Thursday, October 05, 2006

Useful Idiot

Paul Vallely in the Independent :

"In an age scarred by flashpoints between cultures and religions, it is easy to make accusations of prejudice or bigotry. But, argues Paul Vallely, we have all got something to gain from developing new sensitivities."

Like keeping our heads on our shoulders ? While they get another retreat, another concession. It's a win-win situation.

"But in many places there is a growing realisation that freedom of expression is not absolute but needs to be governed by a sense of social responsibility. To elevate one right above all others is the hallmark of the single-issue fanatic. Sometimes it is wise to choose not to exercise a right."

Like when people try to kill you if you do ?

"Instead of an emotional debate which closes down rational discourse, it is the way to build common values - ones which recognise the inalienable right to freedom of expression but which, at the same time, demand it be exercised in a measured way."

I'm not sure how the words 'inalienable right' sit alongside the word 'demands'.


Meanwhile :

"An inquiry has been ordered by Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair 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.

He has a Syrian father and a Lebanese wife. "

17 comments:

JuliaM said...

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

Why...?

Anonymous said...

So the Police are being threatened and are concerned for their safety?? Who si making these threats and why isn't anything done about it?!!!!

Rick said...

Why should I trust a Muslim in any public position to be impartial ?

Anonymous said...

Why isn't this racist sacked?

Anonymous said...

It's Ian Blair who should be sacked. He's a politicised cop and way too cosy with Ken Livingstone.

Anonymous said...

An armed police officer who happens to be Muslim, telling us his affiliations are with Syria and Lebanon... not with the UK!

What damage would he do if he got really pissed off with citizens of the UK, or if he got riled up at one of the many jihad rallies held in central London??

AntiCitizenOne said...

I detest Islam.

I'll bet because I'm not likely to murder people they won't be sensitive to my opinions.

Anonymous said...

from the Evening Standard about this...

PC Basha - in his late twenties and with a neatly-trimmed beard - is understood he has recently taken part in recent anti-war protests.

Talk about dual loyalties...

Anonymous said...

Well PC Basha needs to pack his bags and head back to the ME - he'll much safer there Im sure. If he catches the tube to Heathrow he could be on the way home by tonight.

And obviously he needs to be sacked first.

Anonymous said...

It appears he is an armed officer as well...the mind boggles.

TottenhamLad said...

Anyone know if police officers can join the BNP (a party with currently at least 12 councillors in Barking and Dagenham) or BNP members can become police officers?

Larry Teabag said...

Yes, yes, yes. The dhimmi state really has arrived. It's Islamic boot-licking and decapitation for all of us from now to evermore.

Except that maybe the fact that he's Muslim was rather less important than the fact that he had relatives beneath the bombs in Lebanon.

And maybe it's just good operational practice that policemen shouldn't have to work in situations in which they have too big a personal involvement.

But then again he did go on anti-war rallies, so he must be a traitor.

Snafu said...

Tottenhamlad, BNP members are banned from joining the Met. Police as it is deemed they would not treat all Londoners equally.

JuliaM said...

"..maybe it's just good operational practice that policemen shouldn't have to work in situations in which they have too big a personal involvement."

Well, not if they leave their personal feelings at the door when they don their uniform, and, oh, say, do their $%&@ing job without fear or favour.....

But hey, let's just let this one slide. Too tricky to handle. Just all keep our heads down & hope the issue goes away. Mustn't rock the boat....

After all, it isn't like he wanted to become a member of a legitimate political party while a police officer - that's the sort of thing that is beyond the pale in the modern police force, apparently....

verity said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dangerouslysubversivedad said...

"But then again he did go on anti-war rallies, so he must be a traitor."

Yes he must if he's going on rallies where the participants wave Hezbollah flags and call for the destruction of Israel. Under those circumstances he's also an anti-Jewish racist by the way. I didnt support the 'War' either but none of the so-called Stop The War rallies have anything to do with stopping warfare.

You might have a point about a regular PC PC Plodperson and dual loyalties. But this is an ARMED OFFICER. When you have that responsibility you dont get the luxury of sitting down, getting in touch with your inner morals and working out whether the man charging toward the innocent public with the funny-looking belt on has a 'legitimate grievance' or not. You have to act immediately or people die.

Clematis Fraudster said...

I do broadly agree with Paul Vallely that freedom of expression should is a right and hence the owner of that right has some responsibility in knowing when "not to exercise [that] right."

But when others "demand" [his word] that you should exercise that right on their terms or face death, then that right ceases to be a right in any meaningful sense. It becomes a potential death sentence.

Furthermore, I reject the notion completely that we should - in the name of "sensitivity" - not be able to question the fundaments of another's most deeply-held beliefs.

If you tell me that it is your sincerely-held view that ghosts exist, then I have every right to question you - and hold those beliefs up to scientific and rational scrutiny.

If I claim that, on balance, your beliefs have little substance, what then? Do you kill me? Do you use the law to stop me from making perfectly reasonable enquiries?

That is where we are now. If historical evidence shows that Mohammad was a murderer, a rapist, an aggressive imperialist - it does and even the Koran states as much - then how can one possibly claim that stating them publicly is an abuse of freedom of expression?

In other words, the parameters of what is acceptable "freedom of expression" are being narrowed daily and people like Vallely are encouraging it to happen.