Police officer says 'no'

Remove all ads!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5408470.stm

A British Muslim policeman was asked to guard the Israeli embassy during the Lebanon conflict and refused his duty because he did not agree with Israeli or US foriegn policy.

I think a policeman should do exactly what he's told to do to the best of his ability. Personal feeligns or biases should not come into it.

What do you reckon?

 

Agreed.

I'm sure that African American policemen who are posted as guards for KKK rallies don't particularly enjoy or appreciate assignments such as those either, but Police Officers have a duty to protect regardless of whether or not they agree with the opinions or policies of those they protect. As the article said, "we can't pick and choose."

 

Should do the orders unless they are against positive or natural law. But he could have asked to be given a different assignment and I think he should be granted that.

 

I think he should be well within his rights to refuse if he believes it to be a morally wrong thing - unquestioning obediance traditionally leads to Bad Things happening.

'Murder these people!'
'But...!'
'You can't pick and choose!'

 

I agree with the sentiments Aikanaro has touched upon...but I'm afraid those are not completely valid in this case.

IMO, religion is a non-issue as far as police forces are concerned. If you are going to discriminate, saying "I'm Muslim and I will not guard the Israeli embassy!" then the day is not far off when you will say "I am Muslim and I will not arrest that Muslim bomber because I agree with his policies!"

Again I say...no picking and choosing when it comes to things like this!

 

If, in fact, all he did was request to be reassigned, I'm prone to believe nothing wrong was done here. It would be different if he had just refused to do his job.

 

It kind of makes you wonder how the Muslim police officer would feel if he was terminated from his job for failure to fulfill his duties. I'm guessing he would sue. I'm also guessing there would be riots. With this in mind, my guess is that the British police force will do nothing except cave.

 

The reason why I am chaotic

 

I don't think his reasons were valid. There was still a chance that innocent people working in the building might have been hurt. Part of his job is to protect people and keep the peace. Guarding the people has nothing to do with politics or foreign policy.

I might think Scientology is a complete load of steaming goat manure, but if I was a policeman I would still protect Scientologists from being murdered or robbed, because their loopy beliefs have nothing to do with their rights to be protected from criminals.

 

He's a police officer, he swore to uphold the law and his superiors. His duty is to the law, not the politics between countries and the ethics of those policies.

If he called for another assignment then he has the right to say he'd prefer to operate somewhere else but it doesn't mean that his commanders MUST give him the other assignment. If he's not prepared to uphold the law in all circumstances then he shouldn't have become a policeman.

 

It's just like a doctor refusing to treat someone who disagrees with his/her outlook. While I think that people should be able to go against their orders if they think they are morally wrong, or go against their person/religious belief, in this case I can't see that he was justified.

 

Right-ho -- I mean, that's just the real world for you, isn't it? If you don't do what people want you to do, then why are they going to give you money for it? (Feel free to restrict this statement to jobs, however.)

Well certainly -- the policeman is within his rights to refuse guarding Israelis; his employer is also within his rights to fire him. (Barring a contract or something, but I'd doubt you get that much with policemen.)

EDIT -- the article says he was reassigned anyhow, so I guess there's not much space for protest anyhow.

 

He asked for reassignment, was granted it, ... where's the story? Reassignments happen all the time, for various reasons. This one is no less worthy a reason than any other.

 

I think you missed my point, and if you didn't, than I just don't get it. Why should they fire him just because he asked to be reassigned? Look, I'm not saying that he refused to do the job(see the sentence I quote on my last post), that would be a whole other issue.

That it's exactly my point.

 

Well then there's no story and it's an example of common-sense prevailing over all.

 

Maybe I failed to imply that I was speaking in a general sense, but I think the rest of my previous post says that if he was just reassigned -- well, then where is the big deal? It's just that if the policemand had refused, then there is nothing wrong with firing him. So I was agreeing with you, but then just went on my own tangent.

 

I didn't see anyone post it though I'm sure it was in the article:

1)He asked to be re-assigned during the bombardment of Lebanon by Israel.

2) His wife is Lebanese

3) His parents (father is Syrian).

4) His family background would be a matter of police record since he was in the diplomatic corp.

5) Why on earth did his superiors not re-assign him in the circumstances as a matter of course? Plenty of other diplomats around London last time I looked!

6) Complete non-story, though sadly got a lot of milage due to the Muslim connection which is all anything needs to have to be news in the UK at the moment.

Rant over