Muslim Policemans Protest (Merged)

NEON DEON · 10-08-06, 03:30 PM

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

“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.”

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

“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.”

It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer.

“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.” ***

Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that?

If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job?

*** I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.

10-08-06, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

The fact . The police officer in question " Objected to his duty and asked to be excused"

He refused to be posted there because he objected to Israeli bombings in Lebanon and the resulting civilian casualties of fellow Muslims.

Any thing else you hear, is Police tactical waffle. To stop the anti muslim feeling growing already across the UK.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ssy/article.do

NEON DEON · 10-08-06, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narcosis

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

The fact . The police officer in question " Objected to his duty and asked to be excused"

[/url]

Exactly!

He was excused.

Had the supervisor ordered him to go and he refused then sure sack him!

But alas he did not.

PS:

IMHO

If you want to start a witch hunt, then start with his supervisor.:p

Skybird · 10-08-06, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

“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.”

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

“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.”

It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer.

“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.” ***

Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that?

If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job?

*** I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Police meanwhile has tried to explain the issue as concerns of the officer in question regarding his family - if he would be filmed on tV, his family may be hurt. If that is so, he is susceptible to blackmail. the question then is if such a person, no matter his faith and ideological background, can be accepted to vital public services and security duties. My answer is: No.

.....

NEON DEON · 10-08-06, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

“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.”

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

“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.”

It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer.

“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.” ***

Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that?

If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job?

*** I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Police meanwhile has tried to explain the issue as concerns of the officer in question regarding his family - if he would be filmed on tV, his family may be hurt. If that is so, he is susceptible to blackmail. the question then is if such a person, no matter his faith and ideological background, can be accepted to vital public services and security duties. My answer is: No.

.....

That would mean you would have to fire every police officer with a family.

Why? He could be blackmailed if someone held his family hostage.

That would make for a very small police force.

Skybird · 10-08-06, 05:30 PM

Not many have a family in a country with war or civil war of anarchy or terror threat or Islamism being a major factor there.

there are stubborn rumours that the french military did not intervene during the heights of those suburb riots for only one reason: close to 20% of the military are Muslims and would have needed to confront the muslim mobsters in these suburbs. The french generals did not have too much confidence in their army. I know I know, just some essay in medias and rumours - but some that live surpisingly long and stubborn.

In Germany, Ex-Stasi-members and active known confessing Fascists/Neonazis can be banned from certain jobs of vital interest (education, for example), or jobs that would allow them to abuse their position as a platform to propagate their opinion. It is not perfect system, but it helps and is legally anchored in the law. I would have no problem to see that behavior expanded to include Islam as well, for the same reason asFascists are banned: hostility towards the constitutional order and attempt to overthrow it and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. I also would like to see western constitutions being equipped with an additonal paragraph that excludes Islam from being considered as a religion that could demand the constitutional protection for free religious practicng, because: Islam does not differ between state and religion and by demanding religious freedom it absues these freedoms to push political agendas - and call that politically intrusion "religion". Practically Islam is a politically ambitioned instruction for individual and communal action anyway, aiming at controlling the commnity as well as the individual and not only defend but expand Islam against resistance from outside. The constitutions so far are completely helpless against this abuse - and thus gets abused indeed. Thois has a tremendous paralysing effect on Wetssern attempts to resist islamic efforts. A mosque is not just a pendant to a church, it has a function reaching beyond that of a temple only, it is a center of community life, social nexus and platform for political activity as well. I saw that in all Muslim nations were I ever have been, and have no reason to believe it is different in europe and Germany.

NEON DEON · 10-08-06, 06:58 PM

I believe in the total separation of church and state.

However, along with that comes religious freedom. That does not mean you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on people of different religions. That is where the separation of church and state comes in. Religious law does not preempt state law. That should be very clear.

If you believe that someone or some group is telling people to go out and kill people, then that is a terrorist act. Report it immediately to the local authorities. It would help to have some proof before you go. Also: Try and not rely on hearsay or innuendo.

10-08-06, 05:30 PM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,716 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Not many have a family in a country with war or civil war of anarchy or terror threat or Islamism being a major factor there. there are stubborn rumours that the french military did not intervene during the heights of those suburb riots for only one reason: close to 20% of the military are Muslims and would have needed to confront the muslim mobsters in these suburbs. The french generals did not have too much confidence in their army. I know I know, just some essay in medias and rumours - but some that live surpisingly long and stubborn. In Germany, Ex-Stasi-members and active known confessing Fascists/Neonazis can be banned from certain jobs of vital interest (education, for example), or jobs that would allow them to abuse their position as a platform to propagate their opinion. It is not perfect system, but it helps and is legally anchored in the law. I would have no problem to see that behavior expanded to include Islam as well, for the same reason asFascists are banned: hostility towards the constitutional order and attempt to overthrow it and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. I also would like to see western constitutions being equipped with an additonal paragraph that excludes Islam from being considered as a religion that could demand the constitutional protection for free religious practicng, because: Islam does not differ between state and religion and by demanding religious freedom it absues these freedoms to push political agendas - and call that politically intrusion "religion". Practically Islam is a politically ambitioned instruction for individual and communal action anyway, aiming at controlling the commnity as well as the individual and not only defend but expand Islam against resistance from outside. The constitutions so far are completely helpless against this abuse - and thus gets abused indeed. Thois has a tremendous paralysing effect on Wetssern attempts to resist islamic efforts. A mosque is not just a pendant to a church, it has a function reaching beyond that of a temple only, it is a center of community life, social nexus and platform for political activity as well. I saw that in all Muslim nations were I ever have been, and have no reason to believe it is different in europe and Germany. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 10-08-06 at 05:50 PM.

10-08-06, 03:30 PM	#1
NEON DEON Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,207 Downloads: 39 Uploads: 5	It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that. What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place. *“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.”* The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused. *“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.”* It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer. *“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.”* * Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that? If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job? * I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.

10-08-06, 06:58 PM	#7
NEON DEON Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,207 Downloads: 39 Uploads: 5	I believe in the total separation of church and state. However, along with that comes religious freedom. That does not mean you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on people of different religions. That is where the separation of church and state comes in. Religious law does not preempt state law. That should be very clear. If you believe that someone or some group is telling people to go out and kill people, then that is a terrorist act. Report it immediately to the local authorities. It would help to have some proof before you go. Also: Try and not rely on hearsay or innuendo.