Muslim Cop refuses Israeli Embassy Duty.

[Kirkhill]

Fury at 'moral grounds' cop out


By MIKE SULLIVAN
Crime Editor
October 05, 2006

THE decision to excuse a Muslim cop from guarding the Israeli Embassy was last night branded “the beginning of the end for British policing”.

PC Alexander Omar Basha told chiefs he was unable to carry out duties at the London embassy — a top terror target — due to moral grounds after Israeli bombings in Lebanon.

Top brass granted his request last week, but Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair last night ordered an immediate inquiry after our story broke. He said: “Having learned of this issue I have asked for an urgent review of the situation and a full report.”

Critics slammed the decision. Ex-Met Flying Squad commander John O’Connor said: “This is the beginning of the end for British policing.

“If they can allow this, surely they’ll have to accept a Jewish officer not wanting to work at an Islamic national embassy? Will Catholic cops be let off working at Protestant churches? Where will it end?

“This decision is going to allow officers to act in a discriminating and racist way.”





Mr O’Connor added: “When you join the police, you do so to provide a service to the public. If you cannot perform those duties, you leave.

“The Metropolitan Police are setting a precedent they will come to bitterly regret. Top brass granted his wish as they were probably frightened of being accused of racism. But what they’ve done is an insult to the Jewish community.”

Another angry policeman said: “This decision beggars belief. It goes against everything the police should stand for — providing a service to the public no matter who they are.”

PC Basha, attached to the Met’s Diplomatic Protection Group, asked for special dispensation not to work at the embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens, Central London. The officer, in his late 20s, has taken part in recent anti-war protests.

The Israeli Embassy was attacked in 1994 by Palestinian fanatics with a 50lbs car bomb, injuring 19 and causing millions of pounds’ damage.

But one senior source said: “PC Basha objected to the posting on moral grounds — because of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon and the resulting civilian casualties of fellow Muslims.”

ANOTHER Muslim removed from the DPG after his security clearance was rejected is trying to sue the Met. Vetting revealed PC Amjad Farooq had a close acquaintance with alleged links to an extremist Islamic group.

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]

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



A paratrooper wounded in Afghanistan was threatened by a Muslim visitor to the British hospital where he is recovering.

Seriously wounded soldiers have complained that they are worried about their safety after being left on wards that are open to the public at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham.

On one occasion a member of the Parachute Regiment, still dressed in his combat uniform after being evacuated from Afghanistan, was accosted by a Muslim over the British involvement in the country.

advertisement
"You have been killing my Muslim brothers in Afghanistan," the man said during a tirade.

Because the soldier was badly injured and could not defend himself, he was very worried for his safety, sources told The Daily Telegraph.

A relative of the Para said the man had twice walked on to the ward where two other soldiers and four civilians were being treated without once being challenged by staff.

"It's not the best way to treat our returning men," he said. "They are nervous that these guys might attack them and, despite being paratroopers, they cannot defend themselves because of their injuries."

The Ministry of Defence, which said that it had no record of threatening incidents, indicated that there was a military security presence at the hospital and it co-operated closely with local police.

A MoD spokesman said there was "appropriate security" at Selly Oak for the 11 servicemen currently being treated.

But Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, called the treatment of wounded troops "an absolute disgrace".

"They should be in completely separate wings even if this means shutting down entire NHS wards. It is a betrayal of our troops having them treated in mixed and open wards. Those who have been injured on operations must be with those who understand their predicament in a secure environment.

"The Defence Secretary should be having urgent talks with the Health Secretary to do this otherwise this Government's commitment to our Armed Forces is nothing but talk."

There is also resentment among serving troops unhappy about being treated in a NHS hospital that they believe is unsuitable for military patients.

Soldiers on operations say they would rather receive a more serious injury and go to the top American military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, than end up in a NHS hospital.

They now half jokingly refer to getting "a Boche rather than a Blighty" in reference to the wounds that would send them home. Ramstein has an outstanding unit for brain surgery, and neurological intensive care beds in Britain are in short supply. "The blokes see it that if you are unlucky you get wounded and go to the UK at the mercy of the NHS, but if you get a head wound you get sent to Ramstein in Germany where the US has an outstanding medical facility," said an officer serving in Afghanistan.

"It also does not do morale much good knowing that within 18 hours of being wounded you could wake up in a NHS hospital with a mental health patient on one side and an incontinent geriatric on the other."

The latest figures show that 86 troops have been injured in Afghanistan during the past six months of fighting. More than 600 soldiers have been flown back to Britain after being injured on operations abroad since 2003 with most treated at Selly Oak, which is also the headquarters of the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine.

In the past decade the seven military hospitals in Britain, Germany and Cyprus have been closed. The remaining military hospital at Haslar, Portsmouth, is expected to be sold to developers next year.

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

Also Fair Dealings etc...

 

[Brad Sallows]

>“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]

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]

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

 

[2 Cdo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

Scotland Yard said today that a decision to excuse a Muslim police protection officer from duties guarding the Israeli embassy during the Lebanon conflict in August was not taken for “politically correct” reasons but because the armed constable expressed concerns about the safety of his relatives in Lebanon.

 
The Israeli embassy is one of the best protected buildings in London
A report in The Sun newspaper alleged that that senior officers within the Metropolitan Police Diplomatic Protection Group gave Pc Alexander Omar Basha a special dispensation after he raised “moral” concerns because of Isaeli bombings in Lebanon.

This claim unleashed a fierce debate about the duties of a police officer. But representatives of the Muslim Police Association denied the decision was based on moral concerns, suggesting it was a “welfare issue.”

The Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, appeared to support this assertion.

In a statement, he said: “Impartial policing of all communities is fundamental to policing the UK. This is non negotiable. Every day Met officers put their duties above their political, religious or ideological views. The Met has a long history of policing difficult demonstrations, marches and events, no matter what the personal view of the officers involved might be.

“Upon joining the police service, officers swear an oath of attestation, which says that they serve 'without fear or favour'. If on this or any other occasion that principle has been broken it would be wholly improper.”

However, he added, “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.

“Whilst the Israeli Embassy is not his normal posting, in view of the possibility that he could be deployed there, a risk assessment was undertaken, which is normal practice.

"It was as a result of this risk assessment - and not because of the officer's personal views, whatever they might have been - that the decisions was taken temporarily not to deploy him to the Embassy

“This is not about political correctness. I want to make it clear that this decision was taken on the basis of risk and safety.”

In an interview on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme, Supt Dal Babu, chairman of the Association of Muslim Police, said: “What we need to do is just really put this entire issue in perspective. This is about the welfare of an individual and not about a moral issue. I think we are going down a very, very slippery road if we start having postings based on individual officers’ conscience.”

In a separate BBC radio interview, Supt Babu added: “This should have remained a private matter, a matter about welfare issues for an officer who has got Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon.”

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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]

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]

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

 

[big bad john]

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]

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]

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?

So sad ... where is CAIR when you need them?

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]

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.

The cleric, who founded the now disbanded Al-Muhajiroun group of radical Muslims, is living in Lebanon after being barred from the UK.

Bakri caused consternation when he said he would never warn the police if he learned of an impending suicide bomber attack by fellow Muslims. He also called the July 7 London suicide bombers "the fantastic four".

......

The officer's father-in-law, Abdul Majid el-Katme, is a doctor and Muslim activist, although he does not share Bakri's extremist views.

Bakri said yesterday he was not aware that Pc Omar-Basha was a policeman until he was involved in the arrest of some of his followers in Wood Green, north London.

Bakri said he had told Pc Omar-Basha to leave the police. Speaking from the Lebanon, Bakri said: "After a while I learned he was in the police force because brothers were arrested in Wood Green for distributing leaflets outside the library which, they said, offended homosexuals.

"I was told he was involved in stopping the stall."

Dr el-Katme is the president of the Islamic Medical Association and a member of the Muslim Council of Britain. Bakri said yesterday: "I know the couple because I married them. Alex's father-in-law is also my brother-in-law. He also asked me to give a little talk in front of the family after they got married. To be honest we didn't have a good relationship because of my radical views.".......

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]

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]

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]

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.

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