On November 7, 2006, 58 percent of voters in Michigan said YES to Proposal 2, which bars the state from treating its citizens differently based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.And yet when it comes to protecting our lives against known threats that emanate from a specific known religion and mainly from certain parts of the world, they want to enforce a rigid blindness in which everyone must be treated exactly the same in perfect proportianality?
Groups like the hilariously named Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) tried to defeat the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) every step of the way.
Some were shocked, of course, including University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman.
One of the act’s central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.There's no logical coherence to it, unless one simply is striving for a cheap and easy feeling of moral superiority for creating "social justice", which ultimately means sticking their nose into other people's business to take money from one group and give it to another for votes.
What would the effect of such a law be?
“A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety,” said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview.
The old adage (of unknown origin) is:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.Otherwise known as Socialism.
