The Muslim community has consistently and understandably been upset by “racial profiling”. Yet it exhibits the worst examples of racial profiling itself.
Surely the Muslim definition of “infidel”, and its practical interpretation, is racial profiling at its very worst; that is, all non-Muslims deserve to die because they are non-Muslims.
To emphasise the endemic hypocrisy at play here, one need only examine the practice of Muslim states in the United Nations. When a Muslim state is the centre of attention at the UN, Muslim states generally band together to negate the chastising vote: regardless of the heinousness of the charge. They appear to have a great level of tolerance of dictators, genocide, corruption, suppression and so on when such deeds are committed by Muslim states. The racial profile exhibited here is that all “Muslim countries are right, and that any non-Muslim state that wishes to condemn an act of barbarism, murder or genocide is never right”: a stunning example of racial profiling at its very best (or very worst?)
Most non-Muslims cannot be blamed for using the Muslim’s own observed practices as a standard by which to regard Muslims. If the Muslim community is using their religion as a measure of “universal rightness”, then the rest of the world is understandably (but incorrectly) using that same standard of religion as a measure of “wrongness” when terrorism reigns upon us.
If Muslims want the rest of the world to differentiate between law-abiding, good Muslim citizens and of terrorists, then they must be the first to shun terrorists from within their midst. Only when the world sees the Muslim community admit openly that not all Muslims and not all Muslim countries are blameless (just like all other religions), will the rest of the world accept Muslims unquestioningly. Until that happens, Muslims should not be surprised if they are the subject of racial profiling.

Following are some guidelines that I have used over many years of successful facilitation for handling changes in agenda:

1. Get a very clear set of project outcomes from your sponsor and recognise that the workshop/group session is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself.

2. I always (95% of the time) insist on interviewing workshop participants on a one-on-one basis prior to the session. The purposes of this are:

- surface issues that are relevant to the objective and that might by hidden during an open forum (and thus subvert the ultimate objective) and to ensure that all key issues related to the objective are dealt with

- get buy-in to the process

- get buy in to the agenda by asking interviewees what they want done and the workshop

- get a handle on the politics and inter-relationships between participants

- establish "knowledge superiority and authority" by have greater and more in-depth knowledge of all participants than they have themselves.

3. Only when this has been done, and on the basis of issues and knowledge gained, design a session or sessions that deal with the issues that matter.

4. Get your sponsor to sign off on the agenda so that it becomes his/her agenda and not your agenda (no need to defend your ego)

5. Have sponsor circulate agenda prior to session and invite comments and feedback

6. In opening the workshop, state workshop objectives and get everyone to accept objectives.

7. If issues are raised about the agenda (versus the content of the issues needing resolution) then it is legitimate to ask the group why this wasn't raised in interview. Be flexible in dealing with the responses you get to this question. If they all agree to add/modify agenda, then have them accept that it will/won't contribute to achievement of objectives.

8. If change is not acknowledged as contributing to outcomes, but rather some other agenda, then get sponsor's agreement to change focus of session. Let me say, I have never had to do this in 25 years of facilitating if the earlier steps have been followed.

9. If issues are raised that are tangential to the agenda, I "park" the issue by writing the issues on an issues board which is clearly visible to all with the promise that we need to discuss the issue later because we won't get through the agenda. However, before we wrap up, I check back with the group to ensure that we have dealt with the parked issues. Most often the issue will have evaporated or have been already dealt with by the end of the session. In other cases, participants throw the issue out because it is no longer relevant in the context of everything else that had transpired.