Correcting for ‘White Privilege’?
Nobody wants to be made a suspect in a crime for no other reason than the color of one’s skin. In theory, laws against racial profiling serve to protect the innocent. However, when judges only uphold anti-profiling laws in order to prevent white police officers from investigating non-white suspects, courts have fallen under the spell of a dark ideology. Are courts throughout the Western world perhaps trying to correct for ‘white privilege’ by surreptitiously granting non-whites special legal status?
Anti-profiling laws may be based on the false assumption that all whites are racists. Reasoning from this assumption, law professors may have come to the false conclusion that non-whites need some kind of special protection against whites in majority-white societies. Said professors may have reasoned that there are comparatively too many white police officers and, therefore, whites need to learn to “share the power”.
In the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union first defined racial profiling to refer “to the practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.”
While the idea of racial profiling, as well as measures against it, originated in the United States, European lawmakers have also begun to pick up on the phenomenon. In 2013, when German police officers https://jungefreiheit.de/debatte/kommentar/2018/urteil-fernab-der-realitaet/ asked a black man to show them his passport, he swiftly accused the officers of having profiled him on the basis of his skin color. A German court later agreed. The evidence? The black man had “felt” targeted.
Putting feelings aside, do white law enforcers really target non-whites simply because of the color of their skin?
U.S. observers have claimed, for example, that a disproportionately white law enforcement has disproportionally stopped and searched African Americans and other members of minority groups. Such accusations rest on the false assumption that crime is equally distributed among all U.S. ethnic groups. Therefore, targeting any ethnic group more than others would automatically be evidence of racial profiling!
Said observers have claimed that white law enforcers supposedly targeted Hispanic and Latino Americans in the investigation of illegal immigration because of their ethnic background. Again, the accusation seems baseless, since most immigrants coming into the United States happen to be of Hispanic and Latino origin. That means most illegal immigrants are likely to be found among this demographic, too.
White police officers have also been accused of illegally profiling Middle Easterners and South Asians for ties to Islamic terrorism. But you likely have to be Muslim in order to be tied to Islamic terrorism. Between 2008 and 2016, Islamist terror incidents resulted in 90 deaths. Right-wing inspired attacked resulted in 79 deaths. Muslims only make up 1% of the U.S. population.
In each of the aforementioned cases, critics may have reverse-engineered cause and effect. It’s not white law enforcers who are targeting people because of their race, color or ethnicity. It’s people of a certain race, color or ethnicity who are more likely to commit a certain crime. Simply put, different types of crime aren’t equally distributed among different demographics. That isn’t evidence of racial profiling but evidence of criminal diversity.
For example, white Canadians aren’t as likely to enter the United States illegally as people from Mexico are. That’s not profiling. That’s a statistical reality. If someday, white Canadians would begin to enter the United States illegally more often than brown-skinned Mexicans, U.S. authorities would pick up on the changing statistical reality and divert their resources to protecting the northern border instead.
In practice, laws against profiling only serve to cast a suspicion on any white officer dealing with a non-white suspect. Since the suspicion is always there and since any non-white suspect can easily accuse his handler of being ‘racist’, anti-profiling laws have, de facto, given non-whites special legal status. So, racial profiling laws can be misused as one of many means to disempower the white middle class.
It seems as if racial profiling laws have nothing to do with protecting the innocent against abuses of white power but with an attempt to empower the criminal and the guilty, as long as their race isn’t white. By giving non-whites a special legal status, it has certainly become a lot easier to overthrow the white middle class.