Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Because isn't that what you have been arguing about all this time? Judging everyone individually, and not stereotyping across the board because one example fits an agenda?
An example of why not... Some Islamic scholars are terrorists. More than one, but not all. Does that mean we should ban all Islamic scholars? No, because that one example does not make the rule. You judge everyone independantly
Everyone keeps focusing on "looks like a terrorist"... That's rubbish. Radical domestic activists can pose as much of threat to the health and security of the nation, and they look nothing like an Islamic scholar.
If the Security Services see someone poses a threat to the lives of other people, then they should be able to deal with it with impunity, and not have to worry about the MCB or anyone else because the guy happens to be Muslim.
People seem to think nowadays the only terrorists now are Muslim. Well, they should go into London on May Day... Hang around Huntingdon Life Sciences a bit (or Oxford University now  ) |
OK. I have picked on one example of how the intelligence services can, shall we say, get things a wee bit wrong. It is one example but it illustrates wider weaknesses - in this case a five year old boy did not have to look like a terrorist but sound like one! Surely you must admit that there have been some very dubious bits of intelligence which have emerged? That's not to totally demean the security services (hence my tongue in cheek response previously) but to point out that in the hysteria of recent years they have made some very serious mistakes which have not defused the situation one iota (and have arguabky made it worse)
Of course the security services should act on
credible intelligence regardless of the race, religion, sex etc of the persons involved. The issue here is that the intelligence has been incredible. Add to that the particularly blunt (and historically abused) instrument of stop and search and you have a recipe for disaster as communities feel that their freedoms are being violated and and feel increasingly isolated. Policing will, per se, become more difficult in such circumstances as the Police lose the trust of the people they serve (cf. 1981 riots).
Incidentally heard a professor of criminology on the radio today talking about the poor crime detection rates which were published today; he made a similar point that without policing by consent detection will always be more difficult.
Gotta do some work today so this will be the last of me for a while; wouldn't want to be accused of ducking any issues in my absence!
