# Muslim Cop refuses Israeli Embassy Duty.



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2006)

> Fury at 'moral grounds' cop out
> 
> 
> By MIKE SULLIVAN
> ...



http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006460306,00.html

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

And on a related (distantly related) note....


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2006)

> Muslim accosts injured Para in hospital
> By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
> (Filed: 02/10/2006)
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/02/ntroops02.xml

Also Fair Dealings etc...


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

>“Having learned of this issue I have asked for an urgent review of the situation and a full report.”

Whatever happened to, "You're fired."?


----------



## karl28 (5 Oct 2006)

Any member regardless of race or creed who takes  an oath to serve the public  in any form (emergency service or military ) and refuse duty of any kind they should be let go  .      In my personal opinion you join one of these groups you check your personal feelings at home when your on the job . Its your duty to protect all parts of the public not just the ones you like or dislike  but as stated that's just my two cents worth .


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2006)

So what will this "police officer" say when no one will stand guard over the mosque? The sword cuts both ways.


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Oct 2006)

I agree 100% with Mr Sallows. Achmad doesn't want to do his job, than Achmad can go find another job that will allow him to be ignorant! What a waste of rations. :threat:


----------



## BernDawg (5 Oct 2006)

Maybe he doesn't want to be there cause he knows what is going to happen.......  I would think that this would be the grounds for a thourough investigation of the officer.


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Oct 2006)

karl28 said:
			
		

> Any member regardless of race or creed who takes  an oath to serve the public  in any form (emergency service or military ) and refuse duty of any kind they should be let go  .      In my personal opinion you join one of these groups you check your personal feelings at home when your on the job . Its your duty to protect all parts of the public not just the ones you like or dislike  but as stated that's just my two cents worth .



Exactly, fire him immediately. This attitude is very dangerous in the public service.

_"It's not up to us to decide which laws to obey. If it were, I'd kill anyone who looked at me cock-eyed." Rex Banner_


----------



## FastEddy (5 Oct 2006)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Maybe he doesn't want to be there cause he knows what is going to happen.......  I would think that this would be the grounds for a thourough investigation of the officer.



It could be worse, he could be watching your six in the sand box.

I guess I'll stop here, cause anything else I might say, might be conscrewed as raciest.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2006)

The contrary view.

So was it the Pc's morals or his fear for the safety of his family in Lebanon if he was seen guarding an Israeli embassy?



> Muslim police officer excused Israel guard duty
> By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
> (Filed: 05/10/2006)
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/uemb.xml


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

Well, that doesn't change my view.  If a member of the security services of the state (police, army, whatever) is open to blackmail, he's no longer suitable for employment because he can't set the interests of the service ahead of his own.


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Oct 2006)

We discussed the similar (sort of) incident of the Toronto Officer who refused to guard the Abortion Clinic on Religious/Moral Grounds, in classes numerous times.  I wonder if that incident (or the one in Britain) were to happen here in Canada now, what the reaction would be.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2006)

Of course they could give him the nastest job in the area instead and leave there to rot for his career.


----------



## big bad john (5 Oct 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5410094.stm

Met defends Muslim officer move  
  
A Muslim police officer was excused duty guarding Israel's embassy for safety reasons, Scotland Yard has said. 
The Sun newspaper said the officer was reassigned on "moral grounds" as he objected to Israeli actions in Lebanon. 

The Diplomatic Protection Group officer, named as Pc Alexander Omar Basha, had Lebanese relatives. 

But Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said the move followed a risk assessment and was "not about political correctness". 

The decision to excuse the officer has been attacked by some former police officers and politicians, while being defended by groups representing officers. 

Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair ordered an urgent review into the matter. 


Mr Stephenson said: "At the height of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict in August this year, the officer made his managers aware of his personal concerns which included that he had Lebanese family members." 

He said that following a risk assessment "and not because of the officer's personal views whatever they might have been", a temporary decision was made not to deploy Pc Basha to the Israeli embassy. 

"Our priority is making sure that any officer we deploy can have their mind on the job and make sure they discharge effectively and efficiently. 

"That's what a risk assessment is about, it is not about political correctness and we do not allow officers to pick and choose their deployment on the basis of their personal views." 

The Association of Muslim Police Officers said it had been a "welfare issue" not a political one - with the officer having a Syrian father and a Lebanese wife. 


The association said Pc Basha had asked to be excused from his duties because he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe". 

Superintendent Dal Babu, from the association, told BBC News 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. 

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

  
"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." 

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

But MPA member Peter Herbert said the row was a "ridiculous fuss about nothing" and attacked Sir Ian over an "unwise judgement" on opting so quickly for a review. 

'Sensible' request 

"From a security point of view, the Met would be seriously criticised if this guy has relatives in Lebanon and his picture was used around the world to demonstrate the irony about having a Muslim defending the Israeli embassy in the UK." 

Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said just one two-hour slot outside the embassy had been affected. 

The officer had not refused to do duties and had made a simple request which it was "fairly sensible" to grant, Mr Smyth said. 

Lord Janner, former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said it was a "grave error" to allow a police officer to avoid his duty. 

"To start this system where somebody can say look I don't like this because of my own political belief or religion is a mistake because if this grows it can harm the system." 

The Israeli embassy in London, meanwhile, said it was confident the Met Police would find "a satisfactory solution to this particular problem".


----------



## AmmoTech90 (6 Oct 2006)

I if you look at this from a foreign country you may be missing the "Health and Safety" and "Risk Assessment" culture that has taken over government in the UK.  This is all prevasive.  It is not a matter of an experienced person making a decission about an activity and giving some safety warnings.  The risk assessment has to be documented and sometimes vetted.  We had a morning base cleanup parade cancelled because a risk assessment had not be carried out.  That is how restrictive it can be.

This officer was not even assigned to the embassy, and I can imagine the conversation going something like this:

Officer: Hi sir
Boss: Hello Officer Basha how are you?
Officer: Oh good, sortof worried about my second cousin twice removed in Lebannon with all the stuff going on.
Boss: Oh my goodness, better do a risk assesment on that...

Found out that there was a chance someone would recognize the officer outside the embassy and his family would be at risk, said, "Dont put Basha at the Israeli embassy until things cool down."  Remember just because the person providing the service is willing to take risks doesn't mean his family should.

It's really a non-issue that media here has whipped up.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I was wondering about another moral objection when someone wasn't looking, would he or she:
> 
> a.  Stop an assault on an innocent Jew or Infidel?
> b.  Look the other way?
> ...



Well that's kind of assuming that this Officer refused to serve at the Embassy which is clearly NOT the case.

One could say by the same token...would a right-wing Christian extremist (and they DO exist) who happens to be a police officer:

a.  Stop an assault on an innocent Muslim?
b.  Look the other way?

It is time to stop applying broad brush strokes to groups of persons and insinuating this, that, or the other thing based on an individual incident which has been dramaticlly spun to garner the most media-coverage and air-time...obviously lining someone's pockets.

Once again, the media makes a mountain out of a mole-hill in order to push their own agenda.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2006)

Although I opened this thread - and am therefore responsible for adding fuel to the fire - perhaps the subject line should be changed to "The Press Reports that UK Cop refuses Israeli Embassy Duty".

I was as outraged as anyone by the original report but I have to admit that the additional evidence has muted my response.

Having said that, I am still perturbed about the action - whether it was the constable's choice or not.

Every police officer that lives in the community puts his family at risk to some extent.  I believe that is why the British Bobby "hid" behind the anonymity of his prominently displayed number and not his name.  He (at that time) was only identifiable as an agent of the crown and not a person.  So the argument that a constable's family in a foreign land might be put at risk because of the constable's job is a bit tendentious.

This constable does seem to be in an interesting position with respect to his in-laws however.



> A Muslim police officer who asked to be excused from guarding the Israeli embassy was married by the radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
> 
> 
> Pc Alexander Omar-Basha's father-in-law is related to Bakri, who performed an Islamic ceremony at the family home in north London.
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/06/npc06.xml

Curious anyway.

So while the individual case seems to be quite complicated (as perhaps all are),  there are still a number of issues here.

1. Loyalty 
2. Duty
3. The impact of radical dissent on a modern democratic society and its institutions.

My own opinion is that if the officer can't do the job for moral reasons then he/she must resign.

If the issue is truly one of the safety of the officer's family then perhaps reassignment is appropriate. 

In this particular case I am having difficulty with understanding how the officer's vetting allowed him to be assigned to Diplomatic Protection at all.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> A- Vern, I think it is hardly a broad brush stroke to ask how a certain individual (in this case a Muslim policeman) would react to a scenario I laid out. If he did not want to be a policeman and uphold the law and follow a lawfull command then quit or be fired.  That is the simple solution.  To be fair, since some might consider me to be a right wing christian crusader I'll put myself into your scenario and tell you what I would do:



Well I am glad you think this way...but in this case



> (in this case a Muslim policeman)



No where did the article state that:



> he did not want to be a policeman and uphold the law and follow a lawfull command



So why should he be fired in this case??  Because the head-line and tone of the news article leads impressionable people who do not know the FACTS to say so? The facts that have come to light since the publication of this spinny article clearly show that this officer did NOT refuse to do his job, nor was he ever asked to work at the embassy. 

But, the article did serve what I suspect was it's agenda...it caused another stir among the right wing, unjustifiably, because it chose to omit the important facts which were much more relevant to why the decision was reached.

No story here...time to move on.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Bottom line, he did not want to do what he was asked.  Why is it so hard to follow up to the pledge one makes, either to their country or community?  Why do we now think it is okay to take a sworn oath as long as it meets a 100 caveats?  I just don't get it!



Bottom line...read the article again....

He *WAS NEVER ASKED * to work at the embassy.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (6 Oct 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Bottom line, he did not want to do what he was asked.  Why is it so hard to follow up to the pledge one makes, either to their country or community?  Why do we now think it is okay to take a sworn oath as long as it meets a 100 caveats?  I just don't get it!



Did you read anything past the first knee jerk article by The Scum?   Everything afterwards indicates that he was not posted there, did not ask not to work there, and was not removed from there.  It was decided that he wouldn't be posted there by his superiors.



			
				S_Baker said:
			
		

> I read the articles, risk asessment .... blah, blah, christian and muslim relatives in lebanon...blah blah blah..from what I gathered there was plenty of dithering.



So you read the first article decided that the incomplete report from a bad newspaper is the correct one?  And you are not willing to listen the right story.
Sounds a lot like the reaction of extremist Muslims to the Pope's speech in Germany a few weeks ago.  Guess right wing christian crusaders and extremist Muslims are a common race separated by different languages.

D


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Oct 2006)

I can sympathize with the cop... Someone should find the guy another job... perhaps he could qualify as a Justice of the Peace and perform civil marriage ceremonies instead... 

errr.... ummmm....


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Oct 2006)

Then re-issue him his helmet, truncheon, and whistle, and have him directing traffic around Picadilly Circus. Better yet, a traffic circle on Orkney.


----------



## Shec (6 Oct 2006)

Needless to say  I rather doubt that the Israeli embassy is losing much sleep over this latest tabloid feeding frenzy.   After all their security, indeed that of all foreign embassies, is central to the issue.  And in that regard its a pragmatic and win-win solution  for all  parties:

(1) One less potential security risk for the Israelis and all who may have good reason to visit their embassy.
(2) Omar doesn't have to compromise his principles and/or expose himself to co-religionist peer pressures by protecting the accursed Zionists,
(3) The peelers don't have to worry about any potential fallout flowing from the first 2 points.

Carry on Constable !


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Oct 2006)

Congratulations to this idiot for widening the gap between us and them even more.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## AmmoTech90 (7 Oct 2006)

First off, what does Scandanavia have to do with anything?

Secondly, no I haven't confused you with anyone and I agree you have a right to your own opinion.  The reasons I disagree with you and posted what I did are:
You seemed to acknowledge the fact you are a right wing Christian, or at least you did not deny it. 
You did not acknowledge that, after having read all the posts, the PC in question had very little to do with his being taken off the roster for the Israeli embassy.
Youre "blah, blah, blah" post indicated to me an unwillingness to accept any media reporting which altered your opinion which you had formed after reading the first article.

While you are not advocating violence, you are not willing to listen to the entire story and go with the first, imflamatory and imcomplete, version of the story.  This is where I equated your right wing Christian position with the radical Islamist position on the Pope.

My problem is with a organization (The Met) who has a history of fumbling public relations.  I doubt that the true story will ever come out now, or if it does it wont be recognized because there are so many conflicting stories.  As I said in my first post, this is really a non-story.  Some police supervisor made a decission and because the Met couldn't manage to get their act together on the PR side everyone loses.

D


----------



## FastEddy (9 Oct 2006)

Armyvern said:
			
		

> Well I am glad you think this way...but in this case
> 
> No where did the article state that.
> 
> No story here...time to move on.




Would you consider the possibility that the Met. PD put a acceptable spin on what they knew would become a National Uproar, if unchecked, if the initial presumption was the case.

Or you just can't imagining Police Depts., being self-serving, when necessary.

But hats off to the PTB at the Yard, those boys are real quick on their feet. Of course this is only my opinion.


----------



## rregtc-etf (9 Oct 2006)

I just want to clarify for the record in a post brought up by Hatchet Man about the Toronto police officer that refused to guard an abortion clinic in religious grounds.

The officer in question was Constable David Packer and the incident took place in the mid 1980's.  The property was the Morgentaler Abortion Clinic on Harbord St reet in Toronto Police 14 Division.  Prior to the opening of the clinic the Police Superintendent Getty (14 Division C.O.) gave assurances that officer's religious opinions would be respected when it came to duty at the clinic.

A 24 hour premises security detail was established by 14 Division officers including Constable Packer. 

Packer was on the  "Pro Life" side of the abortion issue and an agreement was reached with police brass that he would only be required to guard the building after hours.  Packer had no concerns about guarding the property while abortions were not being performed and in fact did so on a permanent basis while he worked night shift along with second officer.  The security detail was subject to continuous visits by police supervisors and officers stopping by to chat or bring coffees, so there are plenty of people to verify that Packer guarded the building.

The refusal by Packer came after his duties were changed to guard the clinic while in operation.   I do not know the exact details of the refusal however I do know that he was suspended and made subsequent refusals which were documented.  He was later fired by a police tribunal for the refusal. 

Constable Packer stood his ground and sued the city over his dismissal. The court ruled that Packer had been unfairly dismissed, it ordered that he be reinstated and that the 2 or 3 years worth of lost income be paid to him.  

Packer was reinstated as a Police Constable and his lost salary paid, the following day he resigned

P.S.  

After a long period without incident the security detail was gradually reduced and eventually scrapped.
The clinic was blown up by a bomber/arsonist and had to be torn down because the structure was unsafe.   A commercial property now stands on the Harbord St. site.

I believe that the case of the Muslim cop is different in that his refusal is political and not based on religious grounds.  Without getting into the discipline issues, a large police force could easily accommodate him with other duties - such as recording and checking stolen bicycle details.

I would also like to remind your readers of a case involving a CF (Navy) member who was refused a posting to the Middle East because of his ethnic background.  (Read about it - don't remember the details.)


----------



## bilton090 (9 Oct 2006)

I'm sure the people in the Israeli Embassy are upset that the muslim cop is not looking after there 6 ?,
    but what going to happen next ?, are we going to have muslim people in the Canadian army saying they are not going oversea's because they have family there ?, or they might have to shoot a cousin or 2 ?

          My 2 cents, O.M.G !                :crybaby:


----------



## BernDawg (9 Oct 2006)

That, my friend, has already happened (in a way).  In Cyprus we had an NCO of Greek descent and he was not allowed on the line.  He had to work in the leave centre to avoid any "complications" with the Turks.  This was a decision made by the powers that be and as far as I know he would have rather stayed with his Pl.


----------

