He accused the police of wasting time and money by carrying out “self-evidently unmerited searches”, which were also an invasion of civil liberties. The searches, for example, of blonde women who fit no terrorist profile came against a backdrop of complaints from rights groups that the number of black and Muslim people being stopped and searched by police was disproportionate.

Lord Carlile said that police were stopping white people unjustifiably so that official figures would make it look as if they were not singling out black and Asian people under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. “No police officer has admitted that to me, but I believe that is the case,” he told The Times.

from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6521199.ece

Of course, there is another human rights problem. The problem of innocent white subjects being searched purely for statistical reasons, in spite of not fitting any statistic pattern for terrorists Just for political correctness. That is a violation of their civil rights.

He accused the police of wasting time and money by carrying out “self-evidently unmerited searches”, which were also an invasion of civil liberties.

Maybe in the future we have to search females as potential rapists, to balance things out by gender? or little boys and senile old men as potential rapists, to avoid accusations of age discrimination? Or search little boys and senile old ladies as potential bank robbers?

Then poor Lord Carlisle gets himself confused:

A racial imbalance in the numbers of people stopped because they fitted a terrorism profile was fine, he said, “as long as it is not racist”.

So what if statistics show that black people are much more likely to be criminals?  That is racism?