The phenomenon of aviation security and the utilitarian response to counter terrorism in the UK and it impact on Human Rights

Security at airports throughout the world has significantly changed since the 9/11 attacks. As a result of those changes, a minority of passengers have claimed that their human rights have been infringed from discriminatory security measures. Muslim passengers have raised the greatest concerns suggesting their community is both stigmatised, and stereo typed as bearing responsibility for recent terrorist events and as potential terrorist threats. According to many in that community this has resulted in overzealous security checks and inappropriate security questioning. Some might suggest that young Muslims passengers should expect to be checked and questioned more frequently if they are travelling near conflict zones or have shown sympathy towards terrorist groups in the past. This paper questions whether there can be a situation, regardless of human rights, in which a community might be expected to be questioned more than another community provided such an action benefits most of both communities regardless of race. This is known as the principal of utilitarianism, in which the actions of the state are based on benefiting most of its citizens, acknowledging that by doing so this may affect a small portion of them. The state, particularly in the UK, has continuously enacted legislation to try and prevent terrorist attacks at the expense often of individual human rights. Some might say the police need the right tools to attack the emerging and continuously changing threat of terrorism. However. If the doctrine of utility is adopted at the expense of the minority then it questions whether the state is abandoning the rule of law.