Kush

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: If someone is racist, they ought not have to hire someone of a certain color if they don't want to. But at the same time they can't make it known that that's why. So what you're suggesting is that if someone is rascist, we should find a way to hide the fact that he's rascist. So that if someone doesn't want to hire a person because of their skin colour, they don't have to. That's a great idea! Okay, lets to that. I... wait, wait wait a second... That's the way things are now. I've got an idea. How about if I'm a black person, and I think someone has passed me over because of my skin colour, I can take them to court. There's a great... hold on, hold the phone. That's the way things are now. I've got an idea. How about we not look at a persons skin colour. How about we only judge people based on the content of their character. ... Naw. That would never work. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

quote:Originally posted by Badgerius: LOL! I've lived in Canada all my life. Now I live in Victoria, famed as the westernmost point of the British Empire. Cricket and lawn bowling leagues outnumber hockey here 2 to 1, and there's a pub called the "Stickey Wicket" I love it here. I loved Victoria. Visited there for a short time. Reminded me of Ottawa (home town) I saw some statistic a while ago that said there's more support for the monarchy here in Canada than in England. I bet it was you Victorian's who swayed the vote!

My god... I am 92.5% British, just like HRH Prince Charles Though you'll never be king you certainly know where your castle is. Typical Canadian. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

quote: But if someone doesn't want to hire someone of a certain color, if it's their private business I say they should be able to refuse them without fear of reprisal. It's not their private business. It's illegal. If someone can prove you did not hire them because of their colour, gender, gender preference, or religion or ethnic background, they can sue you. That's the law. Here and in your country. Asking people not to be rascist isn't a bother. It's a responsibility of all citizens who value the belief that all people are created equal. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

I don't live in America, so I can't really comment. I do know someone who works in a law firm here in Toronto (Big Huge Lawfirm) who told me that his firm will never ever hire a jewish person. And that they'd never promote a woman to a top position. He know's it's wrong, but that's the way it is. Just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean we have to accept it. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

Heh, same here.

It's been down for a while now. Starting to miss those Shirley bashing sessions.

What I have said, in this thread, over and over again, is check everybody. Regardless of race. At all times. quote: All males who set off a metal detector should have the wand put over them and patted down. All arab males should be patted down regardless. Right there you have a security loop hole. First loop hole, Arab meaning from where? Iran? The Arab Emirates (A U.S. Ally)? Kuwait (Another ally)? Afghanistan? Remember, Osama isn't from Afghanistan, he's from Egypt. What about Jews who live in Iraq, and Kuwait, and Afghanistan? What about the Christians? What about terroritst who are muslim, but not from the middle east. There are muslims from Pakistan. Do we consider them Arab or South Asian? What about Muslims from south Sahara Africa? Are they Arab? Let's say you mean all middle Eastern Muslims, second loophole, how are you going to tell a male is Arab? Their skin colour? Their nose? I worked with someone two years ago, palestinian, he had blond hair, blue eyes. Why? I don't know. Obviously somewhere in his families genes they have what it takes to make blond blue eyed offspring. Alas, these are few and I'm sure far between, so lets say any male with dark skin, and a nose of a certain shape. Third loophole, if I know you only pat down Arab males, what if I get an Arab female. Fourth loophole; there are still threats from people who aren't arab, fellow Americans, who in their misguided thinking, want to create terror and havok. American's who don't look Arab, and who maybe need a patting down before they enter a plane. quote: All males who set off a metal detector should have the wand put over them and patted down. All arab males should be patted down regardless. The moment you say a higher security standard should be set for a particular race, that means those not of that race have a lesser security standard to pass through. That can be exploited. Personally, right now, before I get on a plane, I want the highest security standard met by all people. I'm a nervous flyer already. When the big event happened, it became crystal clear that these people, these terrorists are more than capable of shrewdly exploiting any and all weaknesses in the system. What I felt, right after, and what I still feel, is that all security exploits must be found and plugged. ALL. Every one. The reason why I am so emphatic about this, is because it is so obvious the terrorists are capable of highly sophisticated operations. And we should step up our security in any and every way concievable. I don't want to be on a plane, plummeting into a building thinking, "Those clever b%$%s! I never would have thought of that!" It may suck rocks that we have to wait in line longer, it may really be annoying for some clerk to go through my bag, and pat me down, but I would rather have them get too cautious. I'd feel a little nervous if some security guy looked at me and winked assuming I was okay just because I didn't look like an arab. And I'm certain that any terrorist would shrug off any racial profiling, and say it's just another loophole to exploit, and a pretty easy one at that. [ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

Then we agree.

And my point is watch ALL people, ALL the time. If you set up racial criterea for security, it becomes an exploit. (ie Mr Arab terrorist gets unscupolous caucasian grandmother to hold onto butcher knife, tell security it's a gift for her daughter. On plane Mr Arab terrorist now has weapon.) You think focusing on one race improves security better than focusing on all races? I know it now becomes a pain to have greater security, it's a pain to have someone go through your stuff with a fine tooth comb when you know that you're not a terrorist, and you should just be able to scoot through, but that's not the world we live in anymore. In Toronto, one way to save your seat in a restaurant is to leave your bag at a table. I did that once in London Eng, and a bartender gave me the scare of my life. It had nothing to do with race. No bags left unattended. Period. Ever. It's a security measure that Londoners have come to just accept as a part of their lives. It sucks, but that's the way it is. The bartender doesn't say, 'Excuse me, you wouldn't happen to be of Irish heritage would you? No? Great, you can leave your bag anywhere you want.' 'What's your name? Patrick O'Flannagan? Sorry, you're going to have to keep your bag with you at all times.' And the police should just focus on the activity of the person. Not the race. If a black guy anywhere in the country, dressed like a gang memeber starts walking around the back of a house that doesn't belong to him, take him to the station. If a black guy starts walking around the back of the house after getting out of a gas company truck, and he's got a clip board to do a reading of the gas meter, then you're wasting an officers time to send him on a wild goose chase, just because one race commits crime in one area more than another. And if a white guy smashes a window, hops in the house, and walks out of the house with a TV set. ARREST HIM for crying out loud. It's behaviour, what is the person doing. Not race. [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

If I'm not mistaken, you can set the amount of damage the PTA's do. So no, they all don't do the same amount of damage.

I remember last year I was flying through England, and somewhere (I have no Idea where) in Heathrow, going through one of the gates, there was line up of airport security who were patting everyone down. I mean EVERYONE. We had all gone through the metal detector, we'd all checked our baggage. And I still had to get my butt patted. I actually felt safer then when I go through security here in Canada. I don't need to save time going through security at an airport. I arrive two hours early for a reason. I also felt sympathy for those security people. They got their hands right in there. Between your legs, under every woman's breasts. They went right under the butt of an old lady in front of me. Imagine if it was your job to run your hands over the breasts and butt of old women, all day long. That's gotta suck. The more I think about it. The more I realize how hard that job must be, and how much I appreciate them.

Good luck Silk! You'll probably do just fine. When your in that room, don't drop anything!

quote: Terrorist cells are next to impossible to infiltrate, and even if you do - it doesn't lead anywhere beyong that one specific cell. That's what you said. And my point was that next to impossible doesn't mean impossible. Give some credit to the professionals. And yes you can link one cell to another. It ain't easy, but it's been done. And no, I'm not going to take a Denzel Washington movie as an indicator of what American intelligence is capable of. And I'm sure the CIA would appreciate that. quote: I agree. My whole point is simply that some pose a greater risk than others, and if someone was behind you and someone in front of you, and you had to choose which one to watch - who would it be? Both. quote: Like I said in my second post, about the white cop pulling over a car in which the driver was clearly not fit to drive. First thing he hears out the window: "RACIAL PROFILING! YOU PULLED ME OVER BECAUSE I WAS BLACK" A black driver can say what they like, if they were speeding they should be pulled over for speeding. If the black driver was not speeding, was not driving eratically, was not drunk, if the only reason why the driver was pulled over was because he's black, then, hey, guess what, he was pulled over because he's black. And that's wrong. And if a cop lets a white guy break into my house at two in the morning because usually only black people break into homes at two in the morning in my neighbourhood, then I swear I'll have his badge for breakfast. Same thing with airport security. If I'm on a plane, going down because of some terrorist that doesn't fit some racial profile, I'll be mighty P.O'd. What you're infering is that a police officer should allow a possible suspect commit a crime because they don't fit a racial profile. That's dangerous. And not very wise. So if you take race out of it, then profiling is another name for looking for people who have, or are about to commit a crime. That's a good idea. Well done. Hey, wait a second, police already to that. Neat. You may want to rethink the excellence of your second post. [ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

Aramike, The NAACP was started because the residents of Springfield Ill, lincoln's birthplace, tried to remove all black residents from the town through lynchings and terror. They actually had to hold one of their meetings here in Ontario once for fear of violence. They've gone on to force the desegregation of American public schools. So that black children can study anywhere in America they wanted. I don't get how you can say the NAACP is a rascist organization. I don't get it. And Tac, if it's really true that there are absolutely no grants or scholarships for white people in America, then come on up to Canada. You'll do just fine. (If your marks are up to snuff )

Again, I point out, you assume that a terrorist is going to say "Oh my goodness, this airport has racial profiling! I'm sunk. Guess I should just look elsewhere for my terror fix today!" They're not stupid. And they are (unfortunately) very, VERY persistent. You make a lot of assumptions. You assume that someone born in American would not take part in a terrorist act. And you assume that terrorist cells are impossible to infiltrate. You greatly underestimate the skills and abilities of the FBI and the CIA. (As critical of their history as I am, not even I underestimate their ability that much!) And finally, the scariest thing is, you may only be able to find a couple of Americans to go along with the whole plan, but that's all you need. Just a couple. I think everyone should be on the alert. Not just the authorities, not just the INS, not just airport security, EVERYONE. And we should be looking for any suspicious activity from ANYBODY. I think it was Gomez who said eloquently in his post, racial profiling can just become another loop hole to exploit. We should try hard to be diligent, and cautious, fair and just to all people till the situation changes.

So let's say I'm a terrorist from the middle east. I want to send a plane into the white house. And I know that all airports have racial profiling. No problem. I find a muslim guy who sympathizes with me who has blonde hair and blue eyes. (Yes, they exist.) Change his name to John Smith. I give him two feet of piano wire. I find a couple of black muslim guys who were born and raised in America who sympathizes with me. Get them into flight training. Get them onto a plane that leaves washington early in the morning, it's done. While you're wasting your time searching through the bags of some poor American citizen, treating him like a defacto terrorist because his name is Abdulah and his skin colour is darker than yours, I've hit the white house. It's not an effective way to go. The effective way to go is to infiltrate the terrorist cells and shut them down. The people who do this for a living know this already. They're working on it. It takes time. In the mean time, try and treat other American citizens with respect, allowing them the same freedoms you enjoy. I can't spell it out any clearer than that.

Tac, I think it mostly exists to deal with an historic inequality in America. It wasn't that long ago that black Americans were refused admittance to certain Universities. In my opinion, the scholarships are probably a way to deal with their own guilt at their previous shameful behavior. If there wasn't that whole racial exclusion thing, then maybe scholarships wouldn't be necessary. I know a black guy who's Dad studied in University here in Canada while the whole Little Rock thing was happening down there, and he thinks it's fair to offer incentives for black Americans to study at schools that at one time you'd risk your life to even enter. Otherwise, you're just not going. So a University will offer scholarships. If you're poor and white, it sucks, but hey, don't blame the black kids, blame the psychotic white segregationists who would rather shoot at black students than study with them back in the sixties. But what makes my friends Dad FURIOUS is the idea that you could graduate with lower marks than just because you're black. There's some idiotic policy floating around up here that if you were Native or Black you could graduate Law school with lower marks. To him that's highly insulting. He busted his butt to get where he is today, nobody gave him a break. And as a black person, he doesn't want to hire a lawyer that doesn't know what the hell they're doing. No matter what colour the person is. Yes Luke, there is a dark side. It's called Tokenism. Tokenism sucks. Not Affirmative Action. To me, if you hire somebody who belongs to a group that has been discriminated against, you must have the same expectations of them that you have of anyone on your staff. And so far, I have yet to be let down. And if someone does let me down, I'm not going to say, 'Well, look who I hired, I should have known better.' We're all human, human's fail sometimes. Hire someone else, move on. [ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

Silk, I'm talking about something bigger. I'm talking about freedom. Freedom from threat of search and seizure. Freedom to live in a society that doesn't allow police officers or any figure of authority to needlessly hassle you because of your skin colour or ethnic background. These freedoms are obviously not important to you. And that's fine. Let's hope that you never ever have to experience life with those freedoms taken away from you. And here's the last word on Affirmative action. It goes like this. Affirmative action means that if a) there is a person who is discriminated against who has the best qualifications for the job, better than all other applicants, you should hire that person. b)If there are two people of equal qualification, you should NOT NOT HIRE THE PERSON BECAUSE THEY BELONG TO A GROUP THAT HAS BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. It's simple. I use it all the time. I do a lot of hiring. I'm in the process of hiring right now. Whenever I'm hiring, I just go after the person with the best qualifications, period. I don't give a damn what colour they are. If I've got two people, both qualified, I literally do a mental coin toss. There's no other way to do it. You shouldn't use someone's skin colour or gender, or gender preference as a reason to not hire someone. You can't. You could get your ass sued. And personally, it's not a great way to chose an employee. The best way, (or the way I like to do it) what's their personality. Are they a team player. You can put Team Player on your application, but you really get a feel for it in the interview. I just hired a black guy over a lot of other applicants cause he looked like he had a can-do, team play attitude, and that's what I want around me. Period. I'd rather have that, then someone who is equally qualified, and a whiner, or disruptive. That's what affirmative action is. That's how it works. If your white, and you want a job from me, show me your qualified, be courteous in the interview, and show that you've got a great demeanor and you're a team player. It won't necessarily get you the job, but it will go a long way. As a matter of fact, it's easy when you have an applicant who has a clear ability advantage. It sucks when you have two people who are of the same qualifications. Two? Hell, try Twenty, or thirty, or sixty. And you know, when you tell them they don't have the job that they really wanted it. It sucks. And that's just between white applicants. If the white applicant looses out to a black guy, they never come to me and ask what they could have done better, they never chalk it up to bad luck, they immediately assume that the black guy got it cause I was afraid he'd sue my ass. It's a defense mechanism. Get over it. Affirmative action has helped many many Americans, from Colin Powel, to Condoleezza Rice. Jackie Robinson benefited from Affirmative Action, so did Paul Robeson. Richard Wright, Oprah Winfrey, you name it. What black American's don't want is to be patronized. 'I was just hired cause I'm black.' I make sure everyone who works for me understands they are hired for the unique skills they provide. And together, we KICK BUTT!!! The argument is dated. It's over. Don't discriminate when you hire. I'll tell you the REAL problem. Affirmative Incompetence. At my wife's work there are two employees, both women, both of them are *****y (my wife's description) hard to work with, and have shown major, MAJOR incompetence. One's white, the other black. The white incompetent woman actually cost the company $35,000 recently and almost caused a major lawsuit to be filed. The black incompetent woman has never done anything THAT stupid. The white incompetent woman is now a stock holder and has become high up in the company. The black woman wants a promotion as well, and thinks that it's her skin colour that will hold her back. If it were up to me, I'd have fired both their butts a long time ago. But it's not up to me. So, the question is, do you promote a black incompetent person because you also promoted a white person who's actually more incompetent than the black person? Hmmm. [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

Good job Silk. That's the start. Now, if you were to do a SCIENTIFIC study, you would also amass a list of all hijackings that happened within that same time period. Not just the ones that made the papers, All of them. In every region of the country. You would then analyze the data, and come to a conclusion based on ALL of the DATA. I'm not saying you're not capable of it, I'm not saying that your hypothesis wouldn't be borne out by the evidence, I'm just saying that what you have is anecdotal evidence, and as such, is questionable. And again I reiterate, there are many different peoples in the middle east, with many different viewpoints. There is no way you can tell what someone is about to do or not do based solely on the fact that they are from the middle east. I really think you guys should get to know people from the middle east. Get to know the different forms of the religion. Get to understand the histories of places like Iraq, Iran, Egypt. Get to understand the complexities of the cultures and their leaders. The men (and WOMAN) who are responsible for creating American foreign policy actually do have a fairly good understanding (for once!) of the area. And knowledge is a good thing. I had a cab driver from Iran the other day. (I like talking to cab drivers, asking where they're from. You should try it, you get the most fascinating stories sometimes.) The reason why he had to leave? He owned a very successful architecture business with his partner, his partner always wanted him to sell his shares, he didn't want to. When the Shah was deposed, his partner saw his opportunity. Suddenly the police were around, asking about his christian wife. The cab driver lost everything and had to flee the country. He gets here to Canada, and he can't get a job as an architect, he drives cab, and one day, he's sitting in his cab when suddenly he is dragged out of the window, and thrown to the ground. Two police officers are placing him under arrest. He asks why. They kick him in the head to silence him. In court it turns out that the police thought he was a dealer of Hashish (apparently Hash dealers are often middle easterners) they had no evidence other than the fact that he was from the middle east, and they used an empty bottle of rye near the cab as an excuse to search him. The charges were dropped, and the police admonished. Now, I hope this story makes it very clear why it is wrong to profile someone based on their race or ethnicity. I'll spell it out for you: If we allow the police to harass innocent people based on their race, then we have become no better that the police state that he ran away from. I actually spent some time in Vancouver BC in a police training institute. It's a long story, but I was able to see, for a brief moment, how they train police officers to behave. There was an exercise, two people run out of a bank that has just been reported robbed. One a black male, the other a blond female. Instinctually, the officers told the black male to get to the ground and searched him. The officers found themselves dead in two seconds. The blond was one of the bank robbers. The officer asked if that's a real scenario, the trainer informed him that not only has it happened, but you don't want to find yourself DEAD based on a stupid assumption. That's what this training was about. They are instructed to frisk EVERYBODY coming out of a bank hold up. White, black, old, young, everyone. (So remember that. If you're ever a hostage in a bank holdup. Don't be offended, it's their job.) Cops (in this country) are trained to handle every situation the same, regardless of race. (Whether they actually do it, well, that, alas is a different story.) If you're a cop, and you have a racial bias, or are trained to have one, then it's something a criminal can exploit. And ultimately, you should do everything and anything in your power to make sure you don't end up dead.

Let me spell it out for you. The point I was making is that the majority of prisoners in both our countries are caucasian. Not because Caucasians are predisposed to crime, its just that caucasians comprise the majority of the populations of both our countries. The majority of terrorists that attacked America on Sept 11th are of middle eastern descent. I have yet to see a shred of scientific fact that the majority of hijackers throughout history are middle eastern. My gut tells me you don't have that proof either. There are a miriad of different beliefs throughout the middle east. There are many different religions, there are many different viewpoints. There is NO WAY that you could tell by looking at someone whether or not they are a terrorist or not. The FACT remains that the greatest threat to America, over the past three hundred years has been from fellow Americans. From the civil war, to the assasination of presidents, to the various militias that have tried to destabalize the govt over the years. Personally I would like to believe that the Anthrax poisonings have come from a foriegn threat, but they well may be from a home grown American source. And the people who actually deal with these issues for a living, and are professionals, are not going to make the mistake of assuming that one race, or ethnic group is behind the poisonings until they have HARD EVIDENCE. There's a reason for this. They want to catch who is doing it. They're not going to make assumptions, they are going to find the person(s). And lets hope they do it soon. And Aramike, you didn't answer my question. If you were to see Derek Smart, walking around your neighbourhood, late at night, what would you think, right off the bat, what would you assume about him?

Look, Aramike, I don't have hard scientific facts about what race makes up the 'Vast' majority of prisoners in your country, in my country, the Vast majority of prisoners are Caucasian. There are those who would like you to believe that the majority are Native, but factually, it's just not true. And I'm just guessing that you don't have factual data, you're just going on instinct, or what you believe to be true. From what I've understood, the black population in America make up only ten percent of the whole population, but they are a larger proportion of incarcerated population, but they still don't make up the majority of prisoners. That's from a factual statistic that's a few years old. Haven't done the research to check up on it, but my guess is that it hasn't changed much. The thing about terrorism, the thing that makes it so hard to fight against, is that it has nothing to do with what a person looks like or what race they appear to be from. If you start accusing people of being terrorists based on what they look like then the terrorists have won. Period. And finally, the biggest hole in your argument is this. Let's say Derek decided to go out and buy a bottle of Orange juice early in the morning. He's been working hard all day, squashing bugs, e-mailing, reading posts on the forum. It's late, he wants some juice. He's decided that he doesn't want to change his clothes, he's dressed in some raggedy clothes, his car is in the shop, so he borrows his wife's car, it's a little ragged, needs some repairs, but it should get you to the store. So he gets to the store, buys his juice, but on the way home, something happens. The engine gives out. He walks the car over to the side of the road and starts looking around to see if there's anyone awake that he could knock on their door, maybe borrow their phone. So, Aramike, you look out your window, you see Derek Smart get out of his ragged car, looking around your neighborhood. What your saying to me is that all you would see is someone about to commit a crime, what you would not see is the truth; one of the greatest software developers of all time, in need of assistance. If the world you want to live in is a place that would assume Derek Smart would be a criminal based on his skin colour, then fine. Not me. That's not the world I want to live in at all. Not at all! [ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

quote: No, statistically, the poor black man in a suspicious car is more likely to be a CRIMINAL than the rich white kid playing tennis. Aramike, I went to school with rich white kids who play tennis. Trust me, you can't be so sure. And lets take out wealth. Would you say that a poor black person is more likely to steal than a poor white person?

If racial profiling is legal in America, then that's unfortunate. Here it is not. There is NO proof that one race commits more crime than another. None. There have been questionable studies done by well known bigots but there is no REAL HARD SCIENCE proving that one race is more likely to commit a crime than another. As a matter of fact, most scientific studies have proven that there is more variety and difference within a single race, then there are between the races. And even if there was some way to prove scientifically that a certain individual from a certian socio-economic group, and race and gender, is predisposed to commit a crime, there is still nothing you can do. Each citizen should be considered innocent until proven guilty. You could be black, have gold teeth, car, you could be standing on the sidewalk looking at a house, and you can even say the words, "Gee, I'm just the kind of person who would rob that house." Until you actually commit the crime of robbing the house, you are innocent. Period. You may not like it, but that's the price of living in a society that prizes freedom, or at least pays lip service to doing so. Your "fact" that certain races are more likely to commit crimes may be based on anecdotal eveidence, but don't confuse that with science. I think most American's feel a deep fear about terrorism, and the fear is justified. Sitting up here in Canada, I'm sure I have no idea what it must feel like to walk around not knowing when the next terrorist attack will come. There was a time in the sixties when Canadians had to worry about the FLQ. Our Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, enstated the War Measures Act, basically giving the police and military the ability to search and seize and arrest at will. Many were charged and thrown in jail without cause or warning. The FLQ were found, and routed out and defeated. But at the cost of our civil liberties. When terrorists attack, it is hard, very hard to strike back without risking freedom. If you strike out, taking away the rights of fellow citizens, based on their ethnicity, then the terrorists have won. You have been terrorized. They have accomplished what they set out to do. And if you become a society where you harras and antagonize innocent citizens, filling them with fear, then YOU've become a terrorist. (Okay Menchise, you can sit this one out. You've picked up the slack for me for quite some time now. It's payback time. )

Once in Ottawa there was a an older couple in their sixties whose son was in hospital with a fatal disease. They got a call from the hospital at 2 in the morning that he was about to die. The couple ran to their car and started driving to the hospital. They were stopped by a police officer for speeding. They explained to the officer that their son was about to die. The police officer didn't believe them. He was suspicious about a black couple speeding around at 2 in the morning, and was going to take them down to the station for questioning. The father decided he wasn't going to do that, and started to drive away. The officer shot the Man, hitting his hand. The son died, while the parents were waiting for an ambulance. Racial profiling sucks. No matter how you slice it. Just because someone looks like they are from the middle east, that doesn't mean that they support terrorism. It doesn't mean that they are Muslim. It doesn't mean that they aren't born in North America. There are so many different religions, and belief systems and political points of view in that part of the world. It is impossible to tell, by looking at someone, the content of their character. And as far as Martin Luther King was concerned, it is the content of your character that you should be judged by. I have a close friend from the middle east, who works in the entertainment industry. He has to travel all the time. People constantly look at him now. They don't see that he is a gay guy from Toronto who wouldn't hurt a fly, and would probably be murdered for his sexual orientation back home. They see a possible threat to their lives. And it's too bad. He's actually a nice guy. Yes, the guys who were responsible for sept 11 had a specific look, and ethnicity, but Americans would be unwise to believe that the only threat to their nation would come from people who look a certain way, and have a certain background. There are Muslims with blond hair and blue eyes. There are people who have dark skin and strange accents who support America, and are proud to be Americans. There are people who are American, caucasian, and they pose a very serious and present threat to American security. Racial profiling means you suspect someone of doing something, or having a tendency to do something based on their race. That is wrong. It's un constitutional here in Canada, and it should be in America if it is not. If a police officer sees a black person committing a crime, s/he should apprehend that person. If the police officer sees a black person, and the only reason s/he suspects a crime is about to be committed is because the person is black, then they are committing an act of bigotry. They are not policing, they are antagonizing a citizen who, in the eyes of the law, has committed no crime. That form of activity only belongs in a police state, where you rule through fear and intimidation. All people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Period. That is the bedrock of a free society. The moment you compromise that truth, you no longer live in a free and just society. An argument could be made that we have never lived in a free and just society, but if we aspire to one, we must believe in our hearts, and know in our minds that race, or ethnic background, or sexual preference or language do not indicate whether or not someone is about to commit a crime. I don't mind taking part in a debate, it's an interesting by product of recent events, but I fear we are getting dangerously close to condoning racial bigotry, and that concerns me.