embassy police row.

[nishom]

Inquiry into embassy police row

BBC WEBSITE, 5TH OCTOBER 200B, ACCESSED AT 10:48.

Sir Ian Blair ordered the review after reports in the Sun newspaper
Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has ordered an inquiry after a Muslim constable was excused from guarding the Israeli embassy in London.
Sir Ian says he wants an "urgent review of the situation and a full report".

The Sun newspaper said the officer was reassigned on "moral grounds" as he objected to Israeli actions in Lebanon.

But the Association of Muslim Police Officers said it was a "welfare issue" - the officer had Middle Eastern relatives and felt unsafe in that role.

The officer, who has been named as Pc Alexander Omar Basha, is attached to the Scotland Yard's Diplomatic Protection Group.

The particular officer has brought an issue forward. His wife is Lebanese and his father is from Syria

During the summer, when Israel was involved in a month-long conflict with Lebanese militants, Pc Basha asked to be moved from the Israeli embassy because he felt uncomfortable and unsafe.

Now the conflict is over, the Association of Muslim Police Officers - which is speaking on his behalf - said Pc Basha had asked to be excused from his duties because he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe".



Oath of allegiance

Supt Babu said Pc Basha was now back on diplomatic protection group duties and that "if an incident happens at the Israeli embassy he will deal with it".

Supt Babu accepted that excusing officers from assignments because of moral beliefs would be unacceptable.

"I think that we're going down a very, very slippery slope if we then start having postings based on individual officers' conscience," he said.

"As police officers we have to deal with some very difficult situations and we need to be objective and make sure that we police all members of the community fairly.

"We can't pick and choose."

If officers have political, religious, ideological or moral views about things then they've got to put their duties above that because their service is to the public


Lord Mackenzie

Lord Mackenzie, former president of the Superintendents' Association of England and Wales, said the move sounded like "a step too far".

"There are cases where clearly you can grant compassionate leave in certain circumstances," he said.

"But if officers have political, religious, ideological or moral views about things then they've got to put their duties above that because their service is to the public.

"What we don't want is a situation where one particular section of the community is given special reasons for not performing duties because that will simply alienate the rest."

A Scotland Yard spokesman said it would sometimes consider a special request to be moved on moral grounds - but added it reserved the right to post an officer anywhere.

The Metropolitan Police Authority, which oversees the force's work, pointed out that police officers took an oath of allegiance.

The authority, which has also asked for a report, said officers often had to undertake duties where the subject conflicted with their personal beliefs.

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

What is the differece between a policeman and a soldier,why does a soldier have conscientous objector status?

why cant a police?

Anyway,perhaps if the policmena had shot the jew in the embassy then they will stop any muslim form working there.Would that be better?

If the amn feels strongly enough to NOT WANT to work there,if he asked to put his emotion aside,what ever he does is it his fault?

[Trumble]

What is the differece between a policeman and a soldier,why does a soldier have conscientous objector status?

why cant a police?

As far as I'm aware, neither does, in the UK anyway. If moral conflicts may arise, the time to think about it is before signing up.

If either soldier or policeman feels strongly enough about a particular issue, they will accept that they must leave their respective service, and do so, also accepting any associated penalties - which are rather more severe in the case of the military, particularly if on active service. You can just resign from the police.

[Muezzin]

So, the guy requests to be transferred because his family is Lebanese (which can quite clearly lead to a conflict of interests), his commanding officer grants him this transfer, someone else takes his place, and the guy is 'evil'/'incompetent'/'un-patriotic'/'anti-Semitic'(!)?

It's not as if the Israeli embassy was one man short; they did get a replacement. It's not like he went on the skive either, he sought and was granted a legitimate transfer, so he was working elsewhere. What's the big deal? I'm sure stuff like this happens all the time.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

I suppose they are worried about feeling coming into pay of job.

It is a chain of command thing.
If every sodleir or policeman were to ask,why am i shooting children in schools,instead of just shooting the children,then there will anarchy.

That why the richa nd powerful do not like to be questioned,and any disobedience to not follow order is a break in the chain of command.

It is the old question,should a soldeir follow blindly,should he set his humanity aside for orders?

[Trumble]

What's the big deal? I'm sure stuff like this happens all the time.

Nothing, but the thread had strayed away somewhat from the actual facts of the case.

It is a chain of command thing.
If every sodleir or policeman were to ask,why am i shooting children in schools,instead of just shooting the children,then there will anarchy.

That why the richa nd powerful do not like to be questioned,and any disobedience to not follow order is a break in the chain of command.

It is the old question,should a soldeir follow blindly,should he set his humanity aside for orders?

An old question for which there is an equally well established answer, which applies just as much to the armies of 'muslim' nations as to those anywhere else. A soldier is required to follow orders unless he considers them to be against the rules of war (as ratified in the Geneva convention, or otherwise) or otherwise illegal. If they refuse to follow orders they must accept the consequences if any court martial or other investigation decides they were wrong to do so.

Which soldiers and policemen are supposed to be "shooting children in schools", exactly?