I never know who I’ll find in The Alliance of Free Blogs lurking with hatred and misdirected rage:
“Well yes, I really CAN think of something more degrading and humiliating for an American citizen to go through.. [pictures shown of people jumping from WTC on 9/11]“
Are you referring to you using their dying moments as propaganda for racial profiling of brown people in airports? Beause yeah, I think that’s possibly more degrading than being racially profiled.
–
Further to the discussion over the pro-racism cartoon at the above link, is Uncle Meat’s suggestion that racial profiling is better than the status quo. I think it works too, but in a different way than the intention of the profilers. It ends up radicalizing those subjected to inequal treatment. It took “radicals” in both the black, and women demographics to enact changes over decades in regions where they recieved starkly different institutional treatment due to their appearance. It’s just common sense that if all Canadian Muslims are subjected to state sponsored racism, there will be massive resentment and protest [and even terrorism] generated against Canada. If you think we’re threatened now when we haven’t even done anything formally wrong to Muslims, just wait until we treat them all like we treated Japanese Canadians during World War II.
Here’s my suggestion:
The vast majority of terrorists are men, so we should start profiling everyone with a penis at the airports. Radical Muslims can take off their turban, but men can’t remove their PENIS. That’s just good sense. This is no time for political correctness! Men are killers. People are dying on planes because of male acts of terrorism every day! Well, maybe more like every 5 years, but if you divide the number of dead with the number of days between incidents, it averages out to about a person a day in the world!
Just look at the world’s known terrorists, they are all men. Osama Bin Laden, Timothy McViegh, Saddam Hussien, Cat Stevens, John Tesh, Steve Urkel, and Khan. Forget putting resources into preventing hundreds of thousands from dying in earthquakes and tsunamis, because the real threat is male shoe bombers. As a member of the guilty sex, I’ll happily submit to unfair searches on the street or in airports so that when people see me being searched by police they’ll know they are safe.
Never again will I be allowed to sew in first class on Air Canada, because I might poke everyone to death with my intense male killing rage against whatever radical cause it is I’m passionate about that day. There’s nothing worse than Sewing On A Plane in this post 9/11 world.
// Trackbacked to Sam Burns //
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Ashley | 25-Aug-06 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
works for me, men suck anyway :-p
beepbeepitsme | 25-Aug-06 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
RE: “The vast majority of terrorists are men, so we should start profiling everyone with a penis at the airports. Radical Muslims can take off their turban, but men can’t remove their PENIS. That’s just good sense.”
Oh you femininazi! (I love it, lol )
PS: Ever hear the song “Detachable Penis?” (Just kiddin about.)
Saskboy | 25-Aug-06 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
I just read the song on a website. Sounds mildly insane, yet funny.
Arabian Knight | 28-Aug-06 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
My god your pathetic. Nice try with the humour though.
Here`s my take:
http://arabiandissent.blogspot.com/2005/07/racial-profile-me.html
(btw: I`m muslim, I`m affraid you can`t pull the race card on this one bub)
Saskboy | 28-Aug-06 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
From Knight’s profiling post:”[The search caused] the poor [disabled] wommen alot of pain and humiliation.”
OK, so it’s painful and humiliating to be unfairly searched. Yet you’re ok with subjecting yourself to painful and humiliating searches because you can’t handle the humiliating racism you detect all around you?
I see what you’re getting at with profiling – you’re willing to trade constant humiliation on a plane for 10 minutes of intense expected scrutiny. But it’s so easy to get around airport security, that people will still look at you suspiciously on the plane, and you’ll have had to endure the body searches.
I won’t call you pathetic Knight like you did me, but I think you do deserve to be called naive when it comes to airline, and any kind of security.
Wonderwoman, how are they supposed to reign in the nutcases? Are you able to control what other women are doing on the other side of the world? Why do Muslims in Canada have any more control than you do?
In Knight’s example, don’t you think it was sensible for someone in a metal wheelchair to be searched since a metal detector is pretty much useless? If you want to smuggle something onboard, wouldn’t you pick an innocuous target as a mule? But thanks to the racial profiling, you can spot a terrorist just by the religion of their skin?
“are not all that interested in security – and they rarely use common sense.
”
How did you feel about the water bottles and toothpaste being taken off the planes in Canada? Because that wasn’t common sense regarding security at all.
Candace, you can’t tell a Muslim by the colour of their skin. Racially profiling Muslims to improve “security” would be as sensible as racially profiling Christians to stop government building bombings.
Allan | 29-Aug-06 at 9:24 am | Permalink
Racial profiling doesn’t make logical sense, as I note on my blog. But the truth is that political correctness and sensitivity are not effective tools against the Islamofascists.
Most Muslims living in the West do so to escape the repressive societies they grew up in and are eager to reap the benefits of additional freedom and opportunity.
These moderate Muslims, who abandoned their homelands for the West are no more likely to defend their new homes than their old. The only thing that might bring them on board is to threaten their freedoms- not through official government proclamations, but through actions like the Spanish airline incident.
To these newly-fashioned Westerners- and to those of us with roots in Canada, America, and Britain- I say help defend our lands lest, through your silence and inaction, you become complicit in furthering the aims of terrorists.
Arabian Knight | 31-Aug-06 at 7:30 pm | Permalink
OK, so it’s painful and humiliating to be unfairly searched. Yet you’re ok with subjecting yourself to painful and humiliating searches because you can’t handle the humiliating racism you detect all around you?“
It was painful for the wommen because she was a 72 year old wommen on her way to the states for a Kidney operation. And it was `humiliating`becuase she needed alot of help getting up from her weelchair.
(I see what you’re getting at with profiling – you’re willing to trade constant humiliation on a plane for 10 minutes of intense expected scrutiny. But it’s so easy to get around airport security, that people will still look at you suspiciously on the plane, and you’ll have had to endure the body searches.)
Nope. I`ve flown El Al (the Israeli airline) in 97, the people on the plane wre much more relaxed (and frankly so was I) that the young Arab males (who are the most likely to carry out a terrorist attack in that particlular situation) thank all the people I`ve flew with since.
“I won’t call you pathetic Knight like you did me, but I think you do deserve to be called naive when it comes to airline, and any kind of security.“
Let`s see, the Israelis have officially practise racial profilling on their flights, they havn`t had a hijacking since god knows when, so I think your the one who`s being naive.
`In Knight’s example, don’t you think it was sensible for someone in a metal wheelchair to be searched since a metal detector is pretty much useless? If you want to smuggle something onboard, wouldn’t you pick an innocuous target as a mule? But thanks to the racial profiling, you can spot a terrorist just by the religion of their skinÉ “
Let me ask you something. If a lady reports that she was just robbed by a big, white, 6 foot 8 mlae to the police. Do you think that cops should be treating short, black 5 foot 3 black wommen with equal suspition?
Becuase that`s basicaly the method you want to employ for airport secuirity. Treat evreybody the same.
(How did you feel about the water bottles and toothpaste being taken off the planes in Canada? Because that wasn’t common sense regarding security at all.)
Had they used smart profiling and good detective work, those measures would`nt have been necessary. I`m using the Israeli example again, but they had to deal with alot worse threats. And they never went that far. Now…why is that?
(Candace, you can’t tell a Muslim by the colour of their skin. Racially profiling Muslims to improve “security” would be as sensible as racially profiling Christians to stop government building bombings.)
Ah yes, the Timothy Mcveigh argument. Let`s analyze. One group: roughly 25 million (Muslim fanatics who use terrorism). The other group roughly 5000 (Christian fanatics who use terrorism). Now…which group do you think is more likely to carry out a terrorist attack?
And can you answer the questions I pose about other types of other kinds of profilling?
When I worked at a convenience store in my University days, I was told to keep an eye out for young teenage customers. Why? Because they’re more likely to steal the alcohol. They’re more likely to stuff products in their school bags and walk out. They’re more likely to show me fake-Id’s to buy cigarettes. (And its true!) Does this constitute as age-ism? Or common sense?
Or how about the case of a buddy of mine who works in Mall Security. Who’s told to watch out for Ladies with big purses. Why? Because police records and their own records show that they’re more likely to be doing the shoplifting. Does this constitute as sexism? Or are the businesses just looking out for their own interests?
Saskboy | 31-Aug-06 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
“Let`s see, the Israelis have officially practise racial profilling on their flights, they havn`t had a hijacking since god knows when, so I think your the one who`s being naive.”
We’re talking about more than just airlines being affected when you institute racial discrimination as a state policy. That shows you’re being either naive or obtuse.
“Becuase that`s basicaly the method you want to employ for airport secuirity. Treat evreybody the same.”
Yes, everyone gets onto the plane, thus anyone could be carrying something onto the plane someone bad could use. That’s just good reasoning. Drug traffickers use ignorant mules, why wouldn’t terrorists? To put it another way, if you have a top secret building, you don’t just search the USB drives, you search the old decrepit floppy discs leaving or entering too.
“Now…which group do you think is more likely to carry out a terrorist attack?”
Do you mean more likely, or more successful? Because I’d say there may be a case for saying Mulsim terrorists are more violent lately, but successful attacks is running about even in the United States anyway. ‘93 and ‘01 WTC were Muslim radicals as was the USS Cole and embassy, and Oklahoma and the Uni-bomber were not. And I don’t recall which the Washington sniper was, and they never caught the anthrax mailers. Any other events come to mind in the last decade or so? Seems that Christian terrorists are more deadly per capita if only 1 in 5000 terrorists are Christian as you claim.
“Does this constitute as age-ism? Or common sense?”
Both, but did you also watch for other people stuffing stuff into their bags, and ask for IDs of people who you weren’t sure of their age?
Not all ageism is bad, but you must admit it wouldn’t exist in some cases if young people voted in larger numbers.
“Ladies with big purses. Why?”
That’s not sexism, that’s watching for big bags, just like in your convenience store example. It seems that the common thread is large bags, not age or gender, or even religion.
How exactly has what you’ve said made a case for detaining people for the religion of their skin?
Arabian Knight | 01-Sep-06 at 9:43 pm | Permalink
(We’re talking about more than just airlines being affected when you institute racial discrimination as a state policy. That shows you’re being either naive or obtuse.)
Its not state policy, but airport secuirty procedures. Which is what I thought this is all about. I don`t know how you make the jump from airport procedure to internment camps.
(Yes, everyone gets onto the plane, thus anyone could be carrying Not all ageism is bad, but you must admit it wouldn’t exist in some cases if young people voted in larger numbers.something onto the plane someone bad could use.)
Right, and a 74 year old lady with artheritis is just as likely to carry out a suicide bombing on a plane as a able-bodied 27 year old Muslim male…is that what your tryign to say?
(Drug traffickers use ignorant mules, why wouldn’t terrorists? To put it another way, if you have a top secret building, you don’t just search the USB drives, you search the old decrepit floppy discs leaving or entering too.)
The way your describing it, it would be as if Muslims would be the only ones to have to go through security and the others just have to go from checking in their luggage straight to the gate. No, that`s not what the Israelis use. EVREYBODY goes through the basic level of secuirty, the passagners which secuirty deems more possible to carry out an attack go through extra procedures.
“Do you mean more likely, or more successful?“
More likely.
(Because I’d say there may be a case for saying Mulsim terrorists are more violent lately, but successful attacks is running about even in the United States anyway. ‘93 and ‘01 WTC were Muslim radicals as was the USS Cole and embassy, and Oklahoma and the Uni-bomber were not.)
And if we also include the attacks that were thwarted, the scale tips wayyy more towards the muslim side.
(And I don’t recall which the Washington sniper was, and they never caught the anthrax mailers.)
What the hell does that have to do with airport secuirty?
The sniper tragey isn`t really deemed as a terrorist attack, as terrorim`s definition is basicaly the intentional killing of innocent civilians to achieve political gains. Which doesn`t really go with either cases you just mentioned.
(Both)
I see. I`ll be sure to tell the cops who are looking for the 42 year old white bald male sex predator in my city that they are “sexist” and “racist” for not treating young black women with equal vigilance in their hunt. (Hey…I`m just following your logic).
(but did you also watch for other people stuffing stuff into their bags, and ask for IDs of people who you weren’t sure of their age?)
Well you always have to maintain some sort of vigilance for all customers, just with young teenage customers, I pay closser attention. Why? Because about 9 out 10 of all the shoplifting cases the store had to deal with, 9 out 10 times it was young teenagers who were comminting the crime. Get me?
(Not all ageism is bad, but you must admit it wouldn’t exist in some cases if young people voted in larger numbers.)
What? Dude..are you stoned? Focus here.
(That’s not sexism, that’s watching for big bags, just like in your convenience store example.)
No..its specifically LADIES with big purses. Again, because shoplifting in stores like Sears and The Bay (according to their own statistics) happen to be done by women. (Middle Aged women in fact!). Like the Israeli airport security procedures, they keep an eye on all customers, BUT they become extra vigilant when they see that demographic walk into their store.
Hey if you don`t believe me, I can give you the guy`s cell phone number and you can ask him for yourself. He`s the head of security for the entire mall.
(How exactly has what you’ve said made a case for detaining people for the religion of their skin?)
Hold on! We were talking about racial profiling in airports in which the procedure is extra security barriers. That`s a LOOOONG jump from DETAINING people.
Answer back your sober.
Ashley | 03-Sep-06 at 12:16 am | Permalink
Saskboy says:
“Answer back your sober.”
Perhaps english is your second language and I’ll cut you some slack, otherwise answer back when you’re literate.
“Its not state policy, but airport secuirty procedures.”
Isn’t Canada’s airport security policy run by a federal (state) agency? Hmm?
“Right, and a 74 year old lady with artheritis is just as likely to carry out a suicide bombing on a plane as a able-bodied 27 year old Muslim male…is that what your tryign to say?”
Right. If you aren’t able to understand the theory of mules, then I’d suggest you figure out how a terrorist could dupe or coerce someong into carrying something bad past security for them to use it.
“What the hell does that have to do with airport secuirty?”
I thought we were talking about ladies with big purses in stores now ;-)
Focus!
What do you think security is doing when they give someone a more “careful” going over. That’s a type of detention. If someone declined to be “detained” for a search and tried to leave, they would be further detained at that point in a hurry. Innocent until proven guilty? I don’t think so, not in a hypersensitive secure/paranoid area.
Arabian Knight | 04-Sep-06 at 12:56 am | Permalink
“Perhaps english is your second language and I’ll cut you some slack, otherwise answer back when you’re literate.”
Ah, so non-white, non English speaking Canadians are illetrate in your view, thanks for displaying your bigotry there honky.
“Isn’t Canada’s airport security policy run by a federal (state) agency? Hmm?”
Not all of it.
“Right. If you aren’t able to understand the theory of mules, then I’d suggest you figure out how a terrorist could dupe or coerce someong into carrying something bad past security for them to use it. ”
Uh-huh. Becuase the 9/11 hijackers used a sophistacted diversion to sneak those weapons on the planes? So much for the “theory of mules”.
“I thought we were talking about ladies with big purses in stores now ;-)
Focus!”
Yup, and how the same logic applies to airport security.
“What do you think security is doing when they give someone a more “careful” going over.”
Hmmm, I`d say trying to determine whether or not the person can be a threat to those around him…so I`m going to say…”Their Jobs”.
“That’s a type of detention.”
Its a type of delay. And from the way Saskboy made it out to be, you would have thought he was talking about internment camps.
“If someone declined to be “detained” for a search and tried to leave, they would be further detained at that point in a hurry. ”
Ok first of all what the hell does this have to do with profilling, your just talking about security procedures in the general sense. Anyhoo, if someone refused to be detained and decides to leave, Federal Law allows the security personel to detain that person for up to 24 hours and go through a more thorough search. If they find nothing threatning or illegal in his possessions, he is let go (usually within 2-3 hours). If they do find something illegal (e.g. Drugs, illegal weapons, then he/she is turned over to the local authorities.). This is a standard procedure for ALL people regardless of race.
And funny, but after long discussions, no one has even touched on why the Israelis have been very successful whenever it comes to Airport secuirity while they institute racial profiling in their procedures.
Saskboy | 05-Sep-06 at 9:34 pm | Permalink
(“Perhaps english is your second language and I’ll cut you some slack, otherwise answer back when you’re literate.”)
“Ah, so non-white, non English speaking Canadians are illetrate in your view, thanks for displaying your bigotry there honky. ”
That’s not at all what I said or meant. I’ll rephrase it. Come back when you’re literate in english so you don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, and can communicate your ideas to me.
Arabian Knight | 06-Sep-06 at 4:56 pm | Permalink
“That’s not at all what I said or meant. I’ll rephrase it. Come back when you’re literate in english so you don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, and can communicate your ideas to me.”
In other words what your saying is, you don`t debate with immigranrs, How very progressive of you.
Leftists have always went ape when I suggested that most of the racism in today`s society is more evident in the progressive movements rathe than the `right wing think tanks`. Thank you for confirming that Ashley.
Saskboy | 06-Sep-06 at 11:41 pm | Permalink
“In other words what your saying is, you don`t debate with immigranrs, How very progressive of you.”
No, I debate with immigrants all of the time. This stopped being a debate though when you called me a drunken “honkey”. Then it became an insult contest which is different from a debate. No ideas are taken as they are meant.
And to clarify, it wasn’t Ashley posting, I was too lazy to sign in under my own ID on her computer the other day, that’s why I said “Saskboy says” on that post up there.
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy » Blog Archive » Roundup for Sept. 19, 2006 - Movies - Maple Syrup on Do-Not-Fly list | 19-Sep-06 at 8:08 pm | Permalink
[...] Even more amusing/enraging, is the ad CBC automatically and randomly inserted on their newspage. It was by Transport Canada telling you to leave pointy things at home so flights would be safer. I have a screenshot of the ad. I laugh because my last time on a flight home from Newfoundland, I had a sewing kit from the hotel, and it was in my carry on luggage. I just assumed that if I wasn’t supposed to have a needle on the plane, security would take it away from me. I guess even after they sniffed my bag for explosives, they assumed I wasn’t enough of a threat to stop me from Sewing On A Plane. [...]
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy :: Swings on a Train! | 08-May-09 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
[...] Yes, I said MF. This is not my first Snakes on a Plane joke. And no, I still haven’t seen the [...]
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy :: Boobs On A Plane II | 11-May-09 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
[...] Music on a Plane. Boobs on a Plane I. Sewing on a Plane. Swings on a [...]