Editorial: How did we get to be so paranoid?

Today it's a question I have on my mind. It came with the emergence of a story this morning (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/09/22/plane.diverted.stevens/), that the man formerly known as Cat Stevens was denied entry into the US for supposedly being a "terrorist threat", but apparently nobody knows why. It comes just as the "report suspicious activity" television commercials are being aired in Australia (just before an election interestingly, although they may have been on earlier, I don't watch a lot of television). Even on the bikeforums website the other day, someone was reporting the removal of a bicycle lock-up facility from a public building in the US because it was supposedly a "terrorist threat".

First of all, it's interesting that Cat Stevens happens to be a muslim. I wonder how much that had to do with it, I suspect the link is more than coincidental. Don't forget, this is a guy who not only condemned the Sept 11 terrorist attacks publicly, but also gave his own money to help the families of the victims -- hardly the act of a terrorist in waiting. The fact that he was allowed to board the flight in London in the first place indicates that any "suspicion" was not so well known. After all, aren't the UK supposed to be part of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing"? There's more to this than has been released by the security authotiries, but I doubt we'll ever know the real reason for what has happened here.

Then of course, back in Australia, the government plays an election trump card by asking people to report "suspicious activity" just before an election. Tell me this isn't a cynical political stunt? It wouldn't be the first time (remember the "A new tax system" ads back in 1998?). Has the world environment really changed all that much in the last couple of months to warrant a sudden re-airing of these commercials (at tax-payers' expense no less). To steal a quote from Michael Leunig: "Can I ring up and report that the world has lost it's marbles?"

What's really scary is this: the government would have obviously done their market research, just as any other political party with any resources would. They would know the impact this would have on the electorate (don't think they would be aired if they would jeapardise the government's election chances). They clearly feel that these commercials can worry voters enough to make them vote for the coalition, without questioning the timing of this. Not even the opposition seem moved to do that -- are they afraid of a voter backlash here?

So while everyone is running scared, and numerous people will be phoning the hotline to dob in their neighbour or whomever (and like that's going to do anything to stop organised and trained terrorists), nobody is questioning the issue on a fundamental level. I just want one question answered: Does being so paraniod about the rest of the world really serve a purpose? Does excluding people on the basis of their religion or racial appearance really do anything to prevent terrorism? Somehow, I suspect that all it really achieves is to create unnecessary hassles for innocent people trying to go about their business. Seems to me that if the terrorist organisations are at all skilled, they will be sitting back watching this, and simply find another decoy to smuggle into the country -- assuming they need to be there at all (after all, there are plenty of targets outside Australia or the US).

Still, if it wins election support for Bush or Howard, that's all that really matters, isn't it?