It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslim policeman excused guard duty at Israeli Embassy in London

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
How can this be allowed?

It seems to have caused consternation amongst the viewing public of Sky News. I find it astonishing to think that this man would dare even raise the subject. Before we know it, if this sort of behaviour is allowed to continue unchallenged, we could see scenarios whereby police officers will demand to know the ethnic make-up of a crowd of people gathered at an incident before they attend in response to an emergency call.
 



news.sky.com
Met Chief Sir Ian Blair has ordered an urgent review after a Muslim police officer was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy in London on moral grounds.

PC Alexander Omar Basha reportedly asked for special dispensation because of his objection to Israel's bombing of Lebanon.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


We live insupposedly enlightened times, with racial tolerance being the order of the day, yet suddenly, in one fell swoop, a great deal of damage is being done due to the unwillingness of the Metropolitan Police in London to confront xenophobia, or even downright racism, in one of its own officers.

Personally, I feel he should be removed from the force if he holds such views.

Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk
uk.news.yahoo.com

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Englishman_in_Spain]

[edit on 10/5/2006 by Gools]




posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain
We live insupposedly enlightened times, with racial tolerance being the order of the day, yet suddenly, in one fell swoop, a great deal of damage is being done due to the unwillingness of the Metropolitan Police in London to confront xenophobia, or even downright racism, in one of its own officers.


You bring race as the issue here, so please show us where in the article the police officer mentioned anything about race. He didn't want to protect the Israeli embassy due to the crimes they commited in Lebanon against the civilians. Last time I checked, "Israeli" is not regarded as a race.

The officer neither brought race nor religion into the matter, and did not leave his post on his own accord, but rather he recieved permission from his superiors. If you want to blame someone, blame his superiors who let him go.



Personally, I feel he should be removed from the force if he holds such views.


Yes, God forbid anyone should ever sustain any unliking to another country. We should all think highly of every country in the world, and if anyone is opposed to this then they should be fired from their job for having an opinion.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
EiS the police officer should be congraulated on the fact that he was standing up for his rights as an individual to express his views. His race or religion has nothing to do with the issue, its you yourself who's making it an issue.

People in a democratic country have the right to express their views and opinions if they do not agree with something, a right you seem to want to deny. The fact that this person was a Muslim and a policeman dossent mean his rights should be removed anymore than your right to post on ATS.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
This is just disgusting and should not be allowed. You are hired to police all of society not just the ones you like. He should be fired.

What comes next; will a Muslim bus, cab driver, or subway operator be allowed to refuse carrying Jewish passengers? :shk:



[edit on 10/6/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
What comes next; will a Muslim bus, cab driver, or subway operator be allowed to refuse carrying Jewish passengers? :shk:



Show me where exactly religion was brought up in this issue? Are you under the mindset that everyone in Israel is Jewish, or that he said anything about Jews?

Sadly, you have fallen to motive of the original poster, in that he wanted to turn this into a race/religious issue, when the actions commited had no basis on the grounds on religion or race, but rather political views.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Show me where exactly religion was brought up in this issue?

One can only assume you did not read and understand the original article huh?



"Met Chief Sir Ian Blair has ordered an urgent review after a Muslim police officer was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy in London on moral grounds."


The source of course is the original article posted in the first post above.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Im an athiest, does that mean im allowed not to help anyone whos religeous.

This copper is pathetic,he took an oath to protect and serve the public regardless of race colour creed and faith. if he cannot do this he is unfit for duty and should be sacked immediatly.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Shots,

I think as someone pointed out though, merely being "an Isreali", does not mean Jew. The cop didn't say Jew and IMO it could be easier to see it as a political motive with Isreal's recent actions in Lebenon, couldn't it?

I can see both sides of this, but with recent events in the world I think it is probably more important that the individual remains the right to refuse any work on any conciencous(sp?) grounds. If we all turn into mere puppets to be controled, then we really are up the deep, dark creek without a paddle.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Shots,

I think as someone pointed out though, merely being "an Isreali", does not mean Jew. The cop didn't say Jew and IMO it could be easier to see it as a political motive with Isreal's recent actions in Lebenon, couldn't it?



The individual that questioned me asked where religion came into this and I posted that the police officer was Muslim and he refused to work there on moral grounds.

What could those moral grounds be other then because they were Jewish or at least the majority in the embassy I assume would be Jewish?

[edit on 10/6/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

What could those moral grounds be other then because they were Jewish or at least the majority in the embassy I assume would be Jewish?

[edit on 10/6/2006 by shots]


If you read the article, it explicity states that the officer had objections due to Isreal's war with Lebanon and because the officer had Lebanese family members.

What is hard to understand about that?? The officer's supervisor(s) had no obligation to excuse him from duty nor did the officer demand anything be done. He requested to be moved on moral grounds, and if it becomes a firing offense to announce your moral reservations (not to necessarily act on them), then such a police station will be doomed to corruption.

It seems like people here are trying to make this a religious issue. Tell us shots how you would react if you were asked to guard the Taliban's embassy while al Qaeda was bombing the US? You would have no complaints? Could we say to you, hey, shots doesn't want to guard the embassy because he's Christian and he hates Muslims? Would that be an accurate depiction?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Show me where exactly religion was brought up in this issue?

One can only assume you did not read and understand the original article huh?


On what basis? Everything I've mentioned in this thread regarding the news source has been relevant to what is written in the article.





"Met Chief Sir Ian Blair has ordered an urgent review after a Muslim police officer was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy in London on moral grounds."


The source of course is the original article posted in the first post above.


You didn't understand what I was asking. I wanted to know where the police officer said his religion or the religion of those in the embassy came into play. Merely pointing out that the article says he is Muslim does not prove that he was acting out based on his religious views or the religious views of the people in the embassy. I would suggest you read the article for yourself to see that his actions had been chosen based on his political views, in retaliation for the atrocities commited by Israel in Lebanon.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

What could those moral grounds be other then because they were Jewish or at least the majority in the embassy I assume would be Jewish?

[edit on 10/6/2006 by shots]


First off, no where does it state he hates Jews. Of course, he's a Muslim, so I'm sure he's capable of all sorts of bad things!
Please....

He had Lebanese family members, he was against the Israeli attack on Lebanon. So he requested not to protect those that killed people like his family. Wow, can't say I blame him. Funny enough, police bias like this happens all the time, yet when it finally comes down to a Muslim it is big news. Give me a break. Another way of attacking Muslims and blaming them for hate, when more hate goes out to these people now than the other way around.

Cops choose details all the time, so I don't see why this should be any different. All these people in glass houses, looking for another way to attack a Muslim. :shk:



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
Im an athiest, does that mean im allowed not to help anyone whos religeous.


Prove to us that what he did was because of his religious views or that of the members of the embassy.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
First off, no where does it state he hates Jews. Of course, he's a Muslim, so I'm sure he's capable of all sorts of bad things!


Kindly do not imply things like that. He signed up to protect and serve ALL people not just those he chooses to, that is and has been the whole point.

Let me ask you this. Can a poilice officer refuse to protect a person who is Gay if they do not like Gay's? No of course they can't if the individual is in danger it is their sworn duty to uphold any and all laws.

[edit on 10/6/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
actually precedent for this oficers request. During the Troubles in Northern Ireland it was common practice to allow Catholic police officers to be excused duties in "flashpoint" protestant areas where it was felt that the officer may put his family at risk of reprisals. It seems that this officer did have relatives in the Lebanon and thus it could be argued that his role could have been compromised in such a situation.

I accept that the role of an officer of the law has certain standards - but in a situation of perceived risk he made a request that was judged on its merits and was respected.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Silk]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Shots,

There is no need to be rude. You jumped to a conclusion(That he was doing it for religous reasons) that turned out to be wrong. He was doing it for political reasons, and not for religous. Fair? Done? Cool.

Now, you bring up a great point. A police officer does sign on to protect the rights of all civilians. But, where doesindividual rights come into this? Does not the individual have the right to protest? He didn't put anyone in danger, and he did it through the acceptable channels.

Can a person chose not to protect Jews? Probably not based on being Jewish, because that is a human rights issue. Can one refuse to protect a coutnries embassy due to that countries actions, esspecially in light if those actions were against the person in question, is not against a person for what they are, but against a country for what it did/does.

At least in my opinion.....



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Shots,

There is no need to be rude.


Would you be kind enough to point out the exact words I used that you assume were rude?



You jumped to a conclusion(That he was doing it for religous reasons) that turned out to be wrong. He was doing it for political reasons, and not for religous.


That is not what the Deputy Police commisoner says. What he said was "the move followed a risk assessment and was "not about political correctness"."

Source

If you really want to get technical at first it was based on two grounds but that was changed by Scotland Yard to be Moral grounds alone.



BBC News

Initially it was reported that his request was accepted on political and moral grounds because he objected to Israeli foreign policy.

And a Scotland Yard spokesman said it would consider special requests to be moved on moral grounds.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.





[edit on 10/7/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   


Supt Dal Babu, chairman of the Association of Muslim Police, said: "This should have remained a private matter ... for an officer who has got Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon."

Dep Comm Stephenson said: "At the height of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict in August this year the officer made his managers aware of his personal concerns.

"These included that he had Lebanese family members. A risk assessment was undertaken, which is normal practice.


Yup yup, its all about being Muslim vs Jewish ... a pitty 40% of Lebanon is Christian and utterly rapes that statement people have been using troughout that war.

Its stated frigin clearly that this all happend when and while Israel was (illegaly and viciously) invading Lebanon, this man has family in Lebanon, I think its rather normal that he is not put up to guard the Israeli Embassy.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Ok, now I am known as someone who is not Pro-Israel, or Pro-WoT or anything else to do with this huge pile O'Cack....

But...


This Officer signed up and took the oath, blahdy blah... but is let off doing his duty down to political/moral reasons?

Now, lets take the Political angle first. Can a soldier refuse to serve in iraq because they don't agree with the War? No. They signed up to do as they were told. Exceptions cannot be made just because the squaddie thinks the War is about Oil, or killing Muslims or whatever. Whether that Soldier is Christian, Atheist, Muslim or a friggin Jedi, they cannot refuse service based on any reason without expecting, at the very least, to lose their job.

Why then, can a Muslim Police officer, who not only signed up to the Police to uphold the law, regardless of political affiliation, but volunteered to do this specific job within the Met?

I bet your bottom dollar I would be refused such a request if i were in the same boat.

"Excuse me sir, I think the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is completely OTT and I don't want to guard their embassy, based on moral and political grounds"

"Ok, Mason. Your objections are noted. Now get back to work. If, of course, you really don't want to guard the embassy, then you should resign your post here and go back to normal policing. We can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry choosing their postings, can we?

Fair enough...

Now, the moral angle..

Can a Catholic police officer, using this as a precedent for refusal based on moral grounds, refuse to help a Gay member of the Public, as it is regarded as a sin?

I doubt it very much. In fact, there are laws in place to punish such behaviour, but it is a valid moral point.

Enough said. This is blatant discrimination against all those who aren't Muslim.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Its stated frigin clearly that this all happend when and while Israel was (illegaly and viciously) invading Lebanon, this man has family in Lebanon, I think its rather normal that he is not put up to guard the Israeli Embassy.


That policy in my opinion is downright wrong. The individual took this oath

[news]
BBC News

I (name) do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of Constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Too me that means when they put on their uniform they have to leave all their feelings at home, they are there to protect and serve all individuals in the UK regardless of their political/religious/moral and personal feelings no matter what they are.

Having a reassignment policy like that seems downright stupid to me.
What would happen if he were not assigned to the embassy? Does that mean if he is called to defend it from protesters he can refuse to follow those orders? Does that mean if he is anti gay that he can refuse to defend Gays?

You can get my drift I am sure the same could be given to various other scenarios and the answer would always be no, simply because they have sworn to enforce and up hold all laws.

------

Good points stumason. I created my post offline and did not see yours prior to posting mine and I see we agree on the most important issues here




[edit on 10/7/2006 by shots]



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join