Kate Chewning – 12/15/06

This page was last updated on December 16, 2006.

Jim Crow laws for Muslims?; Kate Chewning; Beaver County Times; December 16, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“When I read the Nov. 27 letter to the editor ‘Muslims shouldn’t be praying,’ I felt embarrassed. The insensitivity to racial tolerance was overwhelming to me.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a monumental moment in our country that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. US Airways directly violated this act. If customer concerns had involved African-Americans, their claims would have been dismissed immediately.”

[RWC] To date, three probes determined US Airways and airport security personnel acted appropriately given the behavior of the imams and the information the airline and security personnel had in hand. Ms. Chewning seems to forget these same imams – along with many other Muslims – flew into Minneapolis without incident. This tends to refute the position that US Airways or any other airline had been singling out Muslims of apparent Middle Eastern descent.

Let’s also remember what happened to the remaining 140 passengers and crew. All passengers and crew were removed from the plane and re-screened, not just the six imams, not just Muslims, and not just men of Middle Eastern descent. Further, the flight was delayed three hours. If the issue had been one of race and/or religion, why was everyone removed and re-screened?

I wonder if Ms. Chewning really means “African-Americans” or if she’s really referring to blacks. After all, not all African Americans are black and not all blacks in the U.S. are Africans and/or Americans.

“Since these concerns were taken seriously, this shows that being Islamic is not to be covered by the law. When did a nongovernmental corporation begin to have the power to deny their customers access to a product based on race and religion? US Airways allowed for irrational fear and prejudice to take over, denying innocent men the services provided by the airline.”

[RWC] Just as the Times editorial “Fear of flying,” Ms. Chewning wants us to believe “the flying imams” were taken off the flight simply because they prayed in public and of “irrational fear and prejudice.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than repeating myself here, please read my critique of the editorial for a more complete discussion of the circumstances and some information about one of the imams.

For whatever reason, Ms. Chewning wants us to believe the decision to remove the imams was strictly US Airways’ decision. It was not. Airport security personnel concurred. As noted above, probes to date indicate everyone took appropriate action, except perhaps for the imams.

Maybe I’m naïve, but I believe (hope?) if six white Christian guys did exactly what “the flying imams” did, exactly the same things would have happened, except for the claims of discrimination by folks like Ms. Chewning. Face it, we can’t assume all future terrorists will look and behave like past terrorists.

“Imagine a group of Caucasian adults leaving on a church mission trip. As the flight is about to board, they gather in a circle and bow their heads for a prayer of safety. No fellow passenger would assume that to be suspicious behavior. This shows within the passengers on that flight that some sort of racism or irrational fear exists.”

[RWC] Nice try, Ms. Chewning, but I don’t recall any instances of “a group of Caucasian adults leaving on a [presumably Christian] church mission trip” hijacking aircraft and using them to kill 3,000 Americans in the name of God. In the U.S., those “Caucasian adults” also tend to pray in English, not Arabic, so everyone would understand their prayers.

“Each of those men was checked through our security screening process. Anyone who was uncomfortable with those men on the plane could have gotten off and rescheduled a flight. By denying access to those men, the majority took away the civil liberties of the minority.”

[RWC] “Each of those men was checked through our security screening process.” So were the 9/11 hijackers. While I believe (hope?) our screening processes are better than they were on 9/11, that doesn’t mean we’re supposed to ignore suspicious behavior. It’s a sad fact of life that many times we’ll be one step behind new terrorist tactics. The discovery this summer that terrorists planned to smuggle binary liquid explosives on planes headed for the U.S. is an example. If British security had not uncovered the plot ahead of time, then-current screening processes would not have detected the explosives. That’s why all of us must be vigilant, not just the screeners at the security checkpoints.

“Anyone who was uncomfortable with those men on the plane could have gotten off and rescheduled a flight?” Let me get this straight. If you believe some people on a plane may represent a security risk to kill hundreds or thousands of people, you should just get off, save yourself, and not tell anyone? Is Ms. Chewning serious? Remember, at least one of the people who raised a red flag was a flight attendant when one or more of the imams requested seat belt extenders they didn’t need. Does Ms. Chewning believe the flight attendant should simply have gotten off the flight and not told anyone?

Let’s do a risk assessment. If I incorrectly believe someone is a security risk, the only damage done is some inconvenience, both for those suspected and the rest of the passengers and crew. If I believe someone is a security risk and don’t tell anyone of my suspicions, hundreds or thousands of people could die if I’m right. Maybe it’s just me, but I believe we should err on the side of caution.

I wonder how Ms. Chewning would feel if a neighbor saw someone suspicious lurking around her home and didn’t tell anyone.

“As we look back in time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an historical landmark in our nation’s history. If we deny anyone transportation on the basis of nationality and religion, then it seems we are putting Jim Crow laws back into affect.”

[RWC] Ms. Chewning continues to ignore the facts of the case.

“We are a nation that prides itself on equality, yet we still continue to let fear and prejudices exist.”

[RWC] To date, all of the acts of terror against the U.S. have been by Muslims and most of the terrorists were of Middle Eastern descent. If you accept Ms. Chewning’s “logic,” we should ignore this fact. That’s not to say all Muslims are potential terrorists or that future Islamic terrorists won’t be of something other than Middle Eastern descent, but for now it’s prudent to view Middle Eastern Muslim men of a certain age group a little differently than we would white Irish Catholic grandmothers.

Sadly, Ms. Chewning is not alone. Her example of what would happen with a black person is useful. Sometime during the past couple of years, a local media outlet issued a description of a man sought by the police who was presumed to be armed and dangerous. Unfortunately, the description (name, height, weight, et cetera) omitted one very important characteristic. The outlet failed to mention the suspect was black. The outlet admitted the omission was intentional because the outlet said it was concerned about racial profiling. That’s right. Even though police knew the identity of the suspect and knew positively he was black, the outlet thought it wrong to mention the suspect’s most visible physical characteristic, skin color. How idiotic some of us have become.