Guardian: The only crime that this will stop is travelling while Asian

The only crime that this will stop is travelling while Asian

Blanket profiling will make it easier for terrorists to beat security and drive young people into the extremists' arms

Glenda Jackson | Thursday August 17, 2006 | The Guardian

On April 17 1986, a young woman presented herself at Heathrow's gate 23 for that morning's El Al flight to Tel Aviv. She had cleared the airport's own security check-in procedures, but to El Al's security staff something didn't appear right. A search of her hand luggage revealed 1½ ounces of Semtex and a detonator, hidden in a calculator.

The young woman was Anne Murphy, a white, Catholic girl from Dublin. The explosives had been planted by her boyfriend, Nezar Hindawi, a terrorist with links to the Libyan government. And had El Al security operated the passenger profiling advocated in response to last week's alleged terror plot, the 375 passengers and crew of that flight would have died.

Intelligent passenger profiling, combined with a random search component, is a vital part of aviation security. It allows security staff to do what they do best: use their intelligence, skill and intuition to intercept those they feel may represent a threat to the travelling public. And that's why, contrary to what you may have read over the past few days, it is utilised in every UK airport.

Those who are clamouring for an expansion of existing procedures are peddling several myths. The first is that this important tool for our nation's security is being withheld on grounds of some form of political correctness. This is preposterous. Security staff are not restricted to examining every third passenger passing through a departure gate. If they are confronted with individuals who attract suspicion, they can and will conduct a detailed search. What they will not do is throw a blanket over every non-white face, thereby introducing a de facto offence of what Ali Dizaei, a Metropolitan police chief superintendent, called "travelling whilst Asian".

Another myth is that blanket challenging of "suspect groups" will inevitably increase security. Under existing profiling techniques the September 11 attackers were stopped and questioned as they made their way to the aircraft, yet they were still able to carry out their atrocities. Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", was also searched as a result of profiling, but managed to board his target with explosives intact.

Even worse, by removing randomness from search procedures, we will actually be increasing the threat of a successful attack. By identifying those we believe should be subject to special attention, we are by implication making life easier for those who do not fit the profile. One of the many "security experts" now roaming the nation's TV studios claimed yesterday that the authorities would be able to distinguish between "innocent travellers" and white Islamic converts because, "converts invariably adopt a new Muslim name". Far be it from me to assist terrorist masterminds, but how long does this gentleman think it will be before a fanatical convert comes up with the idea of using a passport in his previous name?

Everyone with any experience of aviation security knows it is based on one principle: terrorists do not do what you expect, they do what you least expect. And by introducing blanket profiling we will be turning this principle on its head.

All this is a long way from last year's Labour party conference, when Tony Blair announced: "Next week I and other party leaders will meet key members of the Muslim community. Out of it I hope we can get agreed action to take this common fight [against terrorism] forward." By last month the tone had shifted. Addressing the parliamentary liaison committee, Blair said that he was "probably not the person to go into the Muslim community", and that "we can't defeat extremism through what a government does". This week ministers were deploying to attack Muslim leaders, including their own parliamentary colleagues, as "facile" and "playing into the hands of extremists".

We have a choice. We can get serious in our efforts to root out terrorism and its causes. Or we can posture and pay lip service to concepts such as community cohesion and tolerance while simultaneously making statements and policies that will at best drive a wedge between us and the Muslim community, and at worst drive its more impressionable elements into the extremists' arms.

Do ministers really believe the way to convince disaffected young Muslims that our war is with the terrorists, rather than the Islamic faith, is to start body-searching them on the basis of their race and religion? Does the prime minister really believe that Muslim leaders will be able to convince their communities that current investigations are following due process when his home secretary passes verdict on "the main players" before a single person has been charged? And does anyone seriously believe that benefits from blanket profiling will make up for the commensurate breakdown in trust between those who are subject to this scrutiny and the security services who depend on their cooperation to avert future atrocities?

I don't fit the profile of your average terrorist. But if it's a choice between waiting a little longer at check-in because I'm the third passenger in line, or gliding past the Asian family hauled from the queue in the name of commonsense profiling, I know what I'll opt for.

We all have to make sacrifices to safeguard our hard-won freedoms. An extra 15 minutes before reaching duty-free is one of the smaller ones.

· Glenda Jackson, a former transport minister, is the Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate

jacksong@parliament.uk