Muslims should expect to be stopped....

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

I accept the point you are trying to make. But why has every paper got the same interpretation? She either said it, strongly implied it or journos were briefed after the event. THey do not usually achieve a consensus. Journalists can be lemmings but it's not often you find the Mail and The Guardian coming to the same conclusion!

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.

And this is simply a red herring.

Fine, it's not "racism" it's "religionism".

Whatever you want to call it, it's discriminating against *one* particular group, race, religion, whatever and it is unjust.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

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 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...



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.
__________________



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"...

And I suggest you think of a better way to prevent terrorism. If you want to sit there and wait for an aeroplane to fly into a skyscraper before someone is considered a danger, then more fool you. I think you will find that not everyone who is a Muslim will be persecuted; I think you will find house arrest to be a little harder to apply for and put in place than an ASBO; and I think you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you believe that "Innocent Till Proven Guilty" is an active concept of English Law.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

And this is simply a red herring.

Fine, it's not "racism" it's "religionism".

Whatever you want to call it, it's discriminating against *one* particular group, race, religion, whatever and it is unjust.

How? If one suspects that Muslims intend to perpetrate a crime in the name of Islam, do you not think it sensible and logical to question Muslims? Or would you rather the police raided the local synagogue?

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

Yes, but are *all* Irish people being considered potential terrorists? Is everyone who talks with an Irish accent being targetted?

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

It is also glib and unhelpful and pointless in this argument. You cannot base a policy targetted at a majority based on the behaviour of a minority.

Where in the rule book does it say that the amount searches carried out must be proportional to the population spread?

It doesn't. It does, however, as I quoted above, say there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion and that's *not* just "looking suspiciously Muslim".

Nope the extremists are doing a fine job of that themselves

Oh, right, so we should *help* them along by alienating the Islamic community...?!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

"Counter terrorism powers" now that is big area. I suppose the headlines could easily have read.

Home office minister advises asians that they are all going to be locked up without trial

That's a counter terrorism power they have, but she didn't say that or indeed imply that. Nor did she imply that they were going to stop and search everybody either.

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



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.

Is's disporportionate in so far as if you are an islamic asian then you are more likely to viewed with suspicion in a given circumstance - that is a fact, there's no wrapping it up in sugar.

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.

Words in mouth time, much like what's happened to the minister.

I'm not implying that. However, I do believe that not all those that speak out are genuine.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

What some people in here and the Home Office Minister seem to be arguing is that those who *are* stopped and searched should be *happy* to be so, "just in case", *because* it will "prevent terrorism".

Originally Posted by me283

And I suggest you think of a better way to prevent terrorism. If you want to sit there and wait for an aeroplane to fly into a skyscraper before someone is considered a danger, then more fool you. I think you will find that not everyone who is a Muslim will be persecuted; I think you will find house arrest to be a little harder to apply for and put in place than an ASBO; and I think you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you believe that "Innocent Till Proven Guilty" is an active concept of English Law.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

The response to the "terrorist threat" disproprtionate and besides is likely to increase that threat. Remember the 'First they came for..." quote - this is the same story. ASBOs are, incidentally, another example of this Government abusing the justice system. You do not face a trial to receive an ASBO but can be jailed if you break the terms of it. The Government has totally lost sight of the innocent until proven guilty concept (you've had your sympathy on your speeding ticket (see Road Traffic Act thread); I think this is just a wee bit more serious) which should underpin our justice system and our understanding of what a civilised country is. Even the Tories are now saying this which just goes to show how widespread disquiet is on the increasingly draconian measures they are seeking to employ.

As for other tactics. Very many people are calling for the use of phone tap evidence in trials; the Government is rejecting this (for seemingly spurious 'security' reasons which even the Police don't agree with). Targeted intelligence is likely to yield far more success than indiscrimate hounding of muslims per se.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

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".

Everyone in this country IS presumed innocent until proven guity in court. That includes When you are being questioned informally, arrested, charged, bailed, remanded. That includes being questioned on on suspicious

To say that we aren't allowed to question people because they fit the description of a suspect, because it infers guilt before court is wrong.

[Pierre]

Yes, but are *all* Irish people being considered potential terrorists? Is everyone who talks with an Irish accent being targetted?

I don't know if you where ever in Northern Ireland before the cease fire. (no doubt Bifta will concur)

I had friends that lived in Strabane, when we used to go out to Derry or just about anywhere there was a good chance you would be stopped by a mobile patrol, asked questions, possibly searched.

As matter of routine, it wasn't nice but it was fact of life. so in answer to your question yes everyone in N.I. was targeted.

Originally Posted by me283

And can you tell me how to spot a "terrorist" Muslim amongst "innocent" Muslims?

Yes, you use *intelligence* (which could be *supplied* by the innocent members of the Muslim community who may have suspicions of one of their members) to investigate that person.

Of course if you've ******ed off the members of that community by treating them *all* as potential terrorists, some who may have come forward might, instead say "to hell with them".

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?

So, based on this, you would treat *every* Spaniard as a potential threat?

Paging Senator Joseph McCarthy...

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

And I suggest you do a search in these groups for posts with my name and the words "presumed innocent until proven guilty" included for a multitude of arguments for why this is an extremely short sighted and foolish statement.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

What some people in here and the Home Office Minister seem to be arguing is that those who *are* stopped and searched should be *happy* to be so, "just in case", *because* it will "prevent terrorism".

Not be happy, just get used to it until the current threat is over.

[me283]

What is not denied is that there is a threat from Muslim groups. Real or perceived, it is still a threat. The question is what to do. Be seen to be actively aware and preventative of it, or just wait till it happens and sit around wringing our hands?

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

The point is, under the arguments being made here you *would* be a suspect for no other reason than your name or how you look!

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

Now consider you're one of those people. "Hello, sunshine, we think you're a terrorist". "Why?" "Because you look like a Muslim..."

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"

Oh ye gods, you really don't get it, do you?

QUESTION: *WHY* are they having a look inside the vehicle and asking questions?

ANSWER: It's *not* because they thing they're innocent...!!

Point taken - not a good choice of words.

Thank you.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

What some people in here and the Home Office Minister seem to be arguing is that those who *are* stopped and searched should be *happy* to be so, "just in case", *because* it will "prevent terrorism".

Noone should be happy about it, but people should be reasonable about it. If someone reported a rape by a large man, dark hair, long beard, blue jeans and white t-shirt, and I happened to be walking in the area at the time, not long after, i'd understand why I was questioned. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't bleat that it was against my civil rights, that I was prejudiced, etc.

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, you use *intelligence* (which could be *supplied* by the innocent members of the Muslim community who may have suspicions of one of their members) to investigate that person.

Of course if you've ******ed off the members of that community by treating them *all* as potential terrorists, some who may have come forward might, instead say "to hell with them".

So if we agree that inside informants (Like Ramrod said) is extremely unlikely, we have to rely on intelligence. Is that the same intelligence you claim is gathered against our civil rights?

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

And I suggest you do a search in these groups for posts with my name and the words "presumed innocent until proven guilty" included for a multitude of arguments for why this is an extremely short sighted and foolish statement.

Foolish is a tad strong methinks. But it does come across that you are sat somewhere in your ivory tower believing the world is a lovely place full of wonderful people. As for terrorism, it will never happen to you.

Fine, but don't whinge when you are affected by something that COULD have been prevented, but wasn't, all because the civil rights brigade thought the measures were "infringing civil liberties". The world is full of people who harm or wish to harm others, often indiscriminately. They show no compassion, and no respect for anyone's "rights". Fire needs to be fought with fire, and if that inconveniences a minority as opposed to allowing a minority to be killed, it seems a pretty simple choice to me.