Muslims should expect to be stopped....

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think everyones over reacting here.

Where does she say that. Has anyone taken the time to read what she is quoted on??????

She says

Nowhere does she even mention "stop and search" it is the BBC hyping something up and its lazy journalism, making a story out of nothing. She says "counter terrorism powers" which covers a very wide spectrum. Phone taps, surveilance etc

She is saying the threat is from Muslim extremists therefore their resource will be disproportioninately focused on Muslims - as opposed to Roman Catholics

When the threat of terrorism comes from Extremist Muslims its no use putting phone taps on Bhuddists.

No everybody calm down.



Two words "Lip - Service"

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

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.

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.

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.

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. "

EDIT: Are those lazy BBC journalists freelancing all over the shop? From a BBC round up of today's papers:

"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.


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

EDIT: And from The Times:

"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.

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.

[me283]

And of course we must not get confused here. Islam is a religion, not a race. So this cannot be deemed as racial discrimination. If anything, it's religious discrimination. Typical of the instant using and abusing of the "Race" trump card.

Originally Posted by me283

And of course we must not get confused here. Islam is a religion, not a race. So this cannot be deemed as racial discrimination. If anything, it's religious discrimination. Typical of the instant using and abusing of the "Race" trump card.

Except that racists do use Asian (well a derogatory variation) and Muslim as interchangeable terms. And most Muslims in this country are of Asian descent. Yes it is religious discrimination but it has wider links with race. Whether it's race or religion, it's wrong. And it's an election year.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Except that racists do use Asian (well a derogatory variation) and Muslim as interchangeable terms. And most Muslims in this country are of Asian descent. Yes it is religious discrimination but it has wider links with race. Whether it's race or religion, it's wrong. And it's an election year.

And intelligent people use the term "Muslim" to describe a follower of Islam. One would hope (possibly in vain) that a Government Minister is an intelligent person!

Andy, you would appear to be as guilty as those that you describe, if you think that all people fall into the category you describe. And therein lies a problem: one cannot address an issue relating to "Muslims" without being ASSUMED to be referring to people of Asian descent.

I lived for many years in an area with a high Asian population, and saw many instances of people using the term "Racism" all too freely. The general reaction to this seemed to be "reverse racism", where the attention was focussed on people who were deemed unable to cry "racism". That in itself appears to be worse discrimination.

[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

Originally Posted by me283

And intelligent people use the term "Muslim" to describe a follower of Islam. One would hope (possibly in vain) that a Government Minister is an intelligent person!

Andy, you would appear to be as guilty as those that you describe, if you think that all people fall into the category you describe. And therein lies a problem: one cannot address an issue relating to "Muslims" without being ASSUMED to be referring to people of Asian descent.

I lived for many years in an area with a high Asian population, and saw many instances of people using the term "Racism" all too freely. The general reaction to this seemed to be "reverse racism", where the attention was focussed on people who were deemed unable to cry "racism". That in itself appears to be worse discrimination.

Possibly not explained myself very well. Muslim is used as a casual, catch all derogatory term by racists. They know that because of Islamophobia they won't necessarily get picked up on it whereas calling people 'Pakis' (which many, many still do) is more likely to provoke a negative reaction (although its shameful that many don't challenge it). And there is an undeniable link between race and British muslims which is why racists seize upon the current Islamophobic vogue.

Bit off topic but vaguely pertinent. I had a row with a friend the other week. She had complained, quite rightly, to her white daughter's school about racist comments made by a couple of Asian lads (don't know if they were muslim or not). The school has even handedly applied its anti-racism policy and disciplined those children. So far so good.

But when I challenged her on why I had heard the same daughter going on in her front room about how "pakis should go back to where they came from" (mainly Bury as it happens!) and that it was learnt behaviour from her parents, she replied without irony - and this is no word of a lie - "but some of my best friends are Pakis"! Leaving aside this is simply not true, she couldn't see the offence the word 'Paki' could cause. And, of course, it is difficult to complain about racism by people of Asian descent (or whatever) when you are practising it ahgainstr them in daily life. Finally I don't agree with racism from wherever it comes but there can be little doubt that there is more race hate directed towards Asian than there is against whites, even taking into account the disturbing rise in anti-Semitic attacks.
Increasing stop and search powers against people because they look like a muslim is not going to aid race relations and the feeling that I'm sure many muslims feel that they are being discriminated against in so many walks of life. I also don't think it will have any effect on reducing terrorist threat.
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

You slated lazy BBC journalists. All the papers seem to have reported the comments in the same way, suggesting they all interpreted them in the same way. Of course they could all be wrong.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

You slated lazy BBC journalists. All the papers seem to have reported the comments in the same way, suggesting they all interpreted them in the same way. Of course they could all be wrong.

Yes, because the lazy BBC journo's probably picked it up from the papers lead.

They all interpret the best way to sell a story, and muggins like yourself lap it all up.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes, because the lazy BBC journo's probably picked it up from the papers lead.

They all interpret the best way to sell a story, and muggins like yourself lap it all up.

No need to call me muggins

So the lazy BBC journalists picked it up from the press journalists from across the political spectrum (though not seen the Mail yet to be fair although sister paper Evening Standard seems to share similar political views) all of whom have misinterpreted her statement. OK, now I understand.
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

Isn't 1.9 times more likely, when rounded up, 2 times more likely. As I say I'm not very numerate.

EDIT: And yes, the muggins journos at the Daily Mail read her comments the same way: "Home Office minister Hazel Blears is facing an angry backlash over comments that Muslims should accept they are more likely to be stopped and searched by police. "

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Possibly not explained myself very well. Muslim is used as a casual, catch all derogatory term by racists. They know that because of Islamophobia they won't necessarily get picked up on it whereas calling people 'Pakis' (which many, many still do) is more likely to provoke a negative reaction (although its shameful that many don't challenge it). And there is an undeniable link between race and British muslims which is why racists seize upon the current Islamophobic vogue.

Bit off topic but vaguely pertinent. I had a row with a friend the other week. She had complained, quite rightly, to her white daughter's school about racist comments made by a couple of Asian lads (don't know if they were muslim or not). The school has even handedly applied its anti-racism policy and disciplined those children. So far so good.

But when I challenged her on why I had heard the same daughter going on in her front room about how "pakis should go back to where they came from" (mainly Bury as it happens!) and that it was learnt behaviour from her parents, she replied without irony - and this is no word of a lie - "but some of my best friends are Pakis"! Leaving aside this is simply not true, she couldn't see the offence the word 'Paki' could cause. And, of course, it is difficult to complain about racism by people of Asian descent (or whatever) when you are practising it ahgainstr them in daily life. Finally I don't agree with racism from wherever it comes but there can be little doubt that there is more race hate directed towards Asian than there is against whites, even taking into account the disturbing rise in anti-Semitic attacks.
Increasing stop and search powers against people because they look like a muslim is not going to aid race relations and the feeling that I'm sure many muslims feel that they are being discriminated against in so many walks of life. I also don't think it will have any effect on reducing terrorist threat.
__________________

Yes, "Pakis" is n an unpleasant term, but I have heard it used my many Asians! And do you think the term "Brits" is derogatory? Or do you think referring to people as "black" is wrong? But what about people being "white"? Whenevr a label is put on a person or group, it is done so to differentiate them; this should not always be classed as discrimination. In this case, the label is "Muslims".

I have friends of many races and religions, and can see that the claimed discrimination against Muslims can be viewed as racism. I prefer to think of it as being a visible (if not always effective) attempt to combat terrorism.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by me283

Of course, those who claim that this is all an injustice could perhaps tell the Police etc how to spot a terrorist? What exactly does a terrorist look like? And then we must assume that the guilty person would put their hands up and say "Damn, you got me. Yes, I am a terrorist. May I have a prison cell please?". Sadly, the days of "It's a fair cop, guv" are all in the dim and distant past.

*Ahem*

At the Old Bailey yesterday, Badat pleaded guilty to conspiracy to destroy, damage or endanger an aircraft.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Ahem

Sorry, I wasn't there. Was this action followed by a large number of individuals walking into police stations and handing themselves in? One guilty plea won't exactly result in an end to terrorism.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by me283

Sorry, I wasn't there. Was this action followed by a large number of individuals walking into police stations and handing themselves in? One guilty plea won't exactly result in an end to terrorism.

I didn't say it would, I was merely pointing out that such a thing can happen.......

Originally Posted by punky

The police can only search people who match descriptions of people who are parties of interest.

The Police can only search people when they have *reasonable grounds* for suspecting that they will find:-

* stolen goods; or
* an offensive weapon; or
* any article made or adapted for use in certain offences, for example a burglary or theft; or
* an article with a blade or point; or
* items which could damage or destroy property, for example spray paint cans.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nm/ind...#Stopandsearch

Originally Posted by me283

Yes, "Pakis" is n an unpleasant term, but I have heard it used my many Asians! And do you think the term "Brits" is derogatory? Or do you think referring to people as "black" is wrong? But what about people being "white"? Whenevr a label is put on a person or group, it is done so to differentiate them; this should not always be classed as discrimination. In this case, the label is "Muslims".

I have friends of many races and religions, and can see that the claimed discrimination against Muslims can be viewed as racism. I prefer to think of it as being a visible (if not always effective) attempt to combat terrorism.

There are many examples of derogatory terms being re-appropriated by those against whom they are used - that is a big, big difference. No I don't think the terms 'black' or white' are in themselves derogatory. But if you abuse someone by calling them a black/white b*st*rd you (not you I hasten to add) are using someone's ethnicity as an element of that abuse. The racist comment directed at my friend's child was 'f*ck*ng white b*tch" for example - its the inclsion of white that made it racist.

You concede that this is a visible bit not necessarily effective method of combating terrorism so I guess we're not so far apart! I think that not only will this measure not be effective buit it will be divisive and, ultimately, could increase sympathy for terrorism among those who are increasingly oppressed.
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

The Police can only search people when they have *reasonable grounds* for suspecting that they will find:-

* stolen goods; or
* an offensive weapon; or
* any article made or adapted for use in certain offences, for example a burglary or theft; or
* an article with a blade or point; or
* items which could damage or destroy property, for example spray paint cans.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nm/ind...#Stopandsearch

Can't see wearing a hijab on that list!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

The Police can only search people when they have *reasonable grounds* for suspecting that they will find:-

* stolen goods; or
* an offensive weapon; or
* any article made or adapted for use in certain offences, for example a burglary or theft; or
* an article with a blade or point; or
* items which could damage or destroy property, for example spray paint cans.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nm/ind...#Stopandsearch

Quite right too! What escapes me is why people here think that the police would want to stop/search anyone if they didn't have a suspicion......why would they want to waste the time