Quote:
|
Originally Posted by clairey
Transcript of the committee hearing were Ms Blears spoke
|
Thank you for posting that, I tried looking for it yesterday, but was unable to find it :-(
I would draw people's attention to the following section:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hazel Blears
Dealing with the counter-terrorist threat and the fact that at the moment the threat is most likely to come from those people associated with an extreme form of Islam, or falsely hiding behind Islam, if you like, in terms of justifying their activities, inevitably means that some of our counter-terrorist powers will be disproportionately experienced by people in the Muslim community. That is the reality of the situation, we should acknowledge that reality and then try to have as open, as honest and as transparent a debate with the community as we can. There is no getting away from the fact that if you are trying to counter the threat, because the threat at the moment is in a particular place, then your activity is going to be targeted in that way.
|
Now as far as I can see it clearly states that activity is a) falling disproportionately on the Muslim Community and b) that activity is being *targetted* towards that community.
She may not have explicitly said that Muslims should "accept" this, but I feel that is definitely very implicit in the statement "That is the reality of the situation, we should acknowledge that reality..."
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
Innocent people will be affected, as they always have been. But when you stop and search someone, you cannot be sure they are guilty. Hence, they may be innocent, and the stop and search may well prove that.
|
But, as I keep pointing out, you must have *reasonable grounds* for suspicion before doing a stop and search.
And "looking suspiciously like a Muslim" are *not* reasonable grounds.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
Parting shot:
STOPPED BY THE POLICE
|
And there we have it... it's because they are black/Asian/coloured. Obviously. It couldn't be (in the first instance) that perhaps he fitted a description of a known or reported drug dealer?[/quote]
"Fitted the description"?
"Well, Officer, he was black/ looked like a Muslim/ dressed in funny foreign clothes..."
Quote:
|
I lived in an area where EVERY arrest of anyone from an Asian/black/ethnic minority background was touted as being racist, however guilty the person was. You get used to it. Us realists accept it as people chancing their arm; liberal types throw up their arms, as if the police just do it for kicks (when on occasion, that's what they end up receiving).
|
So because *some* make claims that "it was racist", you narrow-minded types (see, I can sling personal insults around too) are willing to dismiss *all* such claims as nothing more than "people chancing their arm" whereas us open-minded types want to consider the bigger picture and note that there *IS* institutional racism in the Police as has been evinced several times already.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Intelligence that doesn't come from informants, apart from odd lucky breaks I mentioned before is "fishing" and as stated by you, is against an individual's right to privacy.
|
Yes, if you are doing it based on nothing more than a vague suspicion or because you don't like what the guy looks like/ what religion he espouses.
Quote:
Your phone taps example needs intelligence, so you can get the phone tap to get the intelligence you needed in the first place. Chicken-and-egg again. I am still waiting for you to mention any intelligence source that doesn't abuse an individual's right to privacy and doesn't rely on informants.
You said there were "many", so it can't be that hard.
|
Oh Punky, I can almost *see* you there at your keyboard going "Hah! I've got him! I've finally nailed Graham on a point he can't answer...!!"
But consider, for a moment, a Muslim Cleric who is preaching "death to the West". How about getting a Muslim Police officer to infiltrate his followers and associates and check out whether he or any of them are planning to do more than just shout slogans?
Or what about checking through his rubbish (not illegal) for documentation or materials that suggest terrorist intent?
Then again, if there is someone you are *already* investigating (and, possibly, whose phone you are legitimately tapping) and they phone up said Cleric and talk to him about planned action or in coded terms, that *would* give reasonable suspicion *without* invading privacy and would justify further investigation.
Are these sufficient to answer your question?