what's next, concentration camps?

[piranha]

according to a study from cornell university, 44% of americans favour civil rights restrictions for american muslims.

Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.

Researchers also found respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim-Americans.

the last part surprised the researchers. doesn't surprise me at all. sensationalizing news and lop-sided reportage of much more bad news than good hasn't done the US any favours in other areas.

Comments

[huaman.livejournal.com]

Of course, some absurdly high number of Americans favour civil rights restrictions for "$anyone_but_themselves." Or even just plain civil rights restrictions across the board, after which they immediately are shocked to discover what the implications are -- vis California recently passing, by a large margin, a measure to require the collection and tracking of DNA samples from anybody *arrested.* That was voted on maybe 5 weeks ago and suddenly people are shocked to discover it applied to, say, protesters arrested even when all charges were subsequently dropped.

Where I'm going with this is, a huge number of Americans have NO concept of civil rights anymore. Not what they are, not why we have them, not why they're needed. I believe the average American favours the civil rights s/he personally expects to use, and wants to eliminate all others. IMHO it's an embarrassment.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

We've already got Michelle Malkin defending concentration camps, and no poular voice on the right is denouncing her. I'd say they're a possibility.

[jesus-h-biscuit.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the ethnic Ann Coulter, my personal nemesis...

[desh]

A friend pointed something out to me: I don't think the questions from this study are worded in a way that makes "yes" answers clearly wrong. The government should monitor groups that they feel are more likely to commit crimes; they just need to be careful to do it in a way that doesn't violate civil rights. Certain kinds of surveillance are acceptable, and I think it's naive to say that the government should be totally religion-blind when applying those. It's fair for religion to be one factor in directing certain non-invasive forms of attention.

[necturus.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised that viewers of television news would be more likely to support repressive measures. Television news stories frequently promote fear, as fear keeps people watching and boosts ratings. We have in America today a ruling regime whose power is rooted in fear, and TV news is naturally an important pillar of that regime.

We have to hope that in time people will tire of having their fears fed and tune out.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

It's a pity that the researchers didn't bother to break down these responses into those who would trade their own liberty for security and those who think that we should crack down on the Icks and let us normal Americans get on with getting back to normal. Both are sad, but

Besides, it is one of the blessings of our government structure that it takes a whole lot of very organized racism to have an impact on our federal policies. It happens, but it's a shadow of what it would be like if the majority actually got their way in this country.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

... but I think you need to assume that they're probably equally popular. Or something like that. No wonder I didn't finish the sentence.