h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Nearly half of Americans polled said "yes".

'Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.'

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MUSLIMS_CIVIL_LIBERTIES?SITE=NYSTA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Terrifying.

So how many supporting curtailing Christians' rights after the Oklahoma bombing? Oh, right they didn't do that survey. And the media all ignored the bomber's fundamentalist Christian separatism anyway.

Come back the Dark Ages, all is forgiven.

I wonder if all these people realize just how much their own civil liberties have been restricted by the horrid PATRIOT ACT.


az

I guess it would be fair to emphasise that more than half of those polled answered "no".

So what? ALL Muslims are now terrorists? How stupid can you get?

This would never happen in Canada.

Hell, it hasn't even happened in Spain, even after the horrific al-Quaeda slaughter of 11-M in Madrid. Nobody here is talking about curtailing the rights of Muslims in Spain.


az

Of course, this all depends on how the question was posed (I can't access the link from here). It might have been along the lines of: "The people responsible for 9/11 were Muslims. Should we restrict the freedom of Muslims?" It's easy to see how such a question may elicit a knee-jerk answer. It would be interesting to see the methods used.

The Cornell report on the study with links to the pdf reports: www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html

The pdf reports: http://www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1a.pdf

http://www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1b.pdf

'Specifically, respondents were asked whether they agreed that 1) Government should have greater power in monitoring Internet activities such as email and online transactions, 2) Law enforcement officials should be able to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists, 3) We need to outlaw some un‐American actions, even if theyʹre Constitutionally protected, 4) Government officials sometimes need to lie to the press about military operations, 5) In a time of crisis or war, the media should NOT cover anti‐war protests, 6)  In a time of crisis or war, the media should NOT report comments of individuals who criticize the government, 7) In a time of war or crisis, individuals should be allowed to stage public protests against the government or its policies, and lastly 8) In a time of war or crisis, individuals should be allowed to criticize publicly the government, or its policies.   '

hmm. That's an annoying lack of word-wrap.

Um, I can't seem to see the word 'Muslim' in there. Unless AP thinks that 'suspected terrorist' equals 'muslim'?

no kidding.

Can we ask everyone here to write in short sentences?

At least until the end of this page?

az

Sorry . One more. This is from a bit further into the report. Muslims are definitely mentioned.

Specifically, respondents were asked whether all Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts with the federal government,whether mosques should be closely monitored and/or surveyed by U.S. law enforcement agencies, whether U.S. government agencies should profile citizens as potential threats based on being Muslim or having Middle Eastern heritage, and lastly whether Muslim civic and volunteer organizations should be infiltrated by undercover law enforcement agents to keepwatch on their activities and fundraising. 

bloody 'ell!

It's a function of cuting and pasting from pdf.

I even previewed the last one and it was fine there.



I'll not be doing that again.

I think there is a difference between curtailing rights in the sense of locking people up, and in the sense of monitoring them.

I wouldn't be at all surprised (or particularly shocked) to hear that the intelligence services in any western country were placing agents in (or recruiting informants from) many organisations, religious or otherwise.

If all they are doing is keeping an ear open, it's a fairly limited infringement of people's rights. If they're inciting illegal acts, or using information gathered for anything other than law-enforcement and crime prevention purposes, it's a different matter.

What is shocking to me is that the American public
thinks that all Muslims should be put through some
sort of 'guilty before being proved innocent' process.

Paranoia seems to be running rampant there these days.

All thanks to the Bush administration fostering this.


az

It seems an obvious thing to say, but I wouldn't be too terribly
surprised to see the equivalent of yellow Stars of David on American
Muslims in future years. I would be shocked and horrified and somewhat
surprised, but not too terribly surprised. The parallels are simply
too obvious to not consider the possibility.

Potholer:

"I think there is a difference between curtailing rights in the sense of locking people up, and in the sense of monitoring them."

I can see what you're getting at, but I would still say that monitoring people differentially on the basis of religion alone is wrong.

However, montoring, say, certain Wahhabi organisations would be justified because Wahhabi is a revolutionary political movement that merely claims to be simply teaching and spreading Islam.

<>

I would alter that slightly:

What is shocking to me is that the American GOVERNMENT
thinks that all NON-AMERICANS should be put through some
sort of 'guilty before being proved innocent' process.

Since Biometric passports are required or else its dippig thei fingers into the ink and giving them your fingerprints beofre you can enter the country to spend your ever-more strong currency against the dollar.

Seems to me that both are shocking. But one is the attitude of the government of the day; the other is the attitude of the people. Which is more frightening?

19

20