Friday, October 06, 2006

Serving the State v Serving the community

A Muslim police officer, who was apparently excused from duty outside the zionist oppressor embassy, has become the subject of national debate. According to the Torygraph, Sun and other rags, he was moved because he had objections to Israel’s terrorist bombardment and destruction of Lebanon. They suggest that he was moved due to ‘political correctness’. Yes the old PC stick is out again and being used to beat any signs of dissent against the establishment. If you join the police you commit yourself to leaving behind any morals and principles. In short you are an agent of the state and you will obey state policy. If the state wants you to shoot innocent people or guard representatives of a terrorist state, then you have to do it, no questions asked. I would have no objection to that as long as they spell it out explicitly to recruits and enshrine it in law. However, police are representatives of the community they serve……. allegedly. If inclusion policy and equality law is followed, then the individual officer has rights if personal or family safety is affected. Yes, all police officers do have to do things that they do not want to do, but sometimes legalities and other considerations for safety also have to be taken into account. According to police, a risk assessment was carried out which was ‘not favourable’. Israel’s destruction of Lebanon was repugnant act, yet the media choose not to focus on this. They prefer to criticize the critics of Zionism and defend Israel, no matter what terrorism or genocide it perpetrates. A small workplace issue becomes a subject of debate and mushrooms into another attack on the Muslim enemy within.

(From The Times)........Superintendent Dal Babu, the chairman of the Association of Muslim Police, said that the officer had asked for dispensation due to concerns about his welfare rather than political objections. "This is about the welfare of an individual and not about a moral issue," Mr Babu told the BBC today.

"This particular officer had brought an issue forward - his wife is Lebanese, his father is from Syria - and he brought up this issue at the start of August this year and had expressed a desire to be posted elsewhere while the war was going on."

"He is now working normal DPG [Diplomatic Protection Group] duties and, clearly, if an issue happens at the Israeli embassy he will deal with it.” Mr Babu said he had spoken to Mr Basha and his understanding of the situation was that he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe" guarding the embassy during the conflict. He acknowledged that allowing officers to be excused from duties because of their moral positions was unacceptable.

So there you have it. It wasn't really a moral objection anyway and the officer has stated that being excused for moral position is wrong. However, the right wing rags will not let inconvenient truths get in the way of a campaign against Muslims in this country. Police officers are human beings and should be entitled to objections to their duties as they see fit. I do not think, police officers should just be agents of the state. They have a duty of care and responsibility to the wider community. Should that mean suspending their morals and principles? If they do not want to shoot an unarmed man, should they be forced to do it? Only if we want a police force that is serving those in power, rather than the community.


Post a Comment

<< Home