeful that my flight will be safe. I'm also hopeful that the family of my taxi-driver don't feel isolated and driven to find belonging and comfort elsewhere.

And I'm hopeful that, when police and security forces act on a race-based profile, they do so with as much respect for the human dignity of the person as possible, and an awareness that the innocent will suffer.

Would it be possible to work on the assumption that the young asian man called over for the profile search be treated with the same respect and dignity that you would give to Prince William? Too idealistic?

It isn't easy, but nor is life black and white. Nor should it be.