THe British Police office and The Embassy

aslantheslayer

Whilst this is another story from Britain, I beleive it is sometihng that could happen here and if so what would aour opinions be on this.

A British police officer attached to the special Dipllomatic Protection Agency refused to protect a Israeli Embassy because of his Muslim faith.

The Point is should and can a Police officer/Gardai be able to pick and choose the jobs they want to do. How would we feel if a British officer refused to protect Irish Diplomats because of religion?

http://skynews.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/muslim_policema.html

The Corinthian

Firstly I believe that the police officer in question broke his oath of office (which he would have taken upon becoming a police officer).

Secondly, Muslim opposition to Israel is political and not religious. The argument that it is due to an obligation of support for other Muslims is one of the most tenuous out there.

Finally, he is in a European country where there is tradition of separation of religion and state, a tradition that has built up within Western culture precisely because one cannot ultimately serve two masters. Otherwise when faced with Islamic terrorism in the UK, who can he be trusted to side with - his country or his faith?

To me it sounds as if he’s already made his choice.

lostexpectation

the actual story is htat he did not wish to photograph protecting the embassy and has his picture show in lebannon etc, and cause a threat to his relations, in a way he was afraid of islamists

of course non-tabloid headlines dont really matter to you aslan

Collie D

He didn't refuse to do it because he was a Muslim. He has family in Lebanon and I can see his point without entirely agreeing with it. I think it's just common sense that he shouldn't have been asked in the first plave and don't see the fuss. Should a black policeman be asked to police a BNP rally?

aslantheslayer

How would his family be identified?

Would he refuse to protect the American Embassy?


He is a police office. He knew the dangers of a police officer when siging up. The Fact that he is a member of the Diplomatic Protection ~Agency Makes it worse!

What about the soldiers and police in Northern Ireland? Did they have a choice?

The British and American Soldiers in Iraq? Do they have a choice?

When Siging for public duty part of the job is Risk. If you dont want that risk for you or your family then work in a shop. Even just do normal policing. But This officer took a high risk Job that he knew may involve policing Jewish people or areas. The Police office in my eyes is Racist.

Collie D

I'm not going to bother if you're gonna start throwing the R word around. Or I could mention that your two threads are about Muslims. Decisions, decisons

lostexpectation

pot kettle black


you are being purposely thick, if anybody recognise him, then they could reocgnise his family, plenty of travel between the two countries.

there is plenty of precedent of catholic police officers not having to police prodestent areas, under threat of them and their family and it just not making sense...

did that make em racist or sensible people...

Hobbes

If he wants to refuse to protect them, then it is his choice. We do live in a free society do we not?

At the same time his job requires him to follow certain rules, so in picking this choice he may be reprimanded for it. At the same time though he did actually ask not to be put on that duty, he didn't actually abandon his post to prove the point.

Again his protest appears to be political rather then religous.

Also I suggest again you read the stories you are posting. He is not refusing his duties as a police officer, he only asked that he not do duty in front of the Israeli embassy. It has nothing to do with "policing Jewish areas".

county

Collie D wrote:

. Should a black policeman be asked to police a BNP rally?

yes course he should,the reason being thats his job.personel thoughts and views do not come into the equation,its really as simple as that

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

you are being purposely thick...

Careful Now.

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

there is plenty of precedent of catholic police officers not having to police prodestent areas, under threat of them and their family and it just not making sense...

That’s a fair point if true, however it’s one thing worrying about your relatives being targeted in the same city as you work in, it’s another when they are distant relatives in another continent. Very dubious, IMO.

Additionally, if any police officer could use that ‘out’ then organized crime would have a very easy time of it.

aslantheslayer

The point is he refuses to do his job protecting the Israeli Embassy because he fears his family in another country, (so im guessing this isnt close family) may be in danger of being attacked by whom we dont know.

So wouldnt the same be said if he was standing outside the US Embassy? Afterall America attacked a muslim Nation and occupy a muslim state.

How does his family not get attacked by the mear fact that he serves the British people and there queen. When that country Britain is also a occupier of Muslim lands?

Whats the difference?

The Corinthian

aslantheslayer wrote:

The point is he refuses to do his job protecting the Israeli Embassy because he fears his family in another country, (so im guessing this isnt close family) may be in danger of being attacked by whom we dont know.

My point is it's a bit of a stretch. First he would have to be filmed or seen, then he would have to be recognised, then a connection would have to be made between him and these relatives and finally someone would have to have it in their mind to want to do something to them because of this.

It's just a little bit too tenuous.

Whats the difference?

I believe the logic is that they are considered the source of the problem while the West is simply an agent for them.

hmmm

"Asking" to be excused from a job is one thing. The reason would have to be fairly extraordinary, but it isn't unreasonable.

"Refusing" to do a job is a different thing when you're a police officer.

It comes down to whether he asked and was given permission, or whether he disobeyed orders imo.

Victor

Did we all read the same piece? "the officer had Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon and was concerned for his safety."

http://skynews.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/muslim_policema.html

Muslim Policeman's Protest October 05, 2006

Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said: "Having learned of this issue I have asked for an urgent review of the situation and a full report into the circumstances."

It has been claimed PC Alexander Omar Basha asked for special dispensation not to work at the embassy because of his moral objection to Israel's bombing of Lebanon.

But the Association of Muslim Police said it was a "welfare" matter - the officer had Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon and was concerned for his safety.

We asked: Was it right to excuse him? Were his bosses being soft? Should duty always come first? Here is a selection of your views.

Written by skynews, October 05, 2006

Hobbes

hmmm wrote:

It comes down to whether he asked and was given permission, or whether he disobeyed orders imo.

Exactly and the story says he asked for permission and was given it.

I don't see it as a big as a deal. For example in my group where I work we deal with lots of customers. There is always 1 customer each person has that they have had contention with and we generally swap them around rather then having to deal with the stress of them again. We don't refuse but if its possible we ask each other.

Pretty much the same deal here at the moment. If he had refused his position or walked off protecting the embassy we would be in a different situation.