As a white-skinned person, my encounters with the police have been thankfully limited. I've been pulled over by the police twice, once for running a red light at 11:30 p.m. and once for turning into the wrong lane in front of an unmarked cop car. Both were offenses that should have resulted in a ticket. But both times, I escaped with warnings that never made it onto my permanent record. I've always wondered why that was. Maybe it was because I was visibly nervous and overly respectful, falling over myself to answer questions and saying "sir" or "officer" after every other word. Or maybe it was because of my appearance and skin color.

Earlier this week, a Muslim man on his way to prayers was stopped by the police in London. The reason for the stop, cited in the few news outlets that have covered the incident, was that he was 'wearing too many clothes.' In certain parts of the world, bulky clothing can be a sign of trouble to come – suicide bombers often wear heavy vests filled with ball-bearings, nails, and other objects so as to inflict maximum damage. The United Kingdom has been the target of several terrorist attacks over the last few months, and I don't blame them for being on edge. But I doubt the man in question was the only person wearing heavy clothing in London that day. Why was he specifically targeted?

The few news outlets that have covered the incident have no doubts about the answer: Because he looked like a Muslim. News outlets in Western Europe and in non-Muslim majority countries have been silent, devoting almost no time or attention to the story, while news outlets in the Muslim world such as Indian Express, Morocco World News, and Egypt Today have all expressed outrage. As for the reaction on the internet? It depends on where you look. Left-leaning people and websites are decrying what they see as an instance of racial (or religious?) profiling. Centrist and right-leaning groups claim that profiling is part of police officers' job descriptions and that, with the recent rash of terrorist attacks, it's better to be safe than sorry. So who's right?

I don't have a good answer. I can't imagine the shame and humiliation of being stopped and searched based on factors like my appearance over which I have no control. I can't imagine going into public spaces and being obviously mistrusted by the people around me. But I also can't imagine losing friends or family in a terrorist attack, and the type of terrorism that strikes the most fear into people's hearts is committed overwhelmingly by one group of people. A group of people that the man who was stopped in London belongs to.

Is there a balance between being safe and being tolerant? Is it fair to exchange the rights of an entire group of people for the potential to save lives? These aren't questions I have the answers to, but they're questions the Western world needs to start considering.