• NSW Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi 'interrogated' by LAX security.
    17 replies, posted
[media]https://twitter.com/MehreenFaruqi/status/687741943627911168[/media] [QUOTE]New South Wales Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi has criticised security procedures at Los Angeles International Airport after she was interrogated. Dr Faruqi is touring the United States as part of fact-finding trip on drug law reform and also to visit family. "Being asked how 'we got' Australian passports and then about my Pakistani history clearly points towards racial profiling," Dr Faruqi said in a statement. "It is quite ridiculous, nerve wracking and scary to be treated so suspiciously for no reason and sent off to be interrogated. Source: [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-15/nsw-greens-mp-mehreen-faruqi-fingerprinted-and-questioned-at-lax/7091360[/url][/QUOTE] What a joke.
I think the TSA might have some explaining to do, because this was a standing member of state legislature.... (then again, Baird's in charge so I expect a token request)
[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;49533988]I think the TSA might have some explaining to do, because this was a standing member of state legislature.... (then again, Baird's in charge so I expect a token request)[/QUOTE] Not of an American legislature, and as a crossbencher in a state's lower house in Australia (and probably not even travelling on parliamentary business, depending on the nature of her fact finding) she's not that important as an Australian politician, so no I don't think the TSA will get in that much trouble at all.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49534027]Not of an American legislature, and as a crossbencher in a state's lower house in Australia (and probably not even travelling on parliamentary business, depending on the nature of her fact finding) she's not that important as an Australian politician, so no I don't think the TSA will get in that much trouble at all.[/QUOTE] uh yeah they will, she's still in government and she would be counted as a government official and anyone who goes under this shit would expect a grilling no matter what side of politics you're on don't dismiss this because she wouldn't be counted as important, if a rural mayor who leads a town in the middle of fucking no where got the same treatment id expect people to get up in arms
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49534090]uh yeah they will, she's still in government and she would be counted as a government official and anyone who goes under this shit would expect a grilling no matter what side of politics you're on don't dismiss this because she wouldn't be counted as important, if a rural mayor who leads a town in the middle of fucking no where got the same treatment id expect people to get up in arms[/QUOTE] She's an MP, but she's not government. If she were the Premier, the Treasurer or any other cabinet member, or even a shadow cabinet member or backbench government MP then yeah, the TSA fucked up. We'll probably see a public apology by the TSA tomorrow and the chance of a private phone call from someone important at the TSA maybe, but it's not going to be a huge scandal because it isn't one. Baird or Julie Bishop aren't going to be calling for someone's head.
"Randomly selected additional screening" is the term they use for this, I believe. Totally not because she's brown. Nope. Not at all. That would be racist.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49534148]"Randomly selected additional screening" is the term they use for this, I believe. Totally not because she's brown. Nope. Not at all. That would be racist.[/QUOTE] Are you implying that a proper 'randomly selected additional screening' would have to completely exclude people of East Asian ethnicity? Because a proper unbiased system would still have 'brown' people randomly selected, what matters is whether they are disproportionately selected or not.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49534343]Are you implying that a proper 'randomly selected additional screening' would have to completely exclude people of East Asian ethnicity? Because a proper unbiased system would still have 'brown' people randomly selected, what matters is whether they are disproportionately selected or not.[/QUOTE]I'm implying that the TSA is staffed by motherfucking retarded mutants who do this shit [B]all the time.[/B] You seem to be under the hilariously mistaken impression that my country [I]in general[/I] isn't automatically biased against "people who look like Muslims." Here, have a read about the [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/28/americans-are-still-attacking-sikhs-because-they-think-theyre-muslims/]shit[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/history-of-hate-crimes-against-sikhs-since-911_n_1751841.html]Sikhs[/url] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Balbir_Singh_Sodhi]go through.[/url] [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] How in the fuck were you not aware of this. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] Here, have a little light reading about how the TSA harasses Mexicans and Indian dudes who might ditch their Catholic or Hindu upbringing and join al-Qaeda: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_racial_profiling_in_the_United_States[/url] [url]http://thegrio.com/2013/06/06/report-tsa-screening-is-a-magnet-for-racial-profiling/[/url] I say this because you don't need to be a genius to figure out that the obviously bias toward scrutinizing brown people sure as fuck isn't going to be limited to just Arab dudes, everyone else who sorta-kinda looks like "a Muslim" is going to get thrown in too. I mean do I really, really need to explain that?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49534343]Are you implying that a proper 'randomly selected additional screening' would have to completely exclude people of East Asian ethnicity? Because a proper unbiased system would still have 'brown' people randomly selected, what matters is whether they are disproportionately selected or not.[/QUOTE] how the fuck did you get that from his post it's 1000% clear that he's implying that airport security screens a disproportionately large amount of racial minorities ...........or were you strawmanning utterly???
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49534148]"Randomly selected additional screening" is the term they use for this, I believe. Totally not because she's brown. Nope. Not at all. That would be racist.[/QUOTE] I'm a white dude and have been randomly picked for additional screening every time I've flown but once. (checked ~5 flights, not checked once)
i guess not wanting racial discrimination against minorities in airport security means that he doesn't think they should be screened at all!!!!! [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49535028]I'm a white dude and have been randomly picked for additional screening every time I've flown but once. (checked ~5 flights, not checked once)[/QUOTE] i'm a white dude and i have never been screened once anecdote fight me
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49535029]i guess not wanting racial discrimination against minorities in airport security means that he doesn't think they should be screened at all!!!!![/QUOTE]I mean really, I don't, but I also don't think [I]anyone[/I] should be "additionally screened" at all since a fat fucking 0 number of previous attacks would have been caught by it. All those other procedures? Checking baggage, take off your shoes and your carryon and get them scanned, etc? Those are exactly the kind of thing that catches dudes who want to blow up or hijack planes. All an additional screen does is do the same thing already done but [I]again[/I] because, and I'm just guessing here, it feels like it's effective. Seems like a pointless waste of time when the sum is clearly racial profiling, aside from your random white guy like sgman91 who may very well look like the Unabomber. Either way the point is clear: don't want to get caught carrying out your !!terrorist plot!! then don't look abnormal. [QUOTE=sgman91;49535028]I'm a white dude and have been randomly picked for additional screening every time I've flown but once. (checked ~5 flights, not checked once)[/QUOTE]So the TSA pulls you aside, searches you and otherwise investigates your person, and what exactly did they find? Fuck all? Great, so you've proved that these screenings are about as fucking useful as tits on a bullfrog. Even if they would have caught somebody, they were busy wasting their time with somebody who's so fucking outlandish that he's been stopped [B]83.3% of the time.[/B] I mean you're clearly doing something to warrant their attention five times out of six, statistically speaking it's unlikely they just kept choosing you out of a line of a lot of people.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49534090]uh yeah they will, she's still in government and she would be counted as a government official and anyone who goes under this shit would expect a grilling no matter what side of politics you're on don't dismiss this because she wouldn't be counted as important, if a rural mayor who leads a town in the middle of fucking no where got the same treatment id expect people to get up in arms[/QUOTE] She's not a diplomat, nor was she traveling on a diplomatic passport. No one will care.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49535028]I'm a white dude and have been randomly picked for additional screening every time I've flown but once. (checked ~5 flights, not checked once)[/QUOTE] I'm a white dude and the only time I've been chosen to be screened in the couple dozen times I've flown over the last few years is when I had a PS3 in my carry-on.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49535232]I mean really, I don't, but I also don't think [I]anyone[/I] should be "additionally screened" at all since a fat fucking 0 number of previous attacks would have been caught by it.[/QUOTE] You could (and they do) argue that it has a powerful deterrent effect though.
[QUOTE=shauntp;49546572]You could (and they do) argue that it has a powerful deterrent effect though.[/QUOTE]Maybe, I mean I can't argue against that because common sense would imply that it would make the situation more anxious. On that note though it also raises the collective disgust of the population for a variety of reasons, and for some it's just a symbol of the government being the bad guy no matter how much good they may or may not be doing. Why provoke such sentiment when really pulling somebody aside based on the personal biases of the untrained and unsupervised agents (this is a big criticism of the TSA and has been for over a decade) is not actually useful? There's already an effective set of procedures and methods in place that actually do the real job of stopping bad guys doing bad things. [editline]17th January 2016[/editline] I mean assuming sgman91's anecdote is accurate (and I think it is) that means that the agents singled him out for whatever arbitrary reason they felt justified additional searches. He's not even remotely what they're looking for, and they did it five different times so there's either a failure in the method itself or the agent's competence or training; (which is woefully lacking) either way it is unacceptable.
Why are people blaming the TSA? This is US Customs, TSA has no jurisdiction over International travelers.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;49558830]Why are people blaming the TSA? This is US Customs, TSA has no jurisdiction over International travelers.[/QUOTE]Two things: yes it does, the TSA has jurisdiction over all transportation systems inside and connecting to the United States, and two, even if this was somehow specifically Custom and Border Protection's fuckup do note that "the TSA" is a catch-all term for any and all shit related to this sort of thing. By the way? CBP's role is to enforce regulations on trade, customs, and immigration, they don't actually handle anything related to people on airliners unless they're immigrating. Even then, the TSA is still responsible for carrying out their duties.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.