[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

From the same BBC article:

"Statistics showed that of the 17 people found guilty of terrorist acts in the UK since the 11 September attacks, only four of the 12 whose ethnic backgrounds were known were Muslim, he added

Yes? So what - we know there are other terrorists out there apart from muslims, we still have the IRA to deal with. Although there is a cease fire IRA persons are still being arrested on terrorist charges, and I'm sure they are closely watched as well.

Figures published last week showed that people from ethnic minorities were increasingly likely to be targeted by police stop and search tactics. [

Figures showed that, for 2003/2004, Asians were 1.9 times more likely to be stopped and searched, compared with 1.7 times more likely in the previous year.

so not twice as likely, or three times as likely or four times as likely. Last year it was .7more times as likely and has gone up a wopping .2 this year.

Whose to say that there isn't good reason for this figure to be higher?

Separate figures on police searches in England and Wales carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000 showed that ethnic minorities were more likely to be targeted.

You have to read the wording it says firstly "under the Terrorism act" and secondly "police searches" - not "stop and searches" This figure obviously covers raids on houses etc where suspected terrorists. It is a fact that if you are looking for a muslim extremist terrorist cell it is likely to be staffed by an ethnic minority, that being muslim extremists.

It's afact you can't get away from

Muslim groups have repeatedly claimed that their communities are being victimised under terror laws.

In 2003/2004, 12.5% searches under the laws were on Asian people, even though they make up 4.7% of the population. [/quote] Where in the rule book does it say that the amount searches carried out must be proportional to the population spread?

Last July, the police were accused of Islamophobia by Muslim groups after stop and search figures showed the numbers of Asians targeted had risen by 300% since the introduction of anti-terror laws. "

You've just quoted further up that in the last year it has risen .2 times as likely. Statistics can be thrown at anything. Talking in percentages and times's as likely you can paint any picture you want.

If 5 are stopped one week and 20 the week after - my god that's a 400% rise in week!!!! something must be done!!!

"The Times and Telegraph focus on civil liberties, picking up the words of Home Office Minister Hazel Blears that more Muslims in Britain can expect to be stopped and searched under Britain's anti-terror laws.

Read it ---- "picking up on the words of" - this is not a quote. She has said one thing and they have interpreted it as this. That does not mean that they are correct

The Guardian quotes a representative of the Islamic Human Rights Commission as saying Ms Blears is "demonising and alienating our community".

Nope the extremists are doing a fine job of that themselves

"Ms Blearsââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s comments appear to conflict with the commitment by the police not to target suspects because of their race, a key recommendation of the 1999 inquiry by Sir William Macpherson into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, a black teenager.

She said yesterday that Britainââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s 1.5 million Muslims should accept as a reality that people of Islamic appearance are more likely to be stopped and searched."

EDIT: Evening Standard:

"Home Office Minister Hazel Blears was at the centre of a race row today after claiming that Muslims in Britain should accept they are more likely than others to be stopped and searched by police.

Misquoted - Again... Where does she say that Muslims should accept that they are more likely.

The Evening standard is saying that, she isn't

Giving evidence to Westminster's home affairs committee, she said it was a "reality" that anti-terrorism work would be targeted at people of Islamic appearance.

Can you provide the transcript where she says this, all you have given is what the paper says she says - which is not accurate