The BBC has found its Rosa Parks for the new century. Some imams stormed off a flight in the US after they were subjected to the horror of a security check just because they…. Well, actually the BBC would rather you didn’t ask why exactly they’d attracted suspicion. Rottypup gives us a brief rundown of what the BBC would rather you didn’t know, and reminds us of the BBC’s previous form in this area.
There’s more as well. All of which is by way of saying that the BBC’s case doesn’t even make sense on its own terms. Liberals claim to be opposed to ‘ethnic profiling’ – or, as I call it, ‘people who follow the same ideology as 95% of the world’s terrorists profiling’ - not because they’re a bunch of snivelling dhimmis, nope, it’s because they genuinely believe that other profiling indicators work far better. Well, here we are. Six passengers with more red flags than the Kop at Anfield, but Liberals are still whining.
Sounds to me like it’s not the Right that’s obsessing about ethnicity. If this case had involved six priests, the Left would be citing it evermore to prove that ethnic profiling doesn’t work. In contrast, it worked fine in this case. Nasty ol’ ethnic profiling and the type of profiling the Left claims to like both pointed to the same six guys, at which point they stormed off. It would be nice to know exactly why they objected so strongly to being checked over by security, but it looks like the MSM won’t be asking them anytime soon. I’m guessing this is the one case where the Left won’t claim that if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.
It turns out that profiling is like just about everything else in the war on terror. Liberals claim to be in favour of security screening in principle, but whenever they’re confronted with it in the real world, it’s never quite right. Maybe that’s the answer for the BBC ? Conservatives should claim we’re fully in favour of the idea of a licence fee, but we’re to opposed to the actual specifics of the whole ‘fee’ for a ‘licence’ concept ?
There’s more as well. All of which is by way of saying that the BBC’s case doesn’t even make sense on its own terms. Liberals claim to be opposed to ‘ethnic profiling’ – or, as I call it, ‘people who follow the same ideology as 95% of the world’s terrorists profiling’ - not because they’re a bunch of snivelling dhimmis, nope, it’s because they genuinely believe that other profiling indicators work far better. Well, here we are. Six passengers with more red flags than the Kop at Anfield, but Liberals are still whining.
Sounds to me like it’s not the Right that’s obsessing about ethnicity. If this case had involved six priests, the Left would be citing it evermore to prove that ethnic profiling doesn’t work. In contrast, it worked fine in this case. Nasty ol’ ethnic profiling and the type of profiling the Left claims to like both pointed to the same six guys, at which point they stormed off. It would be nice to know exactly why they objected so strongly to being checked over by security, but it looks like the MSM won’t be asking them anytime soon. I’m guessing this is the one case where the Left won’t claim that if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.
It turns out that profiling is like just about everything else in the war on terror. Liberals claim to be in favour of security screening in principle, but whenever they’re confronted with it in the real world, it’s never quite right. Maybe that’s the answer for the BBC ? Conservatives should claim we’re fully in favour of the idea of a licence fee, but we’re to opposed to the actual specifics of the whole ‘fee’ for a ‘licence’ concept ?
No comments:
Post a Comment