Columnists

Dissing Friends

by I.J. SINGH

 

Since 9/11, America has had an epiphany and remains in an altered state of mind.  Everywhere and in anyone, we see enemies out to destroy us. 

Does such an obsessive, anxiety-ridden perception of reality help us?  Does it create a more secure nation, a better society?  Keep in mind that every coin has two sides to it.  If we peremptorily dismiss any point of view, we are left with a coin that has little value to us or anyone else in life.

Let's explore the latest missive from the geniuses at Homeland Security, and then connect it to our responses.

Security concerns in air travel remain paramount, and rightly so.  But the authorities that be have determined now, six years after 9/11, that turbaned passengers must be subjected to heightened security procedures, including aggressive pat-downs of their turbans.

Our responses, though expectedly worried and even fearful, have run the gamut from a reasoned approach and dialogue with the government agencies, to opinions on the extreme. One posits this policy as a challenge to Sikh identity and proposes anger and defiance; on the other end of the spectrum is advice offered by a prominent Sikh in the United States that perhaps Sikhs should opt for baseball caps when traveling by air.

Mature and moderate elements within Sikhism, such as the proactive SALDEF, the Sikh Coalition and the United Sikhs, have engaged in serious conversation with the security agencies to insure that Sikh travelers are treated with dignity and, if a turban search is indicated, it is conducted courteously within a private area.

This is all very good, but I believe that it should not be considered the end of the matter.

(Parenthetically, I point out that the most prosperous Sikh institutions in America, our gurdwaras, are largely silent on this issue, as are most of the Sikh academics who could provide guidance and leadership.)

I remember that some years ago, Jose Padilla was arrested for carrying the makings of a "dirty bomb" in his shoes.  As a result, for the past few years, all passengers have, at times, been asked to remove their shoes and subject them to the penetrating eye of the scanning machines. 

While it is true that an evil mind can secure the ingredients of a weapon within the folds of a turban, several caveats come to mind. 

In all these years, there has been no known case of a turban-wearing terrorist in this country.  It is also true that not a single terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 wore a turban.  No one arrested so far had a turban on his head.  I say this despite the fact that the leaders of the movement  -  Osama bin Laden, and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wear turbans.  I emphasize most strongly that their turban is obviously not the style that Sikhs wear.

And then, my mind goes to some other essential detours.  Have I ever wondered if someone could hide an explosive device in a bra?  Unquestionably.  In fact, even the most ordinary clothing allows many hiding places for dangerous devices.

Now, I know that in this country, women have not yet been arrested for supporting terrorism, but in the Middle East, there have been female suicide bombers ... though few, they are not so rare.

It is also true that our state-of-the-art scanning technology can look right through clothes and peer at and even through the bare skin.  Certainly then, the contents of a bra would be no secret, but then, nor would what lies hidden inside a turban.

Finally, the question arises: why does this ruling of a turban pat-down exercise me so?

My take on this is somewhat convoluted, but not so complex.  I see that some degree of profiling cannot be avoided; for instance, on weekend nights, teenage male drivers receive special attention simply because the incidence of teenage drunk drivers is so high and the consequences so dangerous.  If boys will be boys, as is often claimed, then boys on a rampage deserve to be monitored.

But when absolutely no prima facie justification at all exists for such action, to single out a community would be considered uncalled for and unjust.  What such action does is that it treats certain types of citizens as second-class, and their rights are somewhat abridged.

I, and certainly many others, would not like to be deemed second-class citizens, with curtailed rights and enhanced obligations.

When you single out an entire group of people based on physical characteristics, religion, color of skin, mode of dress, gender, or any such extraneous factors, you in fact relegate a whole segment of citizens to second-class status.  And that, to a non-lawyer like me, smacks of hate crime.

Such behavior by a state against its own citizens reminds me of the classic line from the comic strip "Pogo", that "We have seen the enemy, and he is us".

So, we may find that at this time, aggressive pat-downs are a policy in an anxious society and that a private area for them is the best agreement that we can muster.  But, while we live with it, we should not deem the matter satisfactorily closed. 

Such contentious, emotionally-charged matters are not settled overnight, nor can they be forced.  Just look at the Black struggle for equal rights in this society.  The Civil War gave them considerable measures of freedom along the road to equality; yet, a hundred years later, lynchings were still occurring, educational and work opportunities were severely limited, and a Voting Rights Act was necessary.  Is the struggle now over?  Hardly!

Women won the right to vote in 1920, but the Equal Rights Amendment still languishes.

Freedom is either full, or it is truncated.  There should be no resting on laurels in the latter case.

So, returning to the aggressive probing of a Sikh turban; we can work out a somewhat tolerable agreement that accepts the dignity of the turban.  Yet, it is an issue that demands continuing attention.  It will certainly take more than a week or a month, but the results would be lasting.

The dialogue and the process should continue in a courteous, fair and yet insistent manner.  The rights and obligations of our citizenship demand it.

read other articles in Columnists