---

We ought to have a law
against racial profiling

---

Hawaii is one of 27 states that does not ban the destructive -- and ineffective -- practice of racial profiling. It needs to have such a law.

It's estimated that close to 92,000 people have been racially profiled in Hawaii since Sept. 11, 2001. This means they have been stopped or questioned by law enforcement based on their race, ethnicity, national origin or religion.

Nationally, the estimates are that one out of nine people -- 32 million -- have been racially profiled during this period.

Almost one out of three -- at least 87 million -- are at high risk of profiling because they belong to a racial, ethnic or religious group commonly targeted by law enforcement.

Those figures come from human rights organization Amnesty International, which released results of a year-long racial profiling study Sept. 13. National and local hearings included testimony from citizens, law enforcement and public policy experts.

Amnesty International defines racial profiling as "the targeting of individuals and groups by law enforcement officials, even partially, on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion," except for certain situations. Those situations are when law enforcement has "trustworthy" information about the location and time of a crime that links persons of a particular group to it.

Without those specifics, stopping or questioning someone solely because of their background or appearance is wrong.

Nationally, racial profiling has increased since 9/11. While it was often referred to as "driving while black" at one time, that description is now insufficient. Racial profiling has expanded to include a variety of groups, most notably Middle Easterners, South Asians, and those who are or appear to be Muslims and Sikhs.

And it happens in many other venues besides cars -- airports, shopping malls, places of worship and private homes.

Testimony from Amnesty International's 2003 hearings offered examples.

One was the case of physician Jess Ghannam, stopped by the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service at San Francisco International Airport.

Ghannam, the only Palestinian on his flight, said INS agents examined his briefcase, questioned his reasons for reading the books in his briefcase, and photocopied confidential medical files.

He told Amnesty International that he asked to call an attorney and was told he could not.

"I felt at that time it was the most deeply un-American thing that could ever happen to anybody," Ghannam said.

Not only is racial profiling wrong, it isn't good police procedure. In probably the most notorious example, the white man who carried out the Oklahoma City bombings fled the scene while law enforcement searched for "Arab terrorists."

Amnesty International's hearings elicited a number of specific suggestions:

» First, law enforcement and the community should jointly come up with a definition of just what constitutes racial profiling.

» Second, law enforcement should treat all individuals -- regardless of race or immigration status -- equally. Local jurisdictions shouldn't be in the business of enforcing federal immigration laws.

» Third, law enforcement should work on positive relationships and building trust in the communities they serve.

Officers who report misconduct within their own agencies should have support available.

» And last, law enforcement agencies should collect data on all police stops.

At the state level, the 27 states without laws against racial profiling -- including Hawaii -- must find ways to pass those laws.

Only four states -- California, Alaska, Arkansas and Massachusetts -- have comprehensive anti-profiling legislation in place. A total of 23 states have versions of anti-profiling laws.

Hawaii needs to join the ranks of states with a legal prohibition against the demeaning and socially divisive practice of racial profiling. Better yet, it needs to join the "A list" of those states banning the ugly practice in all forms.

---