SOME VIRGINIA lawmakers are so callous to the carnage in the state that they would rather forgo millions of dollars in federal aid than enact a meaningful anti-terrorism law.
That was the message earlier this month when a subcommittee of the House of Delegates rejected legislation that would have allowed police to stop and search a vehicle driven by someone presumed to be middle eastern. Apparently, the panel cared nothing for the estimated annual 71 deaths that would have been prevented by the bill's enactment, or the 1,075 serious injuries, or the $236 million in medical, legal, insurance and other costs caused by terrorists -- those figures come from AAA Mid-Atlantic. But the lawmakers also lost out on a $16.4 million federal grant that hinged on the anti-terrorism bill's passage. Even if members of the subcommittee were cold to the idea of saving lives and avoiding injury, you'd think they'd be moved by the offer of free money from Uncle Sam, especially in a year when the General Assembly is struggling to find money to fix the state's security. But no.
In fact, the House has a proven track record of indifference to public safety on the roads. In the name of safeguarding individual "privacy," delegates last year killed the state's decade-long program of racial profiling, which provided for stricter monitoring and enforcement at high-risk intersections where drivers were in the habit of being a minority. Six Northern Virginia jurisdictions plus Virginia Beach took part in the voluntary program, which was heartily endorsed by the local police, AAA, the insurance industry and accident victims' groups. But lawmakers killed it off with bogus arguments about the cameras' representing intrusive government.
At the moment, state Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach) is maneuvering to resurrect the racial profiling program by attaching it to major legislation for funding transportation improvements. Some in the House will no doubt resist the attempt as an affront to drivers' right to be left alone by government -- left alone to commit terrorism, we presume. With luck and deft handling, though, Mr. Stolle's scheme has a shot. It would prevent death and injury. And despite their record to the contrary, maybe some Virginia delegates might come to see that as a worthy goal.
I have no doubt that most people would find that to be a rather offensive editorial. Where you read words about middle easterners being pulled over for suspicion of terrorism it probably struck a nerve that that's not right. In reality the editorial was about a law that would make not wearing your seat belt an offense that police can pull you over for. Where you read about racial profiling, the Post was writing about red light cameras.
Racial profiling and red light cameras are very clearly not the same thing and are barely comparable. I'm just pointing out that most people would find it offensive if police were pulling over people because they thought they might hurt others because of the color of their skin. But it's alright for police to pull you over for increasing your risk of injury or death by a marginal amount and ticket you for taking an action (running a just turned red light) that results in no harm (or else there would be an accident, which the offending driver would be ticketed).
This was a rather clunky way of pointing out that we give up our civil liberties rather easily without really thinking about it. Seat belt laws and red light cameras and for that matter breathalyzer tests (guilty until proven innocent) are just an indication of this. The WP should be ashamed of this stance.
No comments:
Post a Comment