Muslims should expect to be stopped....

[Bifta]

If they (for example) decided to stop all white males between the ages of 20 and 40 I'd be mightily cheesed off so I can't see a problem with Muslims being a bit annoyed with it all. Not too long ago when the checkpoints were rife around the borders with the Republic of Ireland, British soldiers would check your number plate, if your car was registered to a residence in a predominantly Catholic area, more often than not it was shutters down on either side and a couple of rifles poking through the driver and passenger side windows, the British track record on presuming innocence leaves a hell of a lot to be desired and I'd certainly not trust the government or security forces to not abuse these new laws for their own ends.

Originally Posted by punky

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

I suggest you ask the opinions of the people currently locked up in Belmarsh and those who would be targetted by the Government's House Arrest policy based on nothing more than the say-so of the Home Secretary. (Although even *he* seems to be backing away from that slightly now because he's realised it's a big mistake).

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.

I agree, but that's not what I said. However when "the description of a suspect" is "looks like a Muslim" you're verging onto very dangerous territory.
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

The point is that the "Current threat" is almost *NEVER* over!

There will *always* be some "threat" that those in power will argue will justify keeping these powers on the statute books.

Remember that UK Income Tax was a "temporary" measure introduced to finance the war against Napoleon...!!!
__________________

Originally Posted by 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?

Ah, now we get the logical fallacy of the False Dilemma. Present two choices and make it appear that they are the *only* choices.

Well, sorry, me283, but as I have already pointed out above, they are *NOT* the only choices.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

She said later that because the current threat came from people masquerading as Islamists, police would have that in mind when using stop-and-search powers. †œThat is the reality. I do not think it should go unsaid.ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ�

That is reality, but she has not issued a directive to stop and search only muslims nor has she said that they should get used to it.

That is racist. Or, if you prefer, religionist. Whatever you want to call it, it is *discriminatory* based on nothing more than fear and innuendo and *that* is most definitely an *unacceptable* fact.

No it's not.

If, for example, an unkept scruffy individual was loitering around the jewellery dept in Harrods he would be viewed with suspicion in that circumstance. If he was under the arches with a can of special brew he wouldn't.

In a given circumstance an asian or islamic looking person may be viewed with suspicion over another individual.

It is not racist

Originally Posted by punky

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.

And neither would I.

But if it was "a white man" would you consider it acceptable (or sensible) to stop *all* white men and question them?

So if we agree that inside informants (Like Ramrod said) is extremely unlikely,

Whoops! Nice try, but, no, actually I *don't* agree with that!

What I do agree, however, is that we are likely to get *less* informants if we treat them *all* as suspects!

we have to rely on intelligence. Is that the same intelligence you claim is gathered against our civil rights?

I don't know. Which intelligence are you talking about?
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

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.

If it comes across as that, I suggest you re-read my posts and try to comprehend what I'm actually talking about.

I do not deny the reality of terrorism, nor that there are people who will commit such acts.

However neither will I accept that the *ONLY* way to deal with it is to throw away the precious rights we have fought so hard for in the past because that will give a *VICTORY* to the terrorists as we dance to their tune!

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".

Do you *really* think I am so shallow or self-centred that I would change my tune completely just because something affects *me* and not someone else?

But neither am I so naiive as to think that rights are merely conveniences, not necessities to a civilised and democratic society.

[qutoe]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".[/quote]

So to *defeat* them, we must *become* them by using *their* methods That is *NOT* the sort of society I want to live in!!

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.

Fighting fire with fire leaves nothing but ashes - Gandhi.

And it's all very well to talk about "inconveniencing a minority" when *YOU* are not *part* of that minority...
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

By the way, what would you think if a spot check caught a terrorist with a bomb? Would you still think his civil rights had been violated, as long as he hadn't detonated it (yet)?

The problem is, you are asking the wrong question here.

What you should be asking is "how many people's rights do you think it is acceptable to violate in the *hope* of catching one bomber?"
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's not because they think they're guilty either.

No, it's because they look like MUSLIMS!!!

It's perfectly possible to asked a few routine questions as a matter of security.

I used to go to nightclubs (a few years ago now) and I was searched before I was let in.

Not because they thought I was a drug dealer, or had a weapon. Just a routine security check. Thats all

True, but that is the wrong point.

The search was a condition of your entry to that establishment. If you objected to the search, you could choose not to go in there.

If you object to the Police searching you because you look like you follow a particular religion, they arrest you.
__________________

Originally Posted by Paul M

Ithe fact that you post huge posts spouting off with lots of *shouting* does not make your views right and everyone elses wrong.

Fine, if you think I'm wrong *please* counter my arguments, but simply making ad hominem attacks doesn't help the debate.

Except that, as I note...

to answer your neg rep comment, I don't want a reasonable debate (or an unreasonable one) I'm not interested in a debate at all - I agree with the home office, end of story.

If you don't want a debate, don't complain about those who do.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, it's because they look like MUSLIMS!!!

True, but there is no getting away from the fact that it is muslim extremists that are the perceived threat.

If was hare Krishnas then if you had a bald head, orange robes and little symbols on your fingers then you may be viewed with suspicion in a given circumstance.

And I have to stress "given circumstance" if you are a muslim or asian out doing your shopping on the high street you will not be unneccessariliy harassed.

but if you were to go into a chemical wholesalers and ask for 300ltrs of a volatile compound then that might get someones attention.

True, but that is the wrong point.

The search was a condition of your entry to that establishment. If you objected to the search, you could choose not to go in there.

If you object to the Police searching you because you look like you follow a particular religion, they arrest you.

I take your point, but I refer you back to my posts on Northern Ireland for a better analogy

Originally Posted by me283

As opposed to the smell of burning bodies.

Sorry, were we talking about Belsen...???
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

.................and perhaps apply that to what happened in New York, Spain, Bali.......

Now ask yourself this:

*WOULD* the methods being proposed have *STOPPED* New York, Spain, Bali et al...?
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

As I have said twice already......my muslim receptionist told me this.

Fine, one piece of anecdotal evidence, but not exactly substantive proof.

Now try asking her what she would do if she knew someone who was going to commit a terrorist act.

Would she keep quiet or do something about it?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

I suggest you ask the opinions of the people currently locked up in Belmarsh and those who would be targetted by the Government's House Arrest policy based on nothing more than the say-so of the Home Secretary. (Although even *he* seems to be backing away from that slightly now because he's realised it's a big mistake).

You just answered your own point there. And people are held "under suspicion", and that is clearly made to them. Held "under suspicion" has long, long been the accepted way here, long before Blunkett came along.

Originally Posted by Graham

And neither would I.

But if it was "a white man" would you consider it acceptable (or sensible) to stop *all* white men and question them?

Come on, be sensible. You know that isn't true.

Originally Posted by Graham

Whoops! Nice try, but, no, actually I *don't* agree with that!

But you said (and I was going by...)

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...

Sounds to me you was re-affirming what Ramrod had already said?

Originally Posted by Graham

I don't know. Which intelligence are you talking about?

Last time we debated it, all intelligence. If you remove informants from the intelligence category, that only leaves intelligence that was found whilst right to privacy was not observed.

Originally Posted by Bifta

the British track record on presuming innocence leaves a hell of a lot to be desired and I'd certainly not trust the government or security forces to not abuse these new laws for their own ends.

Damn right! Which is *WHY* it is necessary for us to make a stink about laws like these and ID Cards *BEFORE* they can be abused!
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

It is not racist

It doesn't matter *WHAT* you call it, it is *STILL* discriminatory and unacceptable and that is the important point.
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

True, but there is no getting away from the fact that it is muslim extremists that are the perceived threat.

Yes, but there is *also* no getting away from the fact that it is *discriminatory* to treat *all* Muslims as suspects based on the actions of a *minority*!

I take your point, but I refer you back to my posts on Northern Ireland for a better analogy

And I refer you to Bifta's responsel

Originally Posted by me283

But nobody has said that ALL Muslims will be targetted. It's common sense to increase focus in areas where there is a perceived threat.

The report states " Hazel Blears said innocent Muslims would be targeted because of the search for Islamic extremists." If that it is accurate (don't want that debate going again!) then its as good as all muslims because they make no distinction between innocence and guilt in exercising powers. As I've already said God help us if its left to Police judgement because that's precisely what caused the 1981 riots. It's policing by caricature and its a nonsense. And most importantly, it won't work

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, were we talking about Belsen...???

Funny you should mention Belsen......people tried to appease the Nazis at first.....look where that got us
__________________

Now ask yourself this:

*WOULD* the methods being proposed have *STOPPED* New York, Spain, Bali et al...?

Who knows.....worth a try don't you think?
__________________

Fine, one piece of anecdotal evidence, but not exactly substantive proof.

She is a muslim and as such probably knows what she is talking about re muslim attitudes in the UK

Now try asking her what she would do if she knew someone who was going to commit a terrorist act.

Would she keep quiet or do something about it?

Whats that got to do with it? Perhaps we should ask her elders in her mosque.....

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Funny you should mention Belsen......people tried to appease the Nazis at first.....look where that got us

WHAT?!!!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

And I refer you to Bifta's responsel

I take your point

but I'm not hearing any other options. During the IRA threat all people in N.I. were treated with suspicion. Even more so Catholics.

It wasn't nice but had to be done.

Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, some islamic/asian people may be inconvenienced, if in a given circumstance the police have good reason to speak to them.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by andyl

It's policing by caricature and its a nonsense. And most importantly, it won't work

I will ask again then.........what will work?


I have a patient who works for the govt advising UK embassies worldwide about security......
He had just come in from London and said that given the level of threat we are under atm, if he was offered a job that meant he had to use the tube every day, he wouldn't take the job.

Originally Posted by danielf

Stop the world, I want to get off (preferably before this thread explodes)

I've been wanting that for months now

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by andyl

WHAT?!!!

If nazi intentions had been nipped in the bud then Belsen wouldn't have happened.....you agree?