Dec 27 2009
More guards, guns and gates are not the answer
Today we will be drowned by the usual Pavlovian cries after another alleged terrorist incident. Physical security will be “tightened”. Millions of innocent travellers going about their business or wanting to visit friends and relatives will be made to jump through more complex hoops. There will be a “stronger” security presence at our airports. All this will be intended to “reassure” the public, who will pay for it and be made to suffer. This approach was caricatured by our own government when in response to some alert or other they stationed armoured cars near Heathrow, as if they could ever use the big guns somewhere near the M25 in rush hour.
Why didn’t the tightening after Lockerbie prevent 9/11? Why didn”t the tightening after 9/11 prevent the attempted shoe bomber? Why didn’t the enhanced security after the shoe bomber prevent this latest close shave with mass murder, if the allegations are to be believed? The reason is simple. It will never be possible to design a system that allows you to check thousands of people a day in the airports of the world, which still allows some semblance of timetable flying for the mass market. It will never be possible in democracies to put everyone through such an intensive and intrusive search that explosive underpants will be removed and discovered.
What I would have liked the authorities to say after this incident is they would look at their Intelligence system and ask why it was they did not draw the correct conclusions from what they knew about this man? After all, the alleged bomber’s own father contacted the US authorities and warned them about his son. This individual should either have been on a no fly list, banning poeple who are known to be extremists likely to murder, or on a suspicious persons list. Such a second list would trigger an extensive body and bag search on that individual each time he or she wanted to fly, in a separate room or closet at the airport. There would then be a price to expressing extreme and murderous views, paid by the individuals concerned rather than by the rest of us.
The US and UK governments have also agreed to spend more on Intelligence each time there has been another terrorist plot or attack. They do accept part of what I say. They should think more clearly about it, and realise the plots they have foiled have been prevented by good Intelligence work. They have not foiled plots by catching people at airport security carrying bombs. It may never be possible to prevent every terrorist attack, but you have more chance of doing so if you concentrate on the categories of people most likely to represent a risk to the rest of the public. If you target your resources on those known to be affiliated to terrorist groups, those expressing extreme views, those with a history of mental illness and violence, those who are travelling to and from known terrorist centres you will be more successful.
The House of Commons has witnessed someone throwing a harmless item down into the Commons Chamber, it has seen protesters on the roof of Westminster Hall and a protester climbing Big Ben, despite large expenditure on guns, gates and guards. MPs should know from their experiences at their place of work that it is possible to spend a lot of money on physical security and to make a place far less friendly, without ever stumbling across perfect security.
We should concentrate our resources on prevention, not knee jerk reactions after events. We should above all concentrate our searches on those who are suspicious. Those searches then have to be long and thorough.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Maybe I am getting too cynical, but my first reaction to hearing that the accused had tried to use a combination of powder and liquid was:
“great, I bet they try to ban talcum powder on flights now”
I totally agree that more security wont prevent another attack.
However, the question that no one is willing to ask – is how many deaths is our freedom worth?
Do we want to live in a free society, where sadly some deluded fools will occasionally seek to kill people – or do we want to live in a proto-police state where there will still be idiots trying to kill us, but some will be stopped – but at a massive burden to society in terms of civil liberties and financial costs.
We urgently need to have a debate about where the balance between freedom and risk should be – and let the general public understand that such a balance has to be struck.
Society has seemingly decided that around 3,000 deaths a year as a consequence of road traffic is an acceptable price to pay for the convenience of speedy road transportation.
What is the acceptable price to pay for convenient air travel?
Reply
chris Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Good point Ian
Risk is what the world accepts every day. Have no security and a free approach to travel but that freedom is that 10 planes get blown up or approx 3000 deaths, considering the number of people who fly that would be a very small risk indeed, probably lottery odds on in happening to you.
Thats risk i would easily take on. Considering car accidents as you mention. At least 50 people die a year slipping in the bath.
I wonder if you set up 2 styles of checkin at airports which one people would choose
1) no security – just straight onto plane, turn up 20 mins before flight
or
2) maximum security 3 to 4 hour check in with full checks
i know where i am every time
Reply
alan jutson Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Unfortumately Chris those who wished to do harm would probably choose the first option every time, and the number of attacks would rise, as they would more and likely be successful in their execution of innocent people both in the air and on the ground.
Reply
Mark Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I used to fly regularly on a scheduled 20 minute check-in time with a full fingertip search of all baggage (they were very good at repacking suitcases too, as well as being courteous), and a full body search that would have detected the latest case. That was standard procedure on the Belfast Shuttle. I’ve made the plane having arrived only 5 minutes prior to pushback. It can be done without spending 3 hours at the airport.
Mark Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 11:44 am
3,000 deaths per year are too many according to the DfT (of course, one is too many, as always – they want us to have the safest roads in the world): they wanted approval to set a new target of a 33% reduction by 2020 – regardless of cost, and regardless as to whether more deaths could be saved out of the 30,000 p.a. who allegedly die needlessly prematurely undergoing NHS treatment by spending the same money or less – remembering that they want to spend your money by increasing transport cost. The consultation is supposed to have reported by now, so either it has been buried or will come out submerged on a good day for bad news.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/roadsafetyconsultation/
Reply
Y Rhyfelwr Dewr Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Several large airliners crash every year, killing hundreds of people between them, but nobody worries unduly. The terrorists have some way to go before they catch up with simple pilot errors.
Reply
You could add that our presence in Afghanistan failed to stop this incident on the aircraft. (The authorities have said that the attempted attack was a suspected al Qaeda operation)
Good border controls and intelligence may have stopped this individual gaining access to the UK in the first place, to reside here as a student.
(Many thanks for another year of your blog)
Reply
Totally agree. This latest scare has once again highlighted the issue of ‘bogus colleges’ which can be used by aspiring terrorists to enter the UK on a student visa.
It appears in this instance the bogus college was identified and a visa refused. However many other bogus colleges are still operating – the Government itself has admitted it doesn’t know how many.
Earlier this year the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee reported on bogus colleges and called on the Government to take action to restrict the use of the word ‘college’ in a business name to legitimate education providers only. So far the Government has not acted.
You suggest concentrating on prevention. The Government would do well to heed this advice and start with proper regulation of the visa regime for overseas students.
Reply
alan jutson Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Perhaps we should have a banning list for overseas students.
We seem happy to have one for our own population, for those who work with children and vulnerable people an estimated 9,000,000 people are going to be vetted on a continuing basis under the latest proposals by the Government.
I think the curtailing of overseas students unlikely for three reasons.
The Universities charge three or four times the amount of fees to overseas students, as they do for home grown ones. So its a cash motive to get more overseas students on the books.
The Universities like to try to spread their reputation throughout the world for excellence.
The Government likes to think that Students who study here may in the future look upon the UK with more sympathy and empathy, should they get to hold positions of power either in Government or Commerce when they return to their original Countries. Same goes for Sandhurst.
Afraid its down to basic hard work, and more vetting of each application. Its time consuming, its expensive, it should not be necessary, but it is if you want free movement of people.
The question is who should pay. US OR THE STUDENT ??
Reply
Mark Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
The theory you cite no longer applies. The numbers of students are large, and many become illegal overstayers rather than returning to their own countries. If you read the confessions of academics, the students are often given minimal teaching, and awarded qualifications simply because to do otherwise would cut off the flow of funds. The qualifications are rightly being held in increasingly lower esteem abroad. As they devalue, so the fees they command will fall, except to the extent that they are able to provide a backdoor immigration route – which is increasingly the role they have. Rather than devalue our academic currency, we should cut the supply of low quality places for both foreign and domestic students.
We do not need to educate hundreds of thousands to have influence: among those with a partly British education who come readily to mind are the King of Jordan, Sultan of Oman (both Sandhurst graduates inter alia), Bill Clinton (one of many Rhodes scholars who have achieved positions of influence), Benazir Bhutto, etc. None of these came up through some EFL school or minor former polytechnic: it is those whose families already have position, or who demonstrate scholarship levels of academic ability who are worth pursuing on those grounds.
It is of course entirely disingenuous for Alan Johnson to claim that the bogus student visa seeker was banned from Britain as if the ban was because he was an identified potential terrorist.
Reply
Ian Visits: “However, the question that no one is willing to ask – is how many deaths is our freedom worth?”
Good question and one the politicians have already answered.
They would give up, indeed have given up everything that distinguishes our society from the barbarous regimes of the middle and far east in a Faustian pact.
The pact is thus, politicians will give everything that terrorists demand; be it putting the Irish Republican terrorist leaders into machinery of government to refusing to identify and take appropriate measures in the case with Islamic terrorists. The quid pro quo they hope to achieve, the terrorists should not attack the politicians.
This I believe became entrenched after the IRA attack at the Tory conference, where the political class realized in a liberal democracy where the politicians should move freely among the demos, they were too uniquely exposed to the terrorists.
At the same time, we had the passing of the old school; Airy Neave, Mountbatten, to be replaced in time by the reptiles that govern us today.
These people are quite happy to sit in their fortress at Westminster while the demos are increasingly exposed to and inconvenienced by their hair brained schemes such as identity cards and stop and search, harassing photographers in our major cities.
The solution is to identify the terrorists, supposedly a list of nearly a thousand or so and expel them from the country. Why should we pay these people, invariably they are on welfare, to sit at the center of their webs of intrigue while they plot our destruction?
Then rebuild our border controls to ensure those expelled do not re enter the country.
Oh, but the new political class in the EU has been given control of our borders, so we can’t do that.
Reply
The goverment need to avoid gesture politics, making life a misery for traveller is largly an attempt to be seen do do something rather than actually achieve security. The greats danger a boomer posses is the over reaction of the response. Everyone must remember how many plains flew on Christmas day without anything happening and if we over react everyone suffers
Reply
Didn’t this bomber fly from Holland to avoid UK security? In which case, enhancing our security would have no effect, even theoretically.
Reply
james harries Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
…even theoretically. Indeed.
And practically, we can draw the following conclusions.
1. The plane landed safely and all the innocent passengers were unharmed.
2. The terrorists seem to be having some trouble finding “clean skins”, the guy was already on a suspect list.
3. Terrorist technology seems to be wanting: giving a suicide bomber some superficial burns to his legs seems a bit inadequate somehow.
4. We won’t rid the world of people who hate us, but we seem to be getting better at protecting ourselves against them without compromising our lives and lifestyles.
Reply
Did I hear that this bomber is broke, and cant aford legal costs,
but may not be able to attend court, because of skin grafting?
who is paying for that then? is this covered by the new U.S
health service? or did the gentleman have the foresight to
take out travel insurance?
sometimesI cant blieve what I hear
Reply
Excellent summary, it almost looks like you’ve been reading Schneier’s blog, or his book Beyond Fear. Now if only more MPs would read such sources, especially those in-charge of our security.
Reply
Mark Reply:
December 30th, 2009 at 11:24 am
He wrote an excellent article for CNN here:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/schneier.air.travel.security.theater/index.html
Reply
You forgot to mention the other predictable government response: that Gordon Clown will insist on the necessity to further restricting civil liberties — police powers to detain without charge for even longer; more freedom for shadowy, unanswerable organisations to monitor our electronic communications; and a strengthening of “hate crime” legislation — that is, curbing our right to free speech.
Truthfully, these muslim extremists have tended toward naivete and amateurishness. Why didn’t this terrorist set off his device in the toilet, where nobody could have stopped him? Why didn’t the shoe bomber set off his device in the toilet — surely trying to set light to your trainers is going to attract attention? Those two who attacked Glasgow airport could think of no better way of doing it than to drive a car through a window, leg it and hope for the best!
The Irish terrorists of the 1970’s and 80’s were far more effective, professional and deadly, but successive governments of both left and right never felt the threat warranted amending the Magna Carta.
Reply
Stuart Fairney Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Like you I equally laugh at and give thanks for the rank ineptitude of these fools. It gives a lie to the whole global plot nonsense when they look up explosives on the internet (from their own homes!) or try to buy 500Kg of Ammonium Nitrate from a garden centre (so suspicious that the cashier phoned the cops!!). But sooner or later they must get better you would think (if there is any organisation at all.
Reply
The answer is profiling.
This is the reason for the safe record of El Al.
Our elected representatives must be forced to explain that political correctness is the reason why they refuse to use profiling, and thus they endanger the great mass of the public.
Reply
Eddyh Reply:
December 27th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
You are completely right. This man was on various security profiles and nobody acted. If a person is on the suspected list they should be subject to a strip security search, including intimate examination, before being allowed to fly.
Reply
You’re right again John. Oridinary law abiding people should not be made to suffer in the name of political correctness.
They should use the profiling system – and if people like Shami Chakrabarti don’t like it – tough.
Reply
The same applies to Section 44 and Section 58 stops. The police could be much better employed doing other things. This story
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23784287-the-moment-police-say-they-foiled-an-al-qaeda-attack.do
seems to be a great exaggeration, as it was quite likely that this pair of serial fraudsters and pickpockets were simply researching locations for petty theft. Of course, our excellent immigration service had failed to detect their illegal presence in the first place.
Reply
Precisely. My family and I must have wasted hours of search time, going through detectors, bag searches, shoe detectors and so on. Multiply this by the MILLIONS of people who are never likely to hurt anybody, going through US and European airports.
There really has to be more focus on the types of person who pose the greatest risk, taking into account family roots, previous travel destinations, religion etc., rather than the broad brush approach now, which just misses the obvious targets.
Reply
May I point you in the direction of Bruce Schneier and security theatre (or theater, as he’s American)
Reply
30,000 deaths a year on the roads is spread widely in terms of perpetrators. The main bone of contention must be the destruction a single person can cause.
I would like to see airports invest in better scanners and more of them. With better technology you’ll be able to do a scan of what materials are passing through the gateways and with more of them we can reduce the queues. Expect the cost to be passed on of course.
It’s not really so long ago that air travel remained for the few, why we think everyone should have almost a right to fly, I don’t know. A higher priced ticket will rid the airports of unsavoury people and put the socialists in their place when they who preach about carbon emissions are forced to stop flying.
Reply
alan jutson Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Gabriel
Its 3,000 deaths per year on the roads, and the Government thinks this is too high, so we have speed cameras everywhere, and now 20MPH zones being introduced.
Putting up the price of an airline ticket will not help, as some of these terrorists who are part of an organised group are funded by Multi Millionaires.
Yes you are correct, its risk verses reward (reward being you keep your freedom and life) its where we draw the line which is important.
Reply
I seem to remember a different political and public attitude when the IRA let off bombs here in England. The emphasis then was on a spirited defence of freedom and a refusal to be cowed by their actions. I can remember seeing all the dead horses in London on the TV and my parents insisting that we had to not worry and to continue to enjoy our day trips there. This in no way detracted from the feeling of enormous sympathy for those directly affected. The person who wants to cause change by terrorist actions wants to create fear. It is a reward for their behaviour. I do not remember past politicians giving us the message that they could stop it which would ,of course, have been untrue.
Reply
The reason we have this problem is the authorites will not use profiling (something very successfully employed by the Israeli’s) because it is seen as un PC and “wacist” and may upset “minorities”.
If they focused on individuals and groups likley to be involved in terrorism and stopped treating 80 year old Cornish grannies etc., etc. as potential islamic terrorists life would be a lot easier and they might actually catch chaps like this before they get on to the plane!
Reply
There are some very heartening things about this.
The first is that a passenger had a go and tried to put out the fire. This would almost certainly never have happened before 9/11.
Second, the Nigerian himself is interesting to me. He was, despite all the clever clever stuff, incompetent. And what was all this about al Qua’eda? I think he could have just heard the name and used it to be impressive.
Or not.
Is that where all the billions (yes) of Somali pirate ship money is going – to Bin Laden?
Maybe that will wake people up to do something about this scourge. “Black Hawk Down” is no excuse for the European pathetic string of “Piratical Human Rights” on the high seas.
Third, perhaps people are at last beginning to realise that the world is not divided into “Black People (good)” and “White People (bad)”. There are people who are determined to promote their own race, of whatever colour. There are people who are determined to promote, by force, their own religion, and to hell with the consequences. Then there are people who loathe each other and have done so for ages.
Grannies from Halifax and young families with young children, probably do not fall into either of these categories. Profiling could, therefore, be quite useful. And, in the 90s, it would have been utterly “unacceptable”.
Reply
Ah, but if they concentrated on the group of people we know want to blow us all up they would be smeered with discrimination and racism! God help us all now none of us can say anything to target a particular person of a particular colour, or particular race or particular religion. Keep sshttummmm is the best policy and you wont be slapped into one of Jacqui Smith’s nasty Fixated Threat Assessment Centres (Gulags). We really do live in a parallel Soviet Union. Be afraid, be VERY afraid.
Reply
I fear we may be subject to many Bloody attacks over the next few years. I worry when i see Gordon “Investing” in so much new Amry kit that makes me think that it is more than Just Afgan op’s.
Every since China paid off 3RD World IMF loans so their peoples to free them from IMF chains the West has sort a way of once again putting then under “Control”.
The plan is to use the LIE of CO2/Warming to try to reduce their devolpment, or via Goldman Sac/J P Morgan/Al Gore CO2 “Taxes” or…exstort “Protection money”.
This will & have failed, it all blew up on them at the “Talks”.
No, i fear in a desprite attempt to hold of bankupty of the West Banking syetem we together with the US will try our hand at some form of 19th centry overseas policy…………that will in all senses of the word blow up in our face.
Mike
Reply
No amount of technology and checks is ever going to solve this problem. Profiling of people, with security going with their instincts is the only answer. Mistakes by middle class English gym teachers is political suicide. Never happen, so join the queue Stanley, and you can get to the back Doris.
Reply
The are apparently five hundred thousand people on a “risk” list. Why are any of them allowed to fly? Given they would like to wind the clock back seven hundred years, there were no planes seven hundred years ago. Why should they benefit from our progress? Let them walk.
Reply
alan jutson Reply:
December 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Andrew
Had to smile its such a simple solution, if only the banning list was factual.
Reply
I used to travel a fair bit, mainly to USA and the middle east, and it was always amusing when I’d get pulled out at random and drilled (often at Schipol funnily enough) about why I was travelling, why I had been there 6 times in the last year, etc. when I cut about as unlikely a terrorist figure as you could imagine. I just put up with it as we all do, taking off my shoes, switching on my laptop, throwing away the toothpaste that I’d foolishly left in my hand luggage and all the other pointless exercises we now go through. We know it’s pointless, the security know it’s pointless but we must not only be acting against terrorism but be seen to be acting against it, after all there are budgets to protect.
It is strange that airports don’t use profiling. The only reason I can think is that civil liberties groups would be extremely loath to let the genie out of the bottle. After all, if you are willing to accept profiling for terrorist risk at airports if someone can show a strong statistical correlation between other types of crimes and a demographic group what’s to stop them claiming that profiling would also benefit tackling that particular crime? And that is a very slippery slope indeed.
As an aside, I read an amusing story in Private Eye last year in the Strange World section. In Australia a passenger smelt petrol and some dripped down on her so she brought it to the stewards attention thinking there was a leak in a fuel line. On investigation a chainsaw was found stored in the overhead compartment. It turns out it wasn’t on the security desks checklist of prohibited items so they let the gentleman bring it on board with him.
Reply
Stop talking sense John, you’ll anger those for whom mass hysteria is a staple diet these days!
As usual no-one who employs any kind of objective reasoning can disagree with your assessment.
To put my conspiracy theorist hat on for a second, and I only mean that partly in jest, I wonder whether the whole hyeteria and quest for “perfect security” is all about control?
Here’s a rather chilling quote from Hermann Goering:
“It is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked. It works the same in any country.”
As a result of “global terrorism” we now have airports where the people are little more than cattle and have rights about equal to the same.
We have special laws that mean that you are able to be imprisoned for up to 28 days while the police work out whether you’ve actually comitted an offense or not. Also forget about any rights you had with regard to privacy or protection against unreasonable search and seisure. When we’re dealing with *ahem* Terrorists, we can’t have the police frustrated by centuries old democratic principals.
These laws have now nicely been extended for use by the local authorities, to target such a range of heinous and disgusting offenses like littering, and mixing up the rubbish in your bins.
Makes you think, doesn’t it? I for one live in hope that the next conservative administration makes it their duty to give Britain a codified constitution once and for all, and one that can only be amended by 70% approval from BOTH houses. Until we have such a system we only have a system of laws. Something (as we’ve seen) easily plyable by whatever government is elected so that even basic rights and freedoms can be swept aside with worrying ease.
Reply
When you consider this one person with hindsight it obvious that they should have been searched every time they boarded a plane. It is obvious that they should have been denied a visa for travel to the USA. However, how many people are on these lists of potential suspects? And how many of the actual attacks are by people never on the lists? The problem is always going to be one of identification before the event.
Before we start saying that there is a balance of risk here, should consider that the risk-decisions are not those caluculated by actuaries, but by politicians. Causing chaos and inconveiancw
Reply
inconveiance to millions of people may cause many grumbles. But if any government relaxed controls, and then six months later there was a successful terrorist outrage, then the government that was too lax would rapidly lose public support.
I would suggest that we need to put this in proper perspective. Let us add up all the extra minutes that people have to stand in queues. Let us also add up the extra costs of people buying special hand luggage or throwing away perfumes and manicure scissors that they forgot to remove from their personal effects. Let us also count the monetary costs of the extra security. Then let an average life be 80 years and each life year be worth say £50,000 (many times higher than for a road safety measure). Then estimate the lives lost by the security measures.
In the 1980s it was argued that the 55mph speed limit should be maintained because a lower speed limit would mean less road fatalities. Someone calaculated that the lives lost by raising the speed limit to 70mph would be more than offset by the lives saved from less minutes stuck behind the wheel of a car.
Reply
100% agreed. Please forward your advice to President Obama, who would appear to be in need of it.
Reply
Agreed. It is obvious to me is what brought down Thatcher will bring down New Labour.
IGNORING THE CONTEXT OF SOCIETY.
Thatcher did it by focusing on the indiviudals freedoms Blair (and wife) did it by focusing on the individuals rights.
Both political philosophies have resulted in society as a whole turning against them. Whilst Thatcherism saved our economy, Blair has not saved our public services.
It is time to start thinking more deeply about individual rights and ask ourselves “where are the boundries between individual and socities rights and freedoms lie”.
This is not the left-wing right-wing dialectic this is about politicians understanding there is a 4-way position to take.
If there is to be a political center ground in the 21st century it must focus on the rights of society to be protected from individuals and the freedom of society from authority. The failure of Thatcherism and Blairism are failures to focus on society. Politicians who do not grasp this will simply rehash old policy announcements.
Reply
Another excuse for a left wing government to raise the threat of more powers and tighter security. As someone who regularly travels by air I don’t feel any safer and it adds hours to my travel time. Each time someone is caught it highlights intelligence failures (the latest one’s own father notified the authorities apparently) and each time it’s the fellow passengers that overwhealm the religious zealots.
Reply
The thing I find strange about these Al-qaeda chaps is that they still seem to want to attack the most heavily protected transport system in the world.
I’m sure they’ve thought of this already, so I don’t feel that I’m giving them any ideas, but why don’t they go to a shopping centre in Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, London or any major city / town and do their martyrdom stuff?
What would our answer then be? Thousands of security guards in all shopping centres, football stadia and theatres? We probably would known our government.
We would then correctly spend most of our effort in intelligence gathering and analysis. This latest chap raised alarm bells (even by his own father!) yet no action was taken. Probably because we are spending so much money and time with pointless checks at airports.
Reply
It is possible to make flight safer. China has in the past banned all flights from the middle-east, during some trade show in Shanghai, just after something kicked off. They wanted it safe: so made it safe. We’d have to do something similar, but any such measures are likely to be labelled racist. Unfortunately, we need racial profiling if we want a much more secure system. You simlpy start by banning or requiring extra checks with passengers from islamic states and/or those of islamic extraction (passport name would be a start). That is what you could do. Not saying that what should be done, but it could be possible.
Reply