1AC—Plan
The United States federal government should substantially curtail
its domestic religious surveillance of Muslims
1AC—Democracy Advantage
First, Racialized surveillance homogenizes communities, destroys
democracy, and leads to authoritarianism
Mujahid 4 - Abdul Malik, American Muslim religious leader, activist, film producer, 2004 (“In a Virtual Internment
Camp,” Soundvision, Available online at http://www.soundvision.com/article/in-a-virtual-internment-camp-muslimamericans-since-911, Accessed on 7/13/15)
Conclusion: Our country is
in the grips of a threat greater than terrorism. Democracy is eroding
and it seems no one cares. We are heading down a road which will ultimately lead to a
country where no one is safe and no one is secure. Right now it is a small minority that is
being targeted but Americans would do well to remember that our post-9/11 laws and
policies can apply to any and all. Muslims in this country are being persecuted solely on the
basis of their religious affiliation but because of our secretive government, complicit media, and
hate-spewing public figures Americans are unaware of most things and don't care about what they
do know. The Bush administration has refused to release Patriot Act-related records to Congress; it has refused to release
the names of detainees or open their court hearings to the public; it is relying increasingly on secret evidence and exemptions
under the Homeland Security Act to the Freedom of Information Act. We
now have a secretive government
acting outside the scrutiny of the public and its representatives. Since the Attorney General
has declared a war on the streets of America against Americans, authentic information
about the casualties and collateral damage have disappeared. In 1942, 110,000 JapaneseAmericans were herded into internment camps. They were singled out because of their race and country
of origin. They were declared enemies of the state and lived, imprisoned in these camps, until the end of World War II. Only
recently has our government apologized for this outrage. But
less than a decade after apologizing for this
injustice, America has once again embarked upon a campaign that has severely undermined
the civil rights of a minority community. This time, the fear and suspicion are aimed at Muslims
and brown-skinned men. But rather than putting this new enemy in actual internment, their
imprisonment is virtual. The walls of this virtual internment camp are the interrogations,
home invasions, detentions and arrests, special registration, closed courts and their secret evidence,
deportation, and discrimination that Muslims have faced since 9/11. This virtual internment camp is
sustained by fear and hate, as well as a potent mixture of wartime racism, religious bigotry, and intolerance. Most
Americans seem to feel that sacrificing other people's liberty is fine as long as it means
security for themselves. We should heed the words of one of this nation's founding fathers, Benjamin
Franklin, when he said, 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' A sustainable democracy requires an
active and educated citizenry. Passivity and apathy will end up being worse enemies for us
than any terrorist group. Our lack of engagement and lack of caring for our neighbors makes
it easier for our government to enact laws and make policies that will make America less
free, not just for some shunned and humiliated minority, but for us all.
Second, US democracy is modeled internationally
Lijhpart 2k—Arend Lijhpart, Former President of the American Political Science
Association, 2000 (“Democracy in the Twenty-First Century: Can We Be Optimistic?,”
Available online at http://www.nias.knaw.nl/en/new_3/new_1/new_2/18Uhlenbeck.pdf,
Accessed on 7/17/15)
I strongly believe that my native country provides the better model for viable and vital
democracy. But, of course, the American model is the much more visible and better known
model – and strongly advocated as the ideal model by many of my fellow American citizens.
A good, although admittedly extreme, illustration is Steven G. Calabresi’s (1998, 22)
statement that the American constitution “has proved to be a brilliant success, which ...
parliamentary democracies all over the world would do well to copy”. He gives most of the
credit for the economic and military prowess of the United States to the American form of
government, and continues: “The rest of the world is quite rightly impressed with us, and it
is thus no accident that the United States of America has become the biggest single exporter
of public law in the history of humankind. Almost wherever one looks, written
constitutions, federalism, separation of powers [that is, the presidential system], bills of
rights, and judicial review are on the ascendancy all over the world right now – and for good
reason. They work better than any of the alternatives that have been tried.” I agree with
Calabresi that the American model has been extremely influential and also that parts of it –
the concise written constitution, federalism, bill of rights, and judicial review – have been
beneficial. But, of course, I strongly dissent from his praise for presidentialism (see also
Ackerman 2000). A curious omission from Calabresi’s list is the majoritarian electoral
system, but I confidently assume that he favours this feature of the American model, too –
and I dissent just as strongly.
Third, Democratic reform spills over – success in one region will
influence others – Empirics prove
Hanson 5—Victor Davis Hanson, military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University, 2005 (“Why Democracy?,” February 11th, Available online
at http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200502110738.asp, Accessed on
7/17/15)
The democratic idea is contagious. We once worried about the negative Communist domino
theory, but the real chain reaction has always been the positive explosion of democracy.
Once Epaminondas curbed Spartan autocracy, suddenly Mantinea, Megalopolis, and
Messenia went democratic and the entire Peloponnese began to adopt consensual
governments. When Portugal and Spain flipped, it had an enormous positive effect on
moving change forward in the Spanish-speaking world of Latin America — as liberty
spread, once-right-wing Chile and left-wing Nicaragua were freed. The Soviet republics and
Eastern European satellites without much warning imploded in succession — more quickly
even than the Russians had once enslaved them in the late 1940s. It is not a neocon
pipedream, but historically plausible that a democratic Israel, Palestine, Turkey,
Afghanistan, and Iraq can create momentum that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and
eventually even a Syria or Iran would find hard to resist. Saudi Arabia's ballyhooed
liberalization, Mubarak's unease about his successor, Libya's strange antics, Pakistan's
revelation about nuclear commerce, and the Gulf States' talk of parliaments did not happen
in a vacuum, but are rumblings that follow from fears of voters in Afghanistan and Iraq —
and a Mullah Omar dethroned and Saddam's clan either dead or in chains.
By solving for the homogenization of Muslims and by expanding
our democratic values allows us to solve for the key factors that
lead to genocide
Mcdoom, Omar Shahabudin, 9-1-2014, London School of Economics, UK"Dartmouth Get
It," Political Geography, Vol. 42 pg. 34-45 //MV
Second,
scholars have argued regime type matters because autocracies and democracies
impose different constraints on the exercise of the state's massive power (Harff, 2003, Horowitz,
1976 and Rummel, 1995). Institutionalist and normative causal logics exist. In the institutionalist explanation,
autocracies are better able to commit genocide because effective power is often
concentrated in a single institution (e.g. the Presidency), whereas in democracies it is often
diffused across multiple institutions. In the normative explanation, democracies are less likely to
commit genocide because they generally respect human rights and value tolerance, whereas
autocracies, especially totalitarian regimes, generally do not. Weaker constraints give the
ruling elite stronger control of the state's power. Lastly, scholarship has highlighted elite strategy because
the decision to commit genocide often results from the calculation of the privileged few who control the state's power (B. A.
Valentino, 2004). Genocide
has for instance been considered a survival strategy or a calculated
response to a threat posed to the ruling elite's control of the state's power (Figueiredo & Weingast,
1999). Extreme threats generate extreme responses. Together, these three ideas point to the importance of
elite control of the state's power. This control matters not only at the national level, but at the local level too. For in localities
where the extremist elite's control is weak, resistance to the pressure for violence will be high.
Democracy solves war- peace processes and shared goals
Tomz and Weeks ’13 citing Dixon Michael R Tomz is Professor of Political Science,
Stanford University, and Jessica L. P. Weeks is Assistant Professor of Political Science,
University of Wisconsin-Madison
(Michael Tomz and Jessica Weeks, November 4th, 2013, American Political Science, Volume
107 No.4,
Reviewhttp://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPSR%2FPSR107_04%2FS00
03055413000488a.pdf&code=951aac604e867f293592b187924f0996, AZ)
The first input into the war calculus is threat perception. Many theories of the democratic
peace suggest that democracies view other democracies as less threatening than
autocracies (i.e., less likely to have malicious intent and to take military action). Perceptions
of threat play a crucial role in “normative” theories of the democratic peace. These theories
begin with the premise that citizens in democracies are normatively opposed to violence.
People in democracies solve domestic disagreements peacefully and apply the same
nonviolent norms internationally, at least in relations with democratic states. Democracies
expect other democracies to externalize peaceful norms in the same way and
therefore trust that they will not be attacked by other democracies (Dixon 1994; Doyle
1986; Maoz and Russett 1993; Owen 1994; RisseKappen 1995; Russett 1993). Perceptions
of threat also play a crucial role in “institutional” theories. Some argue that democratic
institutions reduce fear by constraining the executive, thereby slowing the process of
mobilization and lowering the likelihood of surprise attack (Russett 1993). Others claim
that democratic institutions contribute to peace by conveying information about intentions
(Fearon 1994; Schultz 2001), thereby increasing the likelihood that inter-democratic
disputes will be resolved through peaceful bargains, rather than unnecessary military
conflicts. Finally, democracy could reduce fear by creating expectations of shared
interests. Oneal and Russett (1999), for example, argue that democratic institutions
increase “affinity,” measured by similarity of voting patterns in the UN. If democracies
believe they have common interests, they may not feel threatened by each other. In sum, a
number of prominent theories of the democratic peace suggest that citizens in democracies
may view other democracies as less threatening than autocracies.
1AC—Islamophobia Advantage
First, the FBI conducts unwarranted surveillance of Muslims which
propogates Islamophobia and categorizes all Muslims as “terrorists”
Ackerman 11
(Spencer Ackerman is an analyst for the Wired. “FBI TEACHES AGENTS: ‘MAINSTREAM’ MUSLIMS ARE ‘VIOLENT, RADICAL”
http://www.wired.com/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/. Date Accessed- 07/17/15. Anshul Nanda)
THE FBI IS teaching its counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims
are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that
the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding mechanism for combat.”¶ At the Bureau’s training ground in
Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more “devout” a Muslim, the more likely he is to be “violent.”
Those destructive tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds:
“Any war against non-believers is justified” under Muslim law; a “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to
be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.”¶ The FBI’s Islam Training Documents¶ Militancy Considerations¶ Strategic
Themes and Drivers in Islamic Law¶ Doctrinal Basis for Jihad¶ Chart: Violence and Adherence to the Torah, Bible and Koran¶
These are excerpts from dozens of pages of recent FBI training material on Islam that Danger Room has acquired. In them, the
Constitutionally protected religious faith of millions of Americans is portrayed as an indicator of terrorist activity. ¶ “There may
not be a ‘radical’ threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology,” one FBI presentation notes. “The
strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are main stream.” ¶ The
FBI isn’t just treading
on thin legal ice by portraying ordinary, observant Americans as terrorists-in-waiting,
former counterterrorism agents say. It’s also playing into al-Qaida’s hands.¶ Focusing on the religious behavior
of American citizens instead of proven indicators of criminal activity like stockpiling guns or using shady financing makes it
more likely that the FBI will miss the real warning signs of terrorism. And depicting Islam
as inseparable from
political violence is exactly the narrative al-Qaida spins — as is the related idea that America and Islam
are necessarily in conflict. That’s why FBI whistleblowers provided Danger Room with these materials. ¶ Over the past few
years, American Muslim civil
rights groups have raised alarm about increased FBI and police
presence in Islamic community centers and mosques, fearing that their lawful behavior is being targeted
under the broad brush of counterterrorism. The documents may help explain the heavy scrutiny.¶ They
certainly aren’t the first time the FBI has portrayed Muslims in a negative light during
Bureau training sessions. As Danger Room reported in July, the FBI’s Training Division has included anti-Islam books,
and materials that claim Islam “transforms [a] country’s culture into 7th-century Arabian ways.” When Danger Room
confronted the FBI with that material, an official statement issued to us claimed, “The presentation in question was a
rudimentary version used for a limited time that has since been replaced.”¶ But these documents aren’t relics from an earlier
era. One of these briefings, titled “Strategic Themes and Drivers in Islamic Law,” took place on March 21. ¶ The Islam briefings
are elective, not mandatory. “A disclaimer accompanied the presentation stating that the views expressed are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government,” FBI spokesman Christopher Allen tells Danger Room. ¶
“The training materials in question were delivered as Stage Two training to counterterrorism-designated agents,” Allen adds.
“This training was largely derived from a variety of open source publications and includes the opinion of the analyst that
developed the lesson block.”¶ Not all counterterrorism veterans consider the briefings so benign. “Teaching counterterrorism
operatives about obscure aspects of Islam,” says Robert McFadden, who recently retired as one of the Navy Criminal
Investigative Service’s al-Qaida-hunters, “without
context, without objectivity, and without covering
other non-religious drivers of dangerous behavior is no way to stop actual terrorists.Ӧ Still, at
Quantico, the alleged connection between Islam and violence isn’t just stipulated. It’s literally graphed. ¶ An FBI presentation
titled “Militancy Considerations” measures the relationship between piety and violence among the texts of the three
Abrahamic faiths. As time goes on, the followers of the Torah and the Bible move from “violent” to “non-violent.” Not so for
devotees of the Koran, whose “moderating process has not happened.” The line representing violent behavior from devout
Muslims flatlines and continues outward, from 610 A.D. to 2010. In other words, religious Muslims have been and always will
be agents of aggression.¶ Training at Quantico isn’t designed for intellectual bull sessions or abstract theory, according to FBI
veterans. The FBI conducts its training so that both seasoned agents and new recruits can sharpen their investigative skills. ¶ In
this case, the FBI’s Allen says, the counterterrorism agents who received these briefings have “spent two to three years on the
job.” The briefings are written accordingly. The stated purpose of one, about allegedly religious-sanctioned lying, is to “identify
the elements of verbal deception in Islam and their impacts on Law Enforcement.” Not “terrorism.” Not even “Islamist
extremism.” Islam.¶ According to this FBI training, religious Muslims have been and always will be agents of aggression. ¶
What’s more, the Islamic “insurgency” is all-encompassing and insidious. In addition to outright combat, its “techniques”
include “immigration” and “law suits.” So if a Muslim wishes to become an American or sues the FBI for harassment, it’s all just
part of the jihad.¶ On Tuesday, the leaders of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and
Susan Collins (R-Maine), warned that law enforcement lacks “meaningful standards” to prevent anti-Islam material from
seeping into counterterrorism training. Some FBI veterans suspect the increased pressure on American Muslims has a lot to do
with the kind of training that Quantico offers.¶ “Seeing the materials
FBI agents are being trained with
certainly helps explain why we’ve seen so many inappropriate FBI surveillance operations
broadly targeting the Muslim-American community, from infiltrating mosques with agents
provocateur to racial- and ethnic-mapping programs,” Mike German, a former FBI agent now with the
American Civil Liberties Union, tells Danger Room after being shown the documents. “Biased police training can only result in
biased policing.” (Full disclosure: This reporter’s wife works for the ACLU.) ¶ The chief of the Training Division, Assistant FBI
Director Thomas Browne, came into his current job in January. His official biography lists no terrorism expertise beyond
serving as a coordinator for a bureau “Domestic Terrorism Program” in Tennessee sometime in the last decade. ¶ It is unclear
what vetting process the FBI used to approve these briefings; if any Muslim scholars contributed to them; and what criteria
Quantico uses to determine Islamic expertise. “The development of effective training is a constantly evolving process,” says FBI
spokesman Allen. “Sometimes
the training is adapted for long-term use. This particular training
segment was delivered a single time and not used since.Ӧ Several of these briefings were the work of a
single author: an FBI intelligence analyst named William Gawthrop. In 2006, before he joined the Bureau, he gave an interview
to the website WorldNetDaily, and discussed some of the themes that made it into his briefings, years later. The Prophet
“Muhammad’s mindset is a source for terrorism,” Gawthrop told the website, which would later distinguish itself as a leader of
the “birther” movement, a conspiracy theory that denies President Obama’s American citizenship. ¶ At the time, Gawthrop’s
major suggestion for waging the war on terrorism was to attack what he called “soft spots” in Islamic faith that might “induce a
deteriorating cascade effect upon the target.”
That is, to discredit Islam itself and cause Muslims to
abandon their religion. “Critical vulnerabilities of the Koran, for example, are that it was
uttered by a mortal,” he said. Alas, he lamented, he faced the bureaucratic obstacle of official Washington’s “political
taboo of linking Islamic violence to the religion of Islam,” according to the website. ¶ Back then, however, Gawthrop didn’t work
for the FBI. He had recently stepped
down from a position with the Defense Department’s
Counterintelligence Field Activity. That agency came under withering criticism during the Bush administration for
keeping a database about threats to military bases that included reports on peaceful antiwar protesters and dovish Church
groups. It is unclear how Gawthrop came to work for the FBI. ¶ Through an intermediary, Gawthrop told Danger Room that he
was unavailable for comment before our deadline.¶ ‘Instead of looking for indicators of nefarious behavior, you have a
sweeping generalization.’¶ The FBI didn’t always conflate terrorism with Islam. “I never saw that,” says Ali
Soufan, one of the FBI’s most distinguished counterterrorism agents and author of the new memoir The Black Banners, who
retired from the bureau in 2005. “Sometimes, toward the end of my time, I started noticing it with different entities outside the
FBI. You started feeling like they had a problem with Islam-as-Islam, because of the media. But that was a few people, and was
usually hidden behind closed doors.Ӧ Soufan, a Muslim, has interrogated members of al-Qaida and contributed to rolling up
one of its cells in Yemen after 9/11. But by the logic of the FBI’s training materials, Soufan’s religious practices make him a
potential terrorist.¶ McFadden, the former NCIS counterterrorist, has a lot of respect for his FBI colleagues, who he believes
are ill-served by these Islam briefings. “These are earnest special agents and police officers who want to know how do their job
better,” McFadden says.¶ Too often, McFadden says, counterterrorism training becomes simultaneously over-broad and
ignorant. “Instead of looking for indicators of nefarious behavior, you have a sweeping generalization of things like, for
instance, the Hawala system,” McFadden explains. “It’s a system that most of the developing world and expatriates from it use
to move money around, including terrorists. But you can’t say the whole hawala system is about terrorism, just like you can’t
say that Islam as a whole has anything to do with bad behavior.Ӧ McFadden, a Catholic, believes that obsessing over obscure
Koranic verses is as useful a guide to terrorist behavior as “diving into the rite of exorcism” is to understanding Catholicism.¶
On April 6, barely two weeks after the “Islamic Motivations for ‘Suicide’ Bombers” briefing at Quantico, FBI Director Robert
Mueller defended the bureau’s budget before a congressional committee .
Among his major points: the FBI
needs cooperation from American Muslims to stop the next terrorist attack.¶ “Since September
11th, every one of our 56 field offices and the leadership of those offices have had outreach to the Muslim community,” Mueller
said. “We need the support of that community … our business is basically relationships.” That is exactly the opposite message
sent in the training rooms of Quantico, where
the next generation of FBI counterterrorism is shaped.
Second, Islamophobia legitimizes the violation of human rights and
oppression of the other—this causes the worst forms of structural
violence
Arinc, 2013
(Bulent is a Deputy Prime Minister. “Islamophobia is an attack against human dignity, says deputy PM.”
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/. Date Accessed- 07/14/15. Anshul Nanda)
Islamophobia is a violation of human rights, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said on Thursday.¶
"Regardless of how we handle Islamophobia, it is a violation of human rights and an attack
against human dignity. The communication strategies that trigger this violation won't contribute to world
peace," Arinc said at the Grand Tarabya Hotel in Istanbul.¶ Speaking at The International Conference on
Islamophobia: Law & Media, organized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Office of the Prime
Minister Directorate General of Press and Information (BYEGM), Arinc
said that conflating Islam with
terrorism and totalitarianism leads societies to approach each other with suspicion. He went
on to stress that there are no religious principles that prevent Muslims from embracing
democracy.¶ Arinc called Islamophobia, which he said is spreading like a virus, "a tool for
oppressing Muslim societies." The goal of this oppression, pursued by those who believe that
Islam and democracy are incompatible, is to turn countries that combine Islam and democracy into
problematic states, he continued.¶ Saying that the ruling Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) unique example
disproves the clash-of-civilizations theory, Arinc stressed the attention the
party pays to multiculturalism
and its adoption of a view that welcomes different cultures.¶ Islamist terrorist organizations are the
only terror groups whose religion is taken into account, he said, adding that many nations perceive Islam as being
behind terror attacks and deal with Muslim countries differently when it comes to terrorism issues.¶ "When
Muslims are the matter of discussion, terms like 'militant, radical Islamist businessmen and
Islamofascism are used in conversations. Though [it defends] freedom at every opportunity,
the language the West uses is quite surprising on the Islam issue," Arinc said, arguing that Western
prejudices impact discussions on the issue. Calling on the Muslim world to make more efforts to shatter the
prejudices against it, Arinc demanded that Western societies take legal measures to prevent the escalation of
Islamophobia.¶ Many superficial reports on Islam unnecessarily occupy the agenda, Arinc said, adding that
Islamophobia in the media harms its reliability and objectivity. "The gray area between incitement and freedom of
expression in international media should be clearer," he added. ¶ Speaking at the same meeting, Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the OIC, described Islamophobia
as one of the most challenging
issues facing the international community and a threat to global peace and security. It stands
in stark contradiction to universal values as well as to the international community's commitment to developing a
culture of peace and harmony among different cultures, civilizations and faiths, according to Ihsanoglu.¶
Islamophobia is defined as "the dread, hatred and hostility towards Islam and Muslims perpetrated by a series of
closed views that imply and attribute negative and derogatory stereotypes and beliefs to Muslims" in the Runnymede
report, "Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All." The report added that Islamophobia is based on "an outlook or worldview involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and
discrimination."¶ A report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) titled "Summary
Report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001" documents acts of discrimination and racism against
Muslims in 15 EU member countries. The report's findings show that "Islamic communities and other vulnerable
groups have become targets of increased hostility since 11 September.
A greater sense of fear among the
general population has exacerbated already existing prejudices and fuelled acts of
aggression and harassment in many European member states."
Third, this traps Muslims in a cycle of oppression
Srinagar, 2012
(Srinagar works for a newspaper company called Kashmir Images. “Islamophobia: The Unholy Truth.”
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/. Date Accessed- 07/14/15. Anshul Nanda)
Fear or hatred of Islam or of Muslims is now generally understood as Islamophobia. Its origin
and causes may be debatable but particularly after 9/11, the phrase gained much popularity and proliferated across
the globe with the trend of dislikenness toward muslims, calculated
discrimination, illicit labeling, negative
stereotyping, violence in the form of ban on veil,(Hijab) in France, physical assault and passing
of insulting remarks on muslims in many other countries, apprehensive and distrustful outlook especially
toward beard wearing muslims as anti-social elements, increase in arrests,capativity and incarceration
rates of Muslim youth,, tortures and other physical and psychological violence and cinema of and on portraying
muslim cultural or religious features or demeanor like traditional dress patterns, beard wearing as terrorist symbols
in films, serials, etc,.Even now more often than not, terms like Islamic fundamentalism, militant Islam, radicalism,
pan-islamic terrorism, talibanization,extremism orthodoxy, etc., are used synonymously with Islam. ¶ The
phenomenon of islamophobia has lead to the social and political exclusion of Muslims round the globe as Muslims in
every country feel marginalized .They are Violently controlled in Iraq, jeopardized
in Iran, distressed and
starved in Palestine, at odds in India, alienated in Australia, secularized in Turkey,
stereotyped in America, segregated in Britain, restricted in France, bombed and impoverished in
Afghanistan, estranged, disturbed and confused in Egypt, oppressed in Tunisia, communalized in Nigeria, radicalized
and sensitized in Pakistan, etc,. Every Muslim on the globe is witnessing certain pressures and coercions upon him or
her. The burden of being a Muslim has been more consciously realized by Muslims due to the repercussions of many
factors like biased media coverage, exaggeration of gender violence and other shameful issues among Muslims by
writers and academics, facing the wrath of Islamophobia, characterized by a general understanding of extremism and
intolerant nature of Muslims especially in European and American countries. ¶ The anti Muslim stance of the west for
Islam being a growing trend in Europe and a big schema of communal hate mongers and their unswerving failure to
keep masses away from embracing Islam or get influenced with it, like Tony Blaire's sister-in-law's accepting Islam
and her statement of feeling more secure in pardah,after converting to Islam, etc,.Their consistent but futile attempts
of maligning it like the recent blasphemous American film wreaking havoc round the Muslim globe, like Kurt
Westergaard's blasphemous cartoons in Jyllands-Posten (Danish daily) , Terry Jones' Qur'an burning threats on 9/11
anniversary in Florida (forgetting that it will in turn magnetize more people to read and get influenced with the holy
revelation) and America's speedy role and quick partaking of its cronies against war on muslims, attacks on diverse
muslim ethnicities under the garb of so called 'war on terror. The worst is that the countries of Europe are now even
contending and competing among themselves on Islamophobia actions. Besides Western media's
redefining
Islam in the context of dividing muslims into self formed groups like secularists, liberal
muslims, democracy loving muslims, fundamentalists, pan-islamists, Islamic militants,
terrorists, good muslims, bad muslims, broad minded and free thinking, etc,.Simply to befool
innocent non-muslims and simultaneously to create divisions and flourish hatred and abhorrence
among muslims of diverse backgrounds and regions across the globe.¶ "The phobia in Islamophobia
reduces the complex set of institutionalized discrimination against European Muslims to a psychological state in the
minds of Christians and secular Europeans. Dictionary definitions refer to phobia as an intense, abnormal, or illogical
fear. Yet Muslim relations with Christians in Europe involve much more than fear of the former by the latter. Recent
research in the United Kingdom demonstrates that Muslim
residents have the lowest levels of income
and the highest levels of unemployment, receive the fewest health care services, do poorly
in the school system, and have the worst living conditions '(E. Ozyurek, ,2005).¶ Way back in
November, 2009, John Esposito, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a renowned writer
on Islamic issues, wrote in his article, titled, 'Are Swiss Alps Threatened by Minarets? 'That Swiss people voted and
urged to approve a move to ban the construction of new minarets in the country. He further argued, "Last year (2008)
at a European meeting of intelligence officials from the US and Europe, a Swiss participant commented on this
referendum on minarets. He was sure it would go nowhere since, as he said, Switzerland is a very pluralistic society,
its Muslim population is relatively small (about 400000) and there were few mosques with minarets. However, this
stunning Swiss vote (57 percent) approving a referendum to ban minarets, was really not all that surprising,
considering the growing power of Islamophobia. In both Europe and America right-wing politicians, political
commentators, media personalities and religious leaders continue to feed a growing suspicion of mainstream
Muslims by fueling a fear that Islam, not just muslim extremism, is a threat'. The term Islamophobia has now become
popular more or less every where particularly in Europe, where the Islamic
threat is considered the enemy
within, where as another nomenclature for it is, Islamic terrorism, which is on the rise in the
United States, where the new enemy is perceived to be external. Defining and explaining political
relations in terms of religious categories is the new trend. Similar to Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia also
assumes a homogenous religion and culture. Furthermore, it conceals that real people, rather than an
abstract category of religion or culture, are being discriminated against. Matti Bunzl, a European anthropologist in his
paper, 'Between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Some thoughts on the new Europe', (American Ethnologist) argues,
'anti-Semitism was invented in the late 19th century to police the ethnically pure nation-state. On the other hand,
Islamophobia is a recent formation that seeks to make the supranational European Union a fortress against migrants.
He goes further: traditional anti-Semitism has run its historical course with the end of the nation-state, and,
consequently, Islamophobia is becoming the defining condition of the "new Europe.(Sharif Islam quotes Bunzl in his
article titled, 'A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and the Nation-State IN Monthly Review,2006).¶ Islam
means peace, but its enemies like Zionists and secular Europeans never let its actual meaning to flourish instead
whole lot of world terror activities are labeled as Islamic and people who are not familiar to the Islamic ethos are
made to believe that it is the religion of terror. Muslims need not to get provoked what Zionist's aspire for. Esra
Ozyurek writes in her article, "The
politics of cultural unification, secularism, and the place of
Islam in the new Europe; (American Ethnologist, 32:4, 509-12). 'The post-Cold war understanding of
Europeanness in cultural and religious terms transformed the cluster of exclusionary and oppressive practices
directed toward the Muslim populations of Europe. Activists and intellectuals who wanted to attract attention to and
fight against these practices coined the term Islamophobia. Although this neologism is gaining popularity in Europe, I
believe that the term is itself indicative of the exclusionary place envisioned for Muslims in the new Europe. Hence, I
want to problematize several assumptions underlying the choice of this term for a large set of interrelated practices. I
suggest that the term reveals how people reduce complex relations
of power between majorities and
minorities to issues of culture and psychology. Particularly for this reason, use of the term Islamophobia
limits the otherwise well-intended efforts of those fighting against racism, xenophobia, and discrimination in
Europe.¶ Academically speaking, several authors have emerged on Islamophobia like Asad Talal( Formations of the
Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity.2003), Balibar, Etienne(We, the People of Europe? Reflections on
Transnational Citizenship. 2004) Mamdani, Mahmood(Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the
Roots of Terror. 2004) ,Taylor, Charles( Modes of Secularism. In Secularism and Its Critics.1998), Matti Bunzl( AntiSemitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds Old and New in Europe.2007), Gordon Conway(Commission on British Muslims
and Islamophobia,1997) and Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy by peter Gottschalk in 2007 and the most
recent one, 'Islamophobia: The Ideological Campaign Against Muslims' by Stephen Sheehi,2010 ,who have written on
the theme by and large.¶ The need of the hour is to address the issue of the enlarged societal hostility towards Islam
as a belief system and towards Muslims and the issue of Islamophobia, the fear of Islam along with the stereotypes,
prejudices and intolerance that are building up against Islam and its followers. In an era
when many Americans wonder whether Islam and the West inherently must clash,
Islamophobia explores how this view in part derives from centuries-old stereotypes of Muslims as violent,
oppressive, and intolerant. America's casual demonizing and demeaning of muslims and Islam is multiplying. Peter
Gottschalk, the author of 'Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy (2007) ,argues that Islamophobia-a racist like
bias against Muslims based on stereotypes, is very real, manifesting in some cartoons that are obviously biased and
others that appear on the surface to be more sympathetic. Cartoons, symbolic of wider feelings and fear about Islam,
reflect misunderstandings and prejudice among Westerners and, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, often serve to widen
cultural rifts particularly between Muslims and American Christians. Symbols
and cartoons, like the veil,
the mosque, scimitars and large-nosed profiles, can be misused or conflicting.¶ A
fundamental misunderstanding of the Muslim world in general has led to a chaotic situation
and the brand of islamophobia has fostered a sense of insecurity among all people on the globe, for Muslims fear that
they are muslims and will be besieged by non-muslims and non-muslims scared of muslims for they (muslims) have a
label of fundamentalists, hardliners, religious fanatics,non-secular, irrational, orthodox, old minded, undemocratic,
pre-modern, backward, uncultured terrorists and finally violent in actions on them ,across the globe which is a
repeated lie and has turned to the understood truth among majority, creating panic among all and a clear connection
between the fear and hate exhibited towards Muslims and Islam has contributed to unfriendly nature among people
for each other. Also the way Muslims
are represented in the media, though primarily in political
cartoons, irreverent statements and cartoon pictures of the prophet Mohammad, offensive and hateful
comments against Islam, etc, reinforces the common stereotypes for Muslims which often adds fuel to the fire
simply breeding hatred, violence, chaos and confusion among each other.¶ Americans, who
wrongly claim of rebuilding peace in conflict zones, hardly know that their blasphemous film or
previous anti-Islam acts can never ever offend prophet (SAW) or his eternal prophet hood or his outstanding stature
or the Deen of Islam. But their malicious act has indeed fostered more love for the holy Prophet and Islam in every
Muslim heart. The Love of Prophet (SAW) can never be faded by such hateful acts but it will further deepen love,
loyalty and Honour. Whatever be their hate mongering activities, Muslims all over the world are integrating to prove
that the Love for Prophet(SAW) is not conditional but everlasting blessing. Also as their moral travesties and malign
acts are crossing limits, thus boosting terrorism, inviting wrath and hate of the Muslim world except their few puppet
Muslim governments but not the people can never erase the word "Muhammad" from our hearts for we love our
Prophet(SAW) more than everything we have or we may get. Further it provokes greater repugnance and gap
between the west and the rest. Muslims should resort to patience against such provoking acts and should not destroy
their homes or public properties in their own countrues, which are not responsible for it. In turn we should learn
lessons from these enemies and forget sectarian divides, hatred for each other, rivalries on the basis of Shia-Sunni,
Hannafi-Shaafi, Aetiqaadi-Wahabi, etc,. We should stop labeling each other and our Ulema have to play a greater role
in this situation where Islam and Muslims are targeted to the worst by Jews and Americans, we should reunite and
forget our differences, instead celebrate and respect our ways of faith and following to give proof our being Muslim
and the followers of Prophet Muhammad(SAW) Published by HT Syndication with permission from Kashmir Images.
For any query with respect to this article or any other content requirement, please contact Editor at
htsyndication@hindustantimes.com
Finally, even if we don’t win in roads to the plan enactment---our
epistemology about interrogating Islamophobia in educational
settings establishes a critical consciousness that enables larger
political projects- this bypasses any circumvention arguments
because this round is uniquely key
Housee 12 (Shirin, Senior Lecturer in Sociology who works at the School of Humanities,
Languages and Social Sciences, University of Wolverhampton, UK “What’s the point? Antiracism and students’ voices against Islamophobia”,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13613324.2012.638867#abstract,
accessed 7/14/15)
Having reflected on the two seminar sessions on Islamophobia and the student comments, I
am convinced that the
work of anti-racism in university classrooms is fundamentally important. As one student said
racism is real. Through racism people suffer physically, psychologically, socially, educationally and politically. Our work in
university classrooms is just the beginning of this challenge against racisms and other
oppressions. Classroom discussions and general teaching form a very important contribution to this work of anti racism
in education. There are no short cuts or painless cuts; the work of anti-racism is a difficult one. As educators we should
make use of classroom exchanges; students’ engaged learning could be the key to promoting
anti-racism in our class. My goal is to teach in a way that engages students and leads them to reflect on the socioeconomic political/religions issues that surrounds theirs (our) lives. This article argues for making anti-racist thinking
possible in class. The student voice, that critiques mainstream thinking as found in the media and elsewhere, is a starting point
for this political work. I argue that teaching and learning in our classroom should encourage
the critical
consciousness necessary for pursuing social justice. Whilst I acknowledge the limits of doing anti-racist
campaign in university spaces, I argue that this is a good starting point. And who knows, these educational exchanges may
become (as with my own story) the awakening for bigger political projects against injustices in our society. In conclusion I
endorse social justice advocates, such as Cunningham (cited in Johnson-Bailey 2002, 43) who suggest that educators re-direct
classroom practices and the curriculum, because: ‘if we are not working for equity in our teaching and learning environments,
then…educators
are inadvertently maintaining the status quo.’ In conclusion I argue that a classroom
where critical race exchanges and dialogues take place is a classroom where students and teachers can be transformed .
Transformative social justice education calls on people to develop social, political and
personal awareness of the damages of racism and other oppressions. I end by suggesting that in the
current times of Islamophobic racism, when racist attacks are a daily occurrence, in August and September 2010 alone, nearly
30 people have been racially abused and physically attacked (Institute of Race Relations 2010). The point of studying racism,
therefore, is to rise to the anti-racist challenge, and for me, a place to start this campaign is within Higher Education
Institutions, optimistic as it might sound, I believe, as asserted by Sheridan (cited in Van Driel 2004) that: ‘Education can
enlighten students and promote positive attitudes…. Education settings can be the first arena in which battles can be fought
against Islamophobia. It is to education that our attention should be directed.’ (162)
1AC—Framing
Rights violations cannot be justified for any reason. Appeals to “the
greater good” misunderstand moral responsibility — we are only
responsible for our own actions.
Alan Gewirth, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Chicago, PhD in
philosophy from Columbia University, 1982, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and
Application, p. 229-230
None of the above distinctions, then, serves its intended purpose of defending the absolutist against the consequentialist. They
do not show that the son's refusal to torture his mother to death does not violate the other persons' rights to life and that he is
not morally responsible for their deaths. Nevertheless, the distinctions can be supplemented in a way that does serve to
establish these conclusions. The
required supplement is provided by the principle of the
intervening action. According to this principle, when there is a causal connection between
some person A's performing some action (or inaction) X and some other person C's
incurring a certain harm Z, A's moral responsibility for Z is removed if, between X and Z,
there intervenes some other action Y of some person B who knows the relevant
circumstances of his action and who intends to produce Z or who produces Z through
recklessness. The reason for this removal is that B's intervening action Y is the more direct or proximate cause of Z and,
unlike A's action (or inaction), Y is the sufficient condition of Z as it actually occurs." An example of this principle may help to
show its connection with the absolutist thesis. Martin Luther
King Jr. was repeatedly told that because he
led demonstrations in support of civil rights, he was morally responsible for the disorders, riots,
and deaths that ensued and that were shaking the American Republic to its foundations.” By the principle of
the intervening action, however, it was King's opponents who were responsible because their
intervention operated as the sufficient conditions of the riots and injuries. King might also have
replied that the Republic would not be worth saving if the price that had to be paid was the
violation of the civil rights of black Americans. As for the rights of the other Americans to peace and
order, reply would be that these rights cannot justifiably be secured at the price of the rights of
blacks. It follows from the principle of the intervening action that it is not the son but rather the terrorists who are morally
as well as causally responsible for the many deaths that do or may ensue on his refusal to torture his mother to death. The
important point is not that he lets these persons die rat than kills them, or that he does not harm them but only fails to help the
or that he intends their deaths only obliquely but not directly. The point is rather that it is only through the intervening lethal
actions of the terror that his refusal eventuates in the many deaths. Since the moral responsibility is not the son's, it does not
affect his moral duty not to torture his mother to death, so that her correlative right remains absolute.
Utilitarian ethics sacrifice the individual at the altar of
maximization of general utility making the grossest rights
violations both inevitable and frequent
Christopher H. Schroeder, Professor of Law, Duke University; Visiting Professor of Law, UCLA
1985-86, 1986, Columbia Law Review, Rights Against Risks, 86 Colum. L. Rev. 495
The anxiety to preserve some fundamental place for the individual that cannot be overrun by larger social considerations underlies what H.L.A. Hart has aptly termed
despite its famous slogan, "everyone [is] to count
for one," 59 utilitarianism ultimately denies each individual a primary place in its system of
values. Various versions of utilitarianism evaluate actions by the consequences of those actions to maximize happiness, the net of pleasure over pain, or the
satisfaction of desires. 60 Whatever the specific formulation, the goal of maximizing some measure of utility obscures
and diminishes the status of each individual. It reduces the individual to a conduit, a
reference point that registers the appropriate "utiles," but does not count for anything
independent of his monitoring function. 61 It also produces moral requirements that can
the "distinctively modern criticism of utilitarianism," 58 the criticism that,
trample an individual, if necessary, to maximize utility, since once the net effects of a proposal on the maximand have been taken into
account, the individual is expendable. Counting pleasure and pain equally across individuals is a laudable proposal, but counting only
pleasure and pain permits the grossest inequities among individuals and the [*509] trampling
of the few in furtherance of the utility of the many. In sum, utilitarianism makes the status of
any individual radically contingent. The individual's status will be preserved only so long as
that status contributes to increasing total utility. Otherwise, the individual can be discarded.
Policymakers cannot take into account improbable worst case
scenarios – worst case scenarios do not prove the undesirability of
the plan
Nicholas Rescher, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, 1983, Risk: A
Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management, p. 50
The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of unrealism in
deliberations about risk in real-life situations. Preoccupation about what might happen "if
worst comes to worst" is counterproductive whenever we proceed without recognizing
that, often as not, these worst possible outcomes are wildly improbable (and sometimes do
not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all). The crux in risk deliberations is not the
issue of loss "if worst comes to worst" but the potential acceptability of this prospect within
the wider framework of the risk situation, where we may well be prepared "to. take our
chances," considering the possible advantages that beckon along this route. The worst
threat is certainly something to be borne in mind and taken into account, but it is
emphatically not a satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of
hazard.
1AC—Solvency
Using less intrusive means of surveillance and independent
oversight is the only way to solve for racialized surveillance
Cincotta 9
Thomas Cincotta, civil liberties program director of Political Research Associates and a member of the Public Eye
editorial board, 2009 (“From Movements to Mosques, Informants Endanger Democracy,” Public Eye, Summer,
Available online at http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v24n2/movements-to-mosques.html, Accessed on 7/14/15)
A team of behavioral scientists paid by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is studying what turns
radicals into violent extremists. But what about the influence of highly motivated informants?
Paid informants are highly intrusive, aggressive, and potentially provocative. The ability of
informants to neutralize democratic change and disrupt communities should raise concerns
about whether pre-emptive policing is worth its social and political costs. As civil rights lawyer Frank Donner said, sizing up
the surveillance through the 1970s, “under the
warrant of protecting the democratic process from
disruption and violence, the intelligence state is seriously jeopardizing it.” [36]¶ When Maryland
activists learned that a state trooper infiltrated dozens of social justice groups over a fourteen-month period, they banded
together with the ACLU and Defending Dissent Foundation to urge passage of a state oversight bill. [37] Social justice groups,
including animal rights and environmental activists, must strengthen ties with Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and
immigrant groups facing infiltration to demand constraints on how and when informants may be used to spy on Americans .
Demands should include the use of less intrusive means of surveillance when a crime is
suspected; independent oversight to ensure better supervision and training related to the
use of informants for legitimate law enforcement purposes; and a ban on compiling dossiers
on individuals and groups based solely upon their political, social or religious activities and
beliefs. At a minimum, progressives must insist on re-establishing the protections instituted after the disastrous
COINTELPRO programs, requiring suspicion of criminal activity as a threshold for government spying. ¶ These are all in the
best interests of the government, not just its citizens. In the long run, the government risks losing crucial support and
legitimacy when its investigative tactics even appear to cross the line into provocation and unlawful investigation of protected
First Amendment activities.¶ Candidate Obama explicitly invited Americans to mobilize as a counterweight to the “undue
influence of the lobbyists” who “stand in our way.” [38] “I'm asking you to believe,” he said, “not just in my ability to bring
about real change in Washington; I'm asking you to believe in yours.” For that energy and enthusiasm to coalesce into an
organized political force, the Obama administration must rein in domestic intelligence practices that disrupt communities and
discourage activism.¶
Cooperation with law enforcement and outreach is key—otherwise it
risks cooption failure
Pluskovich, 2014
(Michaela is a graduate student in the University of California. “Keeping Faith in the Post9/11 Era: Studying Transparent U.S. Muslim Networks of Communication.”
http://legalstudies.berkeley.edu/files/2014/07/Michaela-Pluskovich-Thesis-Sp14.pdf.
Date Accessed 7/15/15. Anshul Nanda)
The third and last paradigm proposed by Eric Love, and developed by scholar Debra Minkoff, is less
confrontational and race-neutral including legislative lobbying, cooperation with law
enforcement and outreach through the media (Love 213). Some scholars believe that this approach has
in fact been emerging in communities advocating against Islamophobia, in particularly in the aftermath of
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Debra Minkoff sees a shift in Muslim organizations from
a focus on education and culture towards political lobbying and judicial activism, however,
as Love points out, additional research is needed to clarify the strategic decisions made by
advocacy groups and organizations. Additionally, the question remains about the effectiveness of this
approach, since Minkoff suggests that less confrontation with the state often leads to cooptation and failure (1697). Although my research is not an attempt to clarify the question of advocacy
formation on a national level, these three paradigms of activism are used to inform my observations and analysis of
data at the local level.
The status quo’s methods of solving for racialized surveillance get easily
circumvented by FBI officers- the plan is key to prevent that
circumvention
Phelps, 2014
(Timothy M. Phelps covers the Justice Department and legal affairs in Washington, D.C. He was a reporter and editor
for the Providence Journal. “Justice Department broadens ban on racial profiling .“ http://www.latimes.com/nation/lana-profiling-rule-20141209-story.html. Date Accessed- 07/14/15. Anshul Nanda)
The Justice Department on Monday issued new guidelines to federal law enforcement officers that will
regulate their use of racial profiling in investigations, an update to a policy first put in place in 2003 by
then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft.¶ The policy is intended to eliminate discrimination without
hindering federal inquiries and law enforcement. The old guidelines banned profiling based on race or
ethnicity. Now, for the first time, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity are also
covered.¶ But some critics have already complained the new rules don't go far enough and may not change the
situation for many people.¶ Related story: Poll: Americans
have sharply differing views of Brown,
Garner cases¶ Related story: Poll: Americans have sharply differing views of Brown, Garner
cases¶ Here are some examples of how the new guidelines might apply:¶ Will the new rules help prevent
the kinds of deadly encounters seen recently in Ferguson, Mo., and New York that have left African
American men dead at the hands of white police officers?¶ Not likely. The new guidance applies only to
federal law enforcement officers, such as those from the FBI and Justice Department. Local or
state police would have to abide by the guidelines only if they were working on a joint task force with federal
officers.¶ But Justice Department officials said Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is hopeful that the federal guidelines will
become a nationwide model that is eventually embraced by local law enforcement as well. ¶ lRelated Justice
Department unveils new rules on racial, ethnic profiling¶ NATION NOW¶ Justice Department unveils new rules on
racial, ethnic profiling¶ SEE ALL RELATED ¶ 8¶ Can a Border Patrol agent stop a legal U.S. resident in San Diego who
appears to be of Mexican origin and ask him for identification, even if the agent has no reason to believe the person
committed a crime or was in the country illegally?¶ According to civil rights groups, yes. A border agent will still be
able to stop, question and demand proof of legal residency or citizenship from individuals near the border solely on
the basis of their race and ethnicity.¶ Related
story: Justice Department to open civil rights inquiry
into Eric Garner's death¶ Related story: Justice Department to open civil rights inquiry into Eric Garner's
death¶ Though the new guidance revoked the Border Patrol's blanket exemption from the previous anti-profiling
guidelines, it still allows them to continue such profiling within "the vicinity of the border."
Department of Homeland Security officials have told civil rights leaders the "vicinity" will be defined as within 100
miles of the border. So from the point of view of some civil rights leaders, little
has changed in this area.¶
However, government officials say Border Patrol agents are focused on stopping people
who appear to have crossed the border illegally, not on citizens.¶ Can federal law enforcement
investigate someone simply because they are gay or lesbian?¶ No. For the first time, sexual orientation and gender
identity are protected in the anti-profiling guidelines. Gay rights advocates have praised the new language.¶ Does the
new policy apply to terrorism and national security cases?¶ cComments¶ Got something to say? Start the conversation
and be the first to comment.¶ ADD A COMMENT ¶ 0¶ In theory, yes. The new guidance revoked the national security
exemption that had existed under the old rules.¶ But like border agents, the FBI and other agencies that investigate
terrorism argued that profiling was sometimes needed to protect the nation. Civil rights lawyers say other provisions
in the rules appear to permit certain kinds of profiling in the name of national security.¶ The new guidance
specifically allows the FBI and other federal law enforcement to continue to "map" communities, focusing their
investigations on neighborhoods or communities based, for example, on religion or national origin. Also, some critics
of the new rules are concerned that Holder was noncommittal Monday when asked whether the FBI field manual
would be updated to reflect the new guidance, raising questions about whether federal agents will change their
behavior.¶ Can an undercover FBI
agent enter a Brooklyn, N.Y., mosque and conduct
surveillance without any probable cause to believe a crime is being committed or that
terrorists are operating within the mosque.¶ Yes, according to civil rights groups.¶ "The Justice
Department says the guidelines eliminate the national security loophole," said Farhana Khera, president of Muslim
Advocates, one of
the civil rights groups most involved in advocating for the changes. "While it
eliminates it in name, our concern is that not much changes in practice."¶ Can a Transportation
Security Administration officer stop and question someone trying to board a flight to Europe from LAX simply
because she is wearing a head scarf that indicates she may be a Muslim?¶ Technically no. The TSA should not stop and
question someone solely on the basis that their dress indicates they practice a particular religion, such as Islam.
Religion is one of the new banned profiling characteristics. ¶ But like border agents, the TSA received an exemption
from parts of the guidelines. So if the TSA has specific intelligence suggesting that a Muslim woman were planning an
attack, the agent might be justified in stopping her. But according to government officials, the description or behavior
of the passenger would have to match a specific security threat.