See-through scans in hot water

Controversial full-body scanners currently used in two British airports may be illegal and can potentially aggravate race relations, the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) warned last week.

In a letter to UK Department for Transport secretary, Lord Andrew Adonis, the commission said its primary concerns related to passengers’ privacy and the right to be free from discrimination.

Said the letter: “We are yet to see sufficient evidence that this decision complies with the general or specific equality duties under the Race Relations Act (of) 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act (of) 1975 or the Disability Discrimination Act (of) 1995. These duties require a secretary of State, in the performance of his or her functions, to give “due regard” to both the elimination of unlawful discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations between members of different racial groups.”

A DFT spokesperson said the office is committed to ensuring passenger safety through legal means and that an assessment of the practice is currently underway.

According to an EHRC media release, the UK scanners were introduced 1 February in London’s Heathrow and Manchester Airports. UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced the move to adopt body scanner use last January.

European Union officials said in January that body scanners would not be installed until further inquiries into privacy issues were made. The body scanners were introduced in part as a response to the failed US bombing attempt by an alleged Al Qaeda-linked Nigerian national on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on 25 December, 2009.

Accompanied by detailed legal arguments, the EHRC letter, signed by the chair, Trevor Phillips, said it recognises that security threats mean the Government needs to take steps to protect the travelling public.

However, it expressed concerns about the apparent absence of safeguards to ensure the body scanners are operated in a lawful, fair and non-discriminatory manner.

“The Home secretary has indicated in the House of Commons that people will be selected on a random basis, but this has not been publicly endorsed by the Transport secretary. The lack of transparency about how people will be chosen for body scanning means that it would be impossible for passengers to challenge why they’ve been selected.”

According to a media release, “The Commission considers that greater openness on the part of Government is vital to demonstrate fully how it is intending to comply with the law, specifically within the framework of its equalities and human rights duties, and ensure appropriate accountability and transparency in the roll-out of the use of body scanners to UK airports.

“An absence of safeguards, such as monitoring who is being scanned and how those scans are carried out, means that authorities are unable to check if in practice people are being unfairly selected on the basis of their race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability or transgender status.”

The letter says that breaching people’s right to privacy can be justifiable under human rights legislation, if it is for national security, but the Commission argues that the Government has failed to demonstrate that this policy is currently justifiable within the law.

Mr Phillips said: “The right to life is the ultimate human right and we support the government’s review of security policies. State action like border checks, stop and search and full body scanning are undertaken for good reasons. But without proper care such policies can end up being applied in ways which do discriminate against vulnerable groups or harm good community relations.

“National security policies are intended to protect our lives and our freedoms; but it would be the ultimate defeat if that protection destroyed our other liberties.”

It added, “Without careful and formal consideration of the equality implications of this decision, for example through a full equality impact assessment, there is a serious risk that a measure introduced to protect the travelling public will have unintended discriminatory consequences.”

In another development, the Washington DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is to hold a news conference on 22 February to express concerns over what the civil rights group says is a double standard on the use of the label “terrorism” as it relates to acts of violence committed by people who are not Muslims.

Last week, CAIR called the politically-motivated airborne suicide attack on an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office in Austin, Texas, an act of “terror,” while many media outlets, law enforcement agencies and government officials were reluctant to use the term.

“The position of many individuals and institutions seems to be that no act of violence can be labeled ‘terrorism’ unless it is carried out by a Muslim,” CAIR National executive director, Nihad Awad was quoted as saying. “The attack on the IRS office in Texas perfectly fits the legal definition of terrorism, yet it is not being labelled as such. This apparent double standard only serves to render the term meaningless.”