I have the kind of complexion that cannot enter a blood bank without causing onlookers to question if I intend to make a donation or a withdrawal. Colour photographs of me are indistinguishable from their black-and-white counterparts. Penguins begin to riot if I try to enter a zoo.
Twenty years ago, when the only ‘Bella’ in vampire folk-lore was Bella Lugosi, my childhood was punctuated by people trying to lure me in front of mirrors, threaten me with tent pegs, or taunt me with disingenuous invites to al fresco garlic bread feasts.
And even though, in the past few years, the high-contrast archetype has lost its monopoly on vampire fiction, my pallid skin-tone and black hair (complete with widow’s peak) still courts suspicion.
—————————–
Try then to imagine my trepidation the first time I attempted to donate blood. It was my first year studying for an undergraduate and I had read an advertisement announcing that the University was loaning one of its largest rooms to ‘Give Blood’ (the blood donation wing of the NHS) for one day, and encouraged students to drop off a pint between lectures.
By the time I had arrived, a fellow student was handing out flyers about blood donation in the entrance to the hall. I took one and read some of it before walking into the hall. Inside were a matrix of beds occupying a space usually dedicated to audience seating for concerts. Combine that with a demographic of patients all under 25, and the scene resembled an emergency treatment room from a disaster movie.
‘May I help you?’ said one of several eager nurses-in-wait.
On the contrary, I thought. I am here to help you. But as this seemed a little pompous, so I settled for: ‘I’m here to donate some blood.’
‘Really?’
Now, this is exactly why I was hesitant. Just because I am pale, the nurse thinks she can start making assumptions about my ability to give blood.
‘Yes,’ I said, as calmly as my bubbling rage allowed.
‘Well… alright,’ she said, lingering on the second word for some time. ‘If you’re sure.’
‘I’m sure.’
‘Good.’
While this deep exchange was taking place, I couldn’t help noticing she was staring at my right arm. I was glad to see that despite the obvious bias clouding her judgement, NHS training was shining through. No doubt she had already begun studying this new patient for the best point of entry into his circulatory system.
‘Follow me,’ she instructed, while walking me across the hall towards a desk with two chairs. And I began to realize the real reason they call these institutions ‘banks’ as she instructed me to fill out a series of lengthy forms.
—————————–
‘Have you ever had anal or oral sex with another man?’ she asked while sitting down in the chair opposite me.
Well, no other bank manager has asked me that question before.
‘No.’
‘Really?’ she asked again.
I was beginning to think this nurse suffered from a chronic skepticism. She looked down at my right hand which held the flyer I was given earlier. And it was at that moment I realized that she was staring at the flyer this whole time – not sizing up my veins as previously assumed.
The literature in question drew attention to the NHS’s decision to profile homosexuals – banning them from donating blood. It claimed that the NHS justified the policy based on statistics that strongly correlated HIV with homosexuals.
—————————–
The interrogator eventually backed down, and I was motioned towards a bed where another nurse hooked me up to a bag. The donation process had begun. Less glamorous than handing someone a giant charity cheque, I thought, but probably more useful.
As I sat there, I started to dwell on the earlier exchange. I read some more of the flyer. It cited that almost all blood donation groups in the world profile against homosexuals through fear of HIV.
I could appreciate why this would be a good decision if the statistics were correct. And given the mechanics of what is being considered, exchanges of trace amounts of blood is more likely for these types of sex, increasing the risks of transferring HIV.
However, it was also apparent that the policy would annoy some people. For example, a man in a long-term monogamous relationship with his male partner would be excluded from giving blood. Furthermore, there is no policy that profiles against women who have anal and oral sex with men.
—————————–
It seems that I had been dwelling on this for some time because I started to notice that three or four nurses had gathered around me, and were staring to whisper.
‘I’m sorry, we’re going to have to stop this,’ one of them said as she started to take the needle out of my arm.
‘Why?’ I asked.
‘Well, your blood pressure is so low, it’s taken 20 minutes so far. And you haven’t even filled one tenth of the bag. You’ll be here for hours at this rate.’
I was then shepherded to the ‘recovery area’ and instructed to sit down.
‘Don’t worry – you can still have a biscuit and a cup of tea!’ said a nurse, smiling at me as thought I were criminally insane.
As I was eating an unearned biscuit, I felt somewhat ashamed to be sat amongst the successful donors. Physically unable to donate blood, I tried to picture what it must be like to be disallowed from participating while having a fully capable circulatory system.
—————————–
I mention this farcical chapter of my biography because I was recently reminded of it while waiting in line for security at Gatwick Airport. I’d just read Sam Harris’ essays advocating for security guards using profiling as a way of ceasing the fringe theatre of watching babies be frisked for bombs. Harris argues that we should try and determine who are the Muslim extremists, and start profiling them for security thorough checks.
Part of Dr Harris’ trouble is that many opponents deny his first premise: suicide bombing is highly correlated to Islamic religious belief.
Similarly, people deny that homosexuality is correlated with HIV.
However, the US has tracked statistics on this for some time. In May 2012, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention announced that while ‘men who have sex with men’ (or ‘MSM’ – it seems ‘homosexual’ is a label some of these men do not identify with) account for only 2% of the population, they accounted for 61% of new HIV infections in 2009.
As for the causality for this correlation, one might imagine it is due to a blend of mechanics, promiscuity, and lack of condom use.
The correlation between suicide bombing and self-identifying muslims is equally clear. Although, I am constantly surprised by liberals who are willing to deny this fact. Quizzically, some call this assertion ‘racist’, confusing genetic ancestry with subjective beliefs.
And if you know enough about Islam, the causality is also clear. Harris puts it like this:
Are most jihadists psychopaths devoid of empathy? I see no reason to think so. If you believe that the creator of the universe wants you to wage jihad against infidels, I think you can be perfectly healthy in psychological terms while becoming a suicide bomber. Secularists who doubt this seem to be the ones devoid of empathy, in fact: They are unwilling or unable to see the world through the eyes of our enemies—even when our enemies tell us, ad nauseam, exactly how they see the world. The most dangerous failing of secularism (and of moderate religion) is that its adherents cannot seem to grasp that some people really believe martyrdom is a path to Paradise.
Harris, Sam (May, 2012) ‘On Knowing Your Enemy‘
—————————–
You might have noticed there is a clear difference between these two examples of profiling. At the blood bank, you have to declare you are an MSM. Harris is advocating that we give security staff the power to choose who they think ‘look’ Muslim.
I think we should think very careful if we want to hand powers such as these over to government officials. Who would you elect to decide for you who ‘looks Muslim’ and who does not? If the same powers were granted to the NHS to profile MSMs, my odds of getting past the front door would be significantly reduced.
Or, do we instead ask passengers if they are Muslim, as the NHS ask donors about their sexual history? With blood donation, almost nobody is trying to infect the bank with HIV, and i’m sure there are some homosexuals in long-term relationships who simply lie in order to do a good deed and give blood.
Anyway, the profiling policy is only to safeguard against statistical errors in the blood screenings the NHS carry out on a sample of each donation.
In contrast, one might suppose that a jihadi terrorist – the paragon of piety – might find it very problematic to deny they are Muslim. Incorrect: there are many Quranic verse where lying about one’s faith is forgiven. They even have a name for it: ‘taqiyya‘. Here are two examples from the Quran:
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. [Pickthall's Tranlation of: Quran 3:28]
Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief – save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith – but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom. [Pickthall's Tranlation of: Quran 16:106]
The latter of which is believed to be in reference to Muhammad’s friend Ammar ibn Yasir, who denounced his faith while being tortured by enemies. And while you might assume ‘the enemy’ are non-Muslims, most acts of ‘taqiyya’ have been by Shi’as defending themselves from Sunni persecution.
—————————–
Some may argue that both profiling at the blood bank and the airport are simply ineffective, or that they are unnecessary. I don’t think I have enough information to lean either way. I’d be interested to hear what Harris thinks of profiling in blood donation.
Post-HIV, it seems that no blood bank in the world has carried out an experiment to see if this passive profiling is genuinely effective – whether it really adds an extra layer of security against undiagnosed HIV donations.
When it comes to airport security, if jihadis are prepared to lie about their faith then this passive profiling will be impotent.
In contrast, Harris’ proposal of active profiling would result in restoring most people’s liberties at the expense of a minority. And that minority would be whimsically chosen by the biases of airline security guards. Is this a price worth paying so the majority are spared 10 minutes of annoyance per flight? I’m not sure.
That’s not to say I am an advocate of that weasel word ‘fairness‘. We need an effective way to deter and prevent suicide bombing, and we must not be afraid to recognize that the community of suicide bombers is entirely religious. Of course, the fundamental issue is that we can’t tell for sure if someone is an Islamic extremist just by looking at them.
When faced with such a dilemma between liberty and security, it is tempting to try to ‘not give in to the fear’, and to reject all measures to increase security. Yet, however brave one may feel refusing to be ‘terrorized’, the stance is passive at its core. Subjective feelings of bravery do not protect you from bombs.
Therefore, I am more in favor of Harris’ call to replace ‘security theatre’ with a well-considered and more effective alternative. I’m just not sure we have found one yet.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
