![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Like, I suspect, most Liberals, my heart sinks whenever I hear Lord Carlile on the subject of the Government's response to terrorism. On many other things - marriage rights for all couples, for example - he's superb, but on 42-day detention he's the most illiberal Liberal around. Shami Chakrabarti rightly called him (and us) out on this when she addressed the Lib Dem Conference in Brighton.
So I wasn't over the moon to read his comments regarding the quest for racial balance in stop-and-search. Before listing some of my problems with this, I should also link to his full report (warning, it's a 2M PDF), because reading that it's clear to me that the criticisms the Metro reports are part of a more general criticism of the way stop-and-search is being implemented, particularly in Greater London.
However...
For a start, I think it's wrong to say that making stop-and-search racially neutral is a waste of money and resources. Granted, it may not directly stop more people who are about to commit acts of terrorism, but it does little enough of that anyway. But what also matters is not making ethnic minorities feel alienated be being singled out, because the greater the mistrust of the police and authorities in, say, the Muslim community, the less likely they are to co-operate when there is a genuine need. Also, the more the white population sees Muslims (and black youths, and Irish people, whoever's bad flavour of the month with the Met) stopped where they are not, the more the white population will come to mistrust that section of the community. Mutterings about 'no smoke without fire' will be heard, and mistrust will grow.
Perhaps Lord Carlile's greatest offence here is to foster that mistrust by perpetuating the idea that it's OK to stop a Muslim (and, for that matter easy to identify a Muslim by the fact that they're non-white), but not OK to stop a blond woman. He writes of cases where 'where the person stopped is so obviously far from any known terrorism profile that, realistically, there is not the slightest possibility of him/her being a terrorist, and no other feature to justify the stop' - well, most Asians and black people are as far from any known terrorism as most blond women, so if anything, that's a killer blow to the idea of using 'profiling' based on the colour of a person's skin. I feel almost embarrassed having to explain this to an obviously intelligent Liberal peer. Possibly Brian Paddick should have a go; he's been talking sense on stop-and-search for a while now, and Lord Carlile might be more inclined to listen to someone with Brian's experience.
I'm also unconvinced by the assertion that we only face a terrorist threat from Islamist extremists. This recent story isn't about Islamist terrorists - it's about alleged white supremacists. Now, what are the chances that they'd use a blond woman for a terrorist attack?
Apparently, this made the Golden Dozen this week. I mention this in a spirit of getting you to go read the other eleven, which are well worth it.
So I wasn't over the moon to read his comments regarding the quest for racial balance in stop-and-search. Before listing some of my problems with this, I should also link to his full report (warning, it's a 2M PDF), because reading that it's clear to me that the criticisms the Metro reports are part of a more general criticism of the way stop-and-search is being implemented, particularly in Greater London.
However...
For a start, I think it's wrong to say that making stop-and-search racially neutral is a waste of money and resources. Granted, it may not directly stop more people who are about to commit acts of terrorism, but it does little enough of that anyway. But what also matters is not making ethnic minorities feel alienated be being singled out, because the greater the mistrust of the police and authorities in, say, the Muslim community, the less likely they are to co-operate when there is a genuine need. Also, the more the white population sees Muslims (and black youths, and Irish people, whoever's bad flavour of the month with the Met) stopped where they are not, the more the white population will come to mistrust that section of the community. Mutterings about 'no smoke without fire' will be heard, and mistrust will grow.
Perhaps Lord Carlile's greatest offence here is to foster that mistrust by perpetuating the idea that it's OK to stop a Muslim (and, for that matter easy to identify a Muslim by the fact that they're non-white), but not OK to stop a blond woman. He writes of cases where 'where the person stopped is so obviously far from any known terrorism profile that, realistically, there is not the slightest possibility of him/her being a terrorist, and no other feature to justify the stop' - well, most Asians and black people are as far from any known terrorism as most blond women, so if anything, that's a killer blow to the idea of using 'profiling' based on the colour of a person's skin. I feel almost embarrassed having to explain this to an obviously intelligent Liberal peer. Possibly Brian Paddick should have a go; he's been talking sense on stop-and-search for a while now, and Lord Carlile might be more inclined to listen to someone with Brian's experience.
I'm also unconvinced by the assertion that we only face a terrorist threat from Islamist extremists. This recent story isn't about Islamist terrorists - it's about alleged white supremacists. Now, what are the chances that they'd use a blond woman for a terrorist attack?
Apparently, this made the Golden Dozen this week. I mention this in a spirit of getting you to go read the other eleven, which are well worth it.