Tolerance

My freshman year, I was sitting through an oratory round of a speech tournament when one of the other novices made a speech about tolerance. To me, it reeked of the arrogant red-neck Americanism that I despised. His definition of tolerance is possibly what justifies the discrimination that is still rampant in "democratic" America.

There is no better example than airport security checks. I, a seventeen-year-old Asian-American girl, am not likely to be suspected of carrying destructive weapons (though I know Teagle and especially Victor think otherwise). The district director for the state senator from my district is a petite, friendly, amiable woman of South-Asian background. She is young, married, and went to graduate school in Columbia before working for various non-profit organizations. She is checked thoroughly every single time she flies somewhere.

Colber I. King writes in his Washington Post Column:

I am mystified by the conservative commentators who voice their support for racial profiling as a way to catch terrorist suspects. These pundits support the authorities screening or otherwise keeping a close eye on mainly young Muslim men of North African, Middle Eastern or South Asian descent, because an overwhelming number of terrorists hail from those regions...

Conservatives, so I had been given by them to believe, stand foursquare against preferences based on group identity. So how is it that they can support law enforcement policies that, if adopted, would allow people to be treated unequally; give preferences in screening based on race, ethnicity, religion and national origin; and no longer honor the rights of individuals but instead judge individuals by the group to which they belong?

Under racial profiling, as they would have it practiced in subways, airports, train stations, etc., individual differences among North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian young men would be ignored. These people would be labeled and profiled as possible terrorists and be reduced to an amalgamated stew closely watched by the state.

The article mentions the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in its first paragraph:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Then again, who am I to expect the current U.S. government to give a damn about the constitution? Why do I BOTHER holding Senators and Representatives, and hell, the President of the United States, to the very task outlined in their oath of office?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I'm not even bringing up the Declaration of Independence, which pretty much defined the fundamental values of this country. The perversions upon those words penned by Jefferson are too much to bear at the moment.

But speaking of independence, how has that tyrannical monarchy England transformed throughout the centuries? After the events of 7/7 in London, everyone praised the British for their poise and dignity after such events. While we responded with war, with suppression of the freedoms we were supposedly defending, with borderline-racist profiling at airports, the British seemed to have a congenital sense of propriety. I was left almost an anglophile, awed at the way they were handling this "war on terror," with justice and security.

Then Tony Blair announced new plans to thwart Muslim extremists. Maybe this will work out in England. But my bet is that it won't. It'll be another Patriot Act. It'll be another "bastardization of the fundamental principles for which our soldiers are DYING and... a perpetuation of the great hypocrisy that constitutes American foreign policy."

Blair's language isn't helping at all. As reported by The Independent (UK):

Extremist clerics could be expelled and mosques closed in the most sweeping changes to Britain's human rights laws for more than a decade to meet the new threat from Islamic terrorism.

Tony Blair warned "the rules of the game are changing" as he announced the measures at a special press conference in Downing Street yesterday. He made it clear the measures marked a watershed for Britain's attitude to freedom of speech, which could affect our way of life forever.

"Coming to Britain is not a right and even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty," he said. "That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those who break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here."

But the tough measures threatened to break the cross-party consensus over the political response to the London bombings, while human rights campaigners warned the proposals could threaten "the fundamental values of democracy".

First of all, there is no stupider action than to incite people who are already ticked off and willing to go to great lengths to blow off that steam. If Britain DID find a way to legitimately execute this new policy (which, as I will explain shortly, it probably won't) where would these dangerous and extremist clerics go? Yeah. That's right. To the people who think like them. Instead of showing them the benefits of democracy, they are showing these people the perverse mutation of democratic principles by corrupt and illogical politics.

Second, there is NO way that any government will find an acceptable and foolproof way of administering this policy. One only has to look at the Patriot Act to see the ease with which the government can deem a citizen to be noncooperative or dangerous. The screening process itself is an infringement on an individual's rights, and the enforcement will mean victory for the terrorists... AGAIN.

BBC reports the criticism made by a Muslim political party in Britain:

Hizb ut-Tahrir said his decision on Friday was a move designed to curb legal Islamic political debate.

Party spokesman Dr Imran Waheed denounced the 7 July London bombings and said the party was committed to peaceful political campaigning.

Mr Blair had banned membership of the group alongside that of another party, Al Muhajiroun...

The prime minister had also said he was prepared to amend human rights laws to make deportations much easier.

That last sentence is hinting an adoptation of paranoia/Cold War II policies of the U.S. It's thoroughly disappointing.

[The party] posted a statement following the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July which said the "colonialists, especially America and Britain, harbour a hidden hatred against Islam and the Muslims".

The saddest thing is... it's true. Maybe not hatred or outright contempt. But it's a DESPICABLE form of adherance to its self-claimed superiority. Some "Christians" bomb abortion clinics. Who are we (they) to say that Muslims are all terrorists? The lack of tolerance in this country is confounding.