See Something, Say Something — Unless It’s ‘Racial Profiling’

Scott Greer Contributor
Font Size:

No matter what the circumstances, no matter what the motivations, no matter what the actual facts — every mass shooting in America will eventually be exploited to push for more gun control.

It didn’t take details or even a few minutes before the Left instantly latched onto the San Bernardino attack as an argument for more restrictions on firearms.

A whole host of liberal journalists, politicians and celebrities were very certain the National Rifle Association was responsible for the massacre, and denounced all Republican politicians who offered their thoughts and prayers to the victims. (RELATED: With Suspects Still At Large, Democrats Rush To Politicize San Bernardino Shooting)

The only correct response, apparently, was to demand immediate action — on gun control.

But as details started to emerge around the shooting, it appeared a different kind of action could’ve prevented the bloodshed.

Neighbors of gunman Syed Rizwan Farook said they had noticed a lot of suspicious activity before the shooting, but didn’t want to report it… because that would be profiling. (RELATED: Shooter’s Neighbor Didn’t Report ‘Suspicious Activity’ For Fear Of Being Labeled Racist)

Farook was a Muslim man of Pakistani origin, which means thinking he was up to terrorism would be considered an egregious case of racial profiling.

The fact that the fear of looking like a racist was so powerful to prevent someone from doing the right thing is a testament to the power of the Left. For years, our culture and media have told us how evil it is to profile someone based on their race, religion or appearance. To do so is to be a racist, and that’s worse than being a terrorist in some quarters.

Oddly enough for those demanding action on guns is how effective they’ve enforced non-action when it comes to racial profiling.

But it’s coming at the price of safety, as can be discerned by the San Bernardino massacre. And there’s more troubling examples of this politically correct mentality at work as well.

Arguably, the most famous case of the fear of being called a racist endangering lives is the shocking story of a child sex ring that operated for several years in Rotherham, U.K. In 2014, the Pakistani men behind the odious operation were finally brought to justice, but it was only after they had forever scarred the lives of over 1,400 girls.

There was one local social worker who tried to sound the alarm on the sex gang well before 2014. She was silenced for her efforts, and was punished with mandatory “cultural sensitivity” courses in order to correct her bigotry.

Sadly, cultural sensitivity did not save any of the 1,400 girls from being raped. (RELATED: ‘Cultural Sensitivity’ Doesn’t Excuse Child Rape)

Here in the states, we have the curious phenomenon of an increasing number of news outlets refusing to publish the race of criminal suspects. According to more than a few journalism style chiefs, reporting on the race isn’t relevant at all in giving a description of a suspect. So instead, we’re supposed to be satisfied with vague descriptions of a “person with dark hair” to help citizens look for possible robbers.

It clearly restrains the ability of the public to know what wrong-doer they should be looking out for. Failing to report on the skin color of a suspect is like failing to give the color of a stolen car.

The refusal to let the public know the race of a suspect is less about “relevancy” and more about political correctness. If someone may be offended that a newspaper reports a murder suspect happens to be a certain race, then it’s better to stick with hair color as to not appear prejudiced.

That commitment to sensitivity can be seen in a November Indianapolis Star article on the gruesome murder of a preacher’s wife that shocked the community last month. Police were desperate to find the culprits and they needed the public’s help to track down the killers.

Here’s what the Indy Star said of the suspect that was caught on video camera leaving the crime scene:

“The man seen in the footage was described as being between 5 feet 4 inches and 5 feet 9 inches tall with a slim-to-medium build. He was wearing light-colored pants and a two-toned hoodie.”

Fortunately, police were eventually able to catch the men (who were all African-American) responsible for the senseless murder, but the Star article was likely not an asset in that achievement.

In the wake of the San Bernardino shooting and as the radicalism of the perpetrators begins to take center stage, prepare for apologetics on the behalf of the Islamic faith and more calls to eliminate Islamophobia. At a time that America might be more at risk of these kinds of attacks from homegrown extremists, more of our pundits and political leaders will demand vigilance against racial profiling, instead of radical Islam. (RELATED: Loretta Lynch Urges Muslim Parents To Contact Feds If Their Children Are Bullied)

Homeland Security might tell us to “see something, say something,” but if a suspect fits a stereotype, that same federal government might prefer if we look the other way. No one wants to be like the Dallas high school that turned Ahmed “Clock Kid” Mohammed into a “victim” of Islamophobia after merely following standard security procedures. (RELATED: Don’t Bring A Clock To School Unless It Looks Likes A Clock)

The gadfly writer Steve Sailer gave the best definition of political correctness as “a war on noticing.” Americans are increasingly being instructed to not notice some things in order to stay in good social graces. Noticing has a cost, and when our president chooses to bury his head in the sand on the issue of radical Islam, it’s understandable the chattering class follows his example.

But increasingly, political correctness is coming at the expense of security. We can no longer fail to do the right thing for our communities over fears of being called insensitive — or worse.

Follow Scott on Twitter