Muslims should expect to be stopped....

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

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.

I get the impression this is being done to appease those that always say afterwards that "the police did nothing to prevent it".

Originally Posted by Pierre

If it was rastafarians that flew two jets into the WTC we'd probably be stopping them more often too.

And if the people who had done it had used the name or alias Pierre, you'd be happy to be considered a suspect and potential terrorist...???

I hate that phrase, it's another phrase that is quoted all too often and all too easy.

It's unlikely that a group of asian teenagers hanging out on street corner will be stopped on anti-terror grounds.

However, 4 asian men acting suspiciously in an airport or near an airport, probably would.

And what is "acting suspiciously"? Or is it sufficient that four men "of Islamic appearance" are near an airport that would be enough for them to be searched?

Presumption of innocence? Oh that's not important...

The Islamic Human Rights group shouldn't complain to us about that, they should complain to extremist elements within their communities.

Sorry, who is this "us" you are talking about?? And what makes "them" separate from "us"? These are very often *UNITED KINGDOM CITIZENS* we are talking about!

They are *US*!!
__________________

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

hmm... A group of extremist Muslims have threatened us.... so we need to find these people.... let me think.... hmmm..... I know! to avoid offending anyone lets have the police stop all the one legged midgets, that talk with a Spanish accent, and wear big hats - that way we can't be accused of being racist!

Ah, the first Straw Man of the thread...!

We are talking about a *minority* of Muslims that are a threat, tarring the members of an *entire religion* as potential terrorists based on nothing more than how they look or what clothes they wear is just a *little* excessive.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

No need to call me muggins

A term of endearment I assure you

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.

Not misinterpreted, there's no mistake. They have interpreted it for the maximum effect to sell papers or get a good story. No where in any quotes do I see:

1. The have been instructed to stop and search more Asians
2. The asian community will just have to accept it.

For the love of god will you READ what she says:

"The threat is most likely to come from those people associated with an extreme form of Islam, or who are falsely hiding behind Islam,"

Would you argue with that????

"It means that some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community."

"Counter terrorism powers", phone tapping, surveilance, house searches - poosibly stop and search but highly bloody unlikely unless by sheer chance they happen to nab Bin Laden as he leaves his local chippy.

"If a threat is from a particular place then our action is going to be targeted at that area,"

Again please argue against this - or should we target Chinatown town in case Al-qaeda are all in fancy dress and using a chinese laundry as a front?
_________________

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

2 times more likely than what, where, how percentages and "times's as likely" do not tell you anything

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. "

They have a paper to sell don't they.

The headline Hazel Bears tells it, the way it is and shes right too. is not as juicy is it??

Originally Posted by Paul M

I take it you would rather be blown up then

Oh look, the second Straw Man.

(I really should have had a sealed envelope with predictions of all these in so I could open it and tick them off as they turned up )

Firstly can you *prove* that I am *more* at risk of "being blown up" by innocent Muslims being harassed because of the actions of a minority? I doubt it.

Secondly it could be argued that I *am* more at risk *because* of this harassment causing disaffected Muslim youths to be driven towards the extremists "in revenge" for the treatment they are getting.

All behaviour like this does is breed fear, suspicion and hatred and drives a wedge between "them" and "us" instead of bringing us *closer* together so we can fight the terrorist threat from both sides.

The vast majority of Muslims decry and despise the terrorists as much as anyone, but if we then consider *them* to be a threat simply because they share the same religious beliefs (although not necessarily the methods) we risk doing more damage that would outweigh any possible benefit of "safety".
__________________

Originally Posted by TigaSefi

I suggest that the Muslims get on with it and sort themselves out, they aren't doing themselves any favours by letting extremists get away with acts of terrors.

And *we* aren't doing ourselves any favours by attitudes like this!

Do you *really* think that most Muslims *want* to see these acts of terror committed in the name of their religion? No, of course not.

But when *we* just look at them and say "hmm, Muslim, may be a terrorist" or "they're letting terrorists get away with it", there may be some who would respond "in which case, screw them, let them get blown up. They don't care about us, why should we care about them?"

We should be *helping* them stop terrorists, not alienating them.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Firstly can you *prove* that I am *more* at risk of "being blown up" by innocent Muslims being harassed because of the actions of a minority? I doubt it.

And can you tell me how to spot a "terrorist" Muslim amongst "innocent" Muslims? And the same principle could be applied to any group. If you had reason to believe that Spaniards were goint to cause an outrage, you wouldn't just seek out the ones that "look like" they belong to ETA?

And my previous point: I would have no objection to being stopped and searched, as I have nothing to hide.

Originally Posted by andyl

Of course the Government has clearly done its research and seen how successful the SUS laws of the late 70s were

[...]

You cannot stigmatise a majority for the actions of a minority. Besides I thought modern policing was supposed to be intelligence led. Random stop and search of one section of the community doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

Hear hear!

And the Islamic Council of GB and other major islamic bodies are consistent in their condemnation of terrorism. Funny how that fails to grab the headlines though.

Exactly! It doesn't sell newspapers, so why give it prominence.

The fact it gives a totally biased and one-sided picture is a mere detail.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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

On Radio London this morning this very topic was being discussed, it was mentioned there that under the new terrorism legislation the police *don`t* need a reason to stop and search if they claim that they are doing it for terrorism prevention reasons, so effectively it is a big catch-all clause.

Not sure how right or wrong that comment is, but the page you linked to does have a 2002 copyright date on it, so it may not be completely up to date.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

And if the people who had done it had used the name or alias Pierre, you'd be happy to be considered a suspect and potential terrorist...???

Don't know if I'd be happy, but what I thought wouldn't matter, I'd either be suspect or I wouldn't.

And what is "acting suspiciously"? Or is it sufficient that four men "of Islamic appearance" are near an airport that would be enough for them to be searched?

Possibly, that would be a judgement for the police at the time as to what they thought.

Presumption of innocence? Oh that's not important...

Who said they were guilty, "hello sir, do you mind if I ask you few questions and have alook arounf and inside your vehicle? It'll just take few minutes and then you can be on your way"

Sorry, who is this "us" you are talking about?? And what makes "them" separate from "us"? These are very often *UNITED KINGDOM CITIZENS* we are talking about!

They are *US*!!

Point taken - not a good choice of words.

[Ramrod]

We have heard what the govt shouldnt be doing.........So what should the govt be doing about a muslim terrorist threat?

Originally Posted by TigaSefi

Erm... I thought I said I was stopped and searched before going into shopping malls. To me that was a disruption of my "daily life"??? Don't have any problems with it though.

Sorry, how many people with explosive waistcoats have we had in UK shopping malls or on buses or in market places...???
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

One of my receptionists is muslim and she says that there is still a feeling among muslims here that fellow muslims shouldn't be 'grassed'.....it appears to be a religious thing, you shouldn't betray a brother to the infidels.

And some members of the Black community will say the same about their "brothers". And some of the Irish community... and some of the Criminal community...

And whilst we're at it, at school you didn't grass your mates up to teacher either...

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

We should be *helping* them stop terrorists, not alienating them.

.....and they should be helping us stop terrorists......but they don't appear to be very enthusiastic about doing so.
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

And some members of the Black community will say the same about their "brothers". And some of the Irish community... and some of the Criminal community...

And whilst we're at it, at school you didn't grass your mates up to teacher either...

ermmmmm........so what?
The fact remains that a muslim has told me that many other muslims that she knows would be reticent about reporting 'subversive' activity to the authorities.
__________________

Originally Posted by graham

And what is "acting suspiciously"? Or is it sufficient that four men "of Islamic appearance" are near an airport that would be enough for them to be searched?

But they would look pretty f'kin stupid if the four were terrorists and the police hadn't stopped them because they looked like muslims

Originally Posted by Pierre

She says

Nowhere does she even mention "stop and search"

It is not necessary for her to *explicitly* mention it, it is *implicit* in what she says.

She says "counter terrorism powers" which covers a very wide spectrum. Phone taps, surveilance etc

Yes, but then, as you go on to say...

She is saying the threat is from Muslim extremists therefore their resource will be disproportioninately focused on Muslims

You see, it's this word "disproportionately" that gives problems.

If the response was *proportionate* to the threat, I wouldn't necessarily object so greatly, but she's *not* talking about it being "proportionate".

She's talking about treating an entire *religion* as suspects.

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

It is no use alienating an entire culture and religion when you should be trying to get them *on* your side.

No everybody calm down.

Two words "Lip - Service"

Oh, that's *priceless* Pierre!!

You're asking everyone to calm down then you say something grossly offensive and inflammatory to the entire Islamic religion saying that *all* of their condemnations of terrorist are nothing but "lip service" and implying that, secretly they're actually approving of these actions and want them to succeed.

[Neil]

Is everyone playing nicely in here?

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, how many people with explosive waistcoats have we had in UK shopping malls or on buses or in market places...???

How many do you want? And how many does it take for you to perceive it to be a threat? Answer: None. And none. Wait for it to happen and it's no longer a threat.

What is being proposed are "preventative" measures, not punishments. Punishment comes after the act. I know which I would prefer to happen.

Originally Posted by me283

Personally I wouldn't have any objection to being stopped and searched as I have nothing to hide.

Whoops! There goes another one on the list...

You have the *right* to be *presumed innocent*. That is a most basic and fundamental right of justice in this country, yet you are seemingly content to toss that away without a thought because you think it will make "a safer world".

And if it means a safer world then it's a small price to pay.

And once again I quote Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".

If we lose the right to the presumption of innocence we risk extending what is *already* happening in places like Belmarsh Prison and with the government's intended "house arrest" orders with people being locked away without a fair trial, without any *proof* of their guilt and without them being able to even challenge the order!

There are plenty of people in this world who have used such powers. Mugabe, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ceaucescu, Pinochet...

What a merry band to join...

As for racism, let's not overlook the fact that it's a two-way street. Many people cry "racism" before knowing the facts, just to use the "R" buzz-word. Life is by it's essence racist, in some small measure. Life is also full of civil rights and liberties being infringed. People should just get on with it, until it becomes unbearable.

You miss the point. It is *ALREADY* unbearable. It should *NOT* be this way and just because *you* are sitting there smugly thinking "I'm alright, Jack" does *NOT* make it alright for others who are suffering from these infringements.
__________________

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?

So because we can't *spot* a terrorist, since they're not wearing big signs saying "I'm a terrorist" we should assume that *ANYONE* who looks vaguely Muslim may be a terrorist and thus should be happy to have their basic rights violated...???

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "injustice"...