Muslims should expect to be stopped....

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

1. Lessons from history can be learnt; you don't move on from them
2. I don't think you understand the massively detrimental effect indiscriminate (ie nowt to do with suspicion) had at the time.
3. A lot more Asian police officers? Still rare as rocking horse sh*t (and I live in Greater Manchester where the police's record, by their own admission and widespread evidence, is hardly a bastion of race-neutral policing).

1.But you shouldn't really base your opinion of how you think the police MAY behave in future on how they behaved 30 years ago.
2.Again, that was 30 years ago.
3.And I spend a lot of time in areas with a more densely populated Asian community, and I can tell you there are a LOT more Asian officers in the force. Good thing too, if you ask me.

But do you think that any spot checks on Muslims would be viewed as racist if thay are carried out by Asian (possibly Muslim) officers?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by andyl

1. If we 'back down' from indiscriminate searching/harassment of people because of their race/religion, that is not appeasement. That's having a sense of justice.

That may be, but we have also been talking about offending muslims with this development. If we back down from that then it's appeasement.

2. In discussing appeasement you refer to the Nazis (due to a previous post, granted). The appearance at least is one of comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's an example

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

They also ignored the Nazi's discriminatory treatment of the Jews, look where *that* got us...!!

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

Shooting anyone who's a potential terrorist would also stop attacks.

Do you think *that* is worth a try too...???

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

Whats that got to do with it?

Well, she is, according to what you say, "a Muslim", and, also according to what you say "probably knows what she is talking about re muslim attitudes in the UK", so I'd be interested to know what an ordinary Muslim would *do* in a situation like that...!

Perhaps we should ask her elders in her mosque.....

Why not.

Well, apart from the fact we might have to suspect them of being terrorists if people posting in here are right...

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Shooting anyone who's a potential terrorist would also stop attacks.

Do you think *that* is worth a try too...???

Hmmm... I'm no expert, but...

People being stopped, questioned, searched, whatever, tend to be able to carry on afterwards as if nothing has happened. Shooting people tends to suggest that might be less likely. Innocent people can walk away, having been questioned; shot innocent people can't.

Originally Posted by punky

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.

Oh, so we've been abusing these rights *already*!

So let's ignore the fact it's a breach of the Common Law and the EU convention on Human Rights (which this country is signatory to).

We've already set a precedent, so it's all right, then...

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

So it's ok to repress and harass a minority but *not* a majority?

At what point does it become unacceptable?

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

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

But then you went on to say "So if we agree that inside informants (Like Ramrod said) is extremely unlikely,"

Except that, as I said in the next paragraph:

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Please quote me something where I said "all intelligence" because I'm certain that I did not, nor would, say anything like that!

I agree, for instance, as I said in a debate not long ago with the concept of using Phone Tap evidence in a court of law *provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip".

Frankly I'm utterly astonished that Charles Clarke *doesn't* want this to happen and I can't for the life of me understand *why* unless there's some ulterior motive or reason that hasn't been revealed to us.
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

I take your point

Thank you.

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.

Did it? Or did it simply *contribute* to exacerbating The Troubles? I know which *my* money is on.

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.

And, just as with The Troubles in Ireland, I think the "solution" is just going to make the problem worse.
__________________

Originally Posted by Bifta

Quick, invade the USA too then, just in case.

YEAH!!
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

How do you know what my race or religion is? Bit of a pre-judgement there, don't you think? Presuming I am "guilty" because of my opinions... tut tut

Fine, you're right, I don't know if you're part of that minority or not.

I apologise.

No, try New York, Bali, etc etc

Whooosh! Sorry, but that point clearly went over your head.

Belsen et al happened because *ordinary* people were content to stand back and *DO NOTHING* whilst others had their rights taken away and were shipped off.

Now the proposal is, once again, to treat an entire group as the problem and take away their rights, but, once again, ordinary people seem to be going to do nothing because the loss of rights won't affect *them*, however they think it will make things better for them.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

They also ignored the Nazi's discriminatory treatment of the Jews, look where *that* got us...!!

Yes that was terrible, but that did occur as a result of the original appeasement.

Shooting anyone who's a potential terrorist would also stop attacks.

Do you think *that* is worth a try too...???

Who mentioned shooting them? That is a rather large escalation to try to prove a point

Well, she is, according to what you say, "a Muslim", and, also according to what you say "probably knows what she is talking about re muslim attitudes in the UK", so I'd be interested to know what an ordinary Muslim would *do* in a situation like that...!

As she said, they might not/would not want to say anything as it's betraying a felow muslim to the infidel. As for what she would do, I would like to think she would speak up, but I don't know for sure.

Well, apart from the fact we might have to suspect them of being terrorists if people posting in here are right...

I didn't say that about them.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It has been pointed out today that muslims may experience more stop and search and more counter terrorist activities in order to try to stop loss of life in this country from terrorist activities. Some sections of the muslim community (and our own liberal contingent) are up in arms about this. If we back down from such counter terror activities then we are appeasing those sections of our society. Seems straightforward enough to me

I suggest you look at the history of the Appeasement of the Nazis before you make any more comments like this.

Appeasement resulted in Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier of France and Mussolini signing the Munich Agreement carving up Czechoslovakia and giving Germany the Sudetenland. When the Czech leadership quite rightly complained, Chamberlain simply told them that Britain wouldn't go to war over this.

In fact this is exactly counter to your argument above because just as the right of the Czechs in the Sudetenland to determine what happened to them were ridden roughshod over, so some seem to want to ride roughshod of the rights of *all* Muslims based on the actions of a minority!

My argument against appeasement is that sometimes giving in like that can lead to an increased confidence in those who would do us harm (as it did in the 1930's) and spur them on and indeed allow them a freer reign in their activities.

And violating their rights can lead to more of them being driven into the waiting arms of the extremists who are looking for willing converts who are disaffected by the way their rights are being treated as irrelevant.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

And as I pointed out, the 70s were about 30 years ago.
[...]
Why not move on from what was reported in the 70s and look at what's happening now.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

- George Santayana
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

But do you think that any spot checks on Muslims would be viewed as racist if thay are carried out by Asian (possibly Muslim) officers?

If you are targetting any particular group based simply on what they look like or what religion they profess, that is discriminatory, no matter *who* is doing it.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

Hmmm... I'm no expert, but...

People being stopped, questioned, searched, whatever, tend to be able to carry on afterwards as if nothing has happened. Shooting people tends to suggest that might be less likely. Innocent people can walk away, having been questioned; shot innocent people can't.

Have you never heard of "Pour encourager les autres"?

Or how about "Shoot them all, let God sort them out"?

It's got to be worth a try...

[NB Just in case anyone's not sure what I'm saying here, please read the above with a strong sense of cynicism!]
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Yes that was terrible, but that did occur as a result of the original appeasement.

No, it occurred because "it's not our problem".

Who mentioned shooting them? That is a rather large escalation to try to prove a point

It's an extrapolation. At what point does something *cease* to be "worth a try"? Shooting them? Violating their Civil Rights? Where do you draw the line?

As she said, they might not/would not want to say anything as it's betraying a felow muslim to the infidel. As for what she would do, I would like to think she would speak up, but I don't know for sure.

Fine, so don't betray them to the "infidel", tell their Imam instead and get them to sort them out.

But they wouldn't *do nothing* which is what some seem to suggest.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Now the proposal is, once again, to treat an entire group as the problem and take away their rights, but, once again, ordinary people seem to be going to do nothing because the loss of rights won't affect *them*, however they think it will make things better for them.

No. The proposal is for ordinary people (the police) ask questions of other ordinary people (Muslims) to try and find information and weedle out less than ordinary people (terrorists). It's a form of communication. Granted, it may not appear the perfect way to open lines of communication, but it's quick and direct. Isn't that the best way to combat terrorism?
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

IIf you are targetting any particular group based simply on what they look like or what religion they profess, that is discriminatory, no matter *who* is doing it.
__________________

I think one of the current popular expressions is "Holy War". Since the "armies" involved don't necessarily wear a uniform, one must use whatever means possible to identify the "soldiers".

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh, so we've been abusing these rights *already*!

So let's ignore the fact it's a breach of the Common Law and the EU convention on Human Rights (which this country is signatory to).

We've already set a precedent, so it's all right, then...

No, and it is nothing of the sort. Since God knows when, the government has been allowed to hold people under suspicion. That is what remand is for. That is why they have cells in police stations, so suspects can be held during questioning. At no time is the criminal judged to be guilty, but during that time is to be held. Do we bail every single suspect because remand is against their human rights? Do we go a step further and ask everyone nicely, after arrest, to hang around outside the station until we call them for questioing?

So it's ok to repress and harass a minority but *not* a majority?

At what point does it become unacceptable?

Police need more than ethnicity to suspect someone of a crime.

But then you went on to say "So if we agree that inside informants (Like Ramrod said) is extremely unlikely,"

Except that, as I said in the next paragraph:

So... Ramrod says informants are few and far between, and then you go on to say that they'll be less? Then how can you rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering?

Please quote me something where I said "all intelligence" because I'm certain that I did not, nor would, say anything like that!

I agree, for instance, as I said in a debate not long ago with the concept of using Phone Tap evidence in a court of law *provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip".

Frankly I'm utterly astonished that Charles Clarke *doesn't* want this to happen and I can't for the life of me understand *why* unless there's some ulterior motive or reason that hasn't been revealed to us.

But how do you know who to wiretap without intelligence telling you who could be suspects? It is the chicken-and-egg story. And how come you have changed your mind about their right to privacy all of a sudden?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

I suggest you look at the history of the Appeasement of the Nazis before you make any more comments like this.

Appeasement resulted in Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier of France and Mussolini signing the Munich Agreement carving up Czechoslovakia and giving Germany the Sudetenland.............

So the nazis were appeased and they went on to commit greater and greater atrocities.......point proven, thank you.

Originally Posted by Graham

It's an extrapolation. At what point does something *cease* to be "worth a try"? Shooting them? Violating their Civil Rights? Where do you draw the line?

Bit of a dodgy argument there.......I'm fairly certain that you know the name of the fallacy that you are basing your argument on .....and I'm sure that you quoted it to me once

Originally Posted by punky

No, and it is nothing of the sort. Since God knows when, the government has been allowed to hold people under suspicion. That is what remand is for.

Yes, but for someone to be held on remand they must have been *charged* with a crime.

That is why they have cells in police stations, so suspects can be held during questioning.

That is not the same as remanding someone in custody pending trial and there are strict laws regarding how long someone can be held before they must be either charged or released.

What Charles Clarke wants, however, is to lock someone up *without* charge and possibly without ever *being* charged, let alone having the evidence tested in a court of law, not to mention ignoring the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights for someone to be made aware of the charges against them and for a speedy trial.

Police need more than ethnicity to suspect someone of a crime.

I suggest you look at the history of the Special Patrol Group back in the 1980s and the reports of institutionalised racism following the Stephen Lawerence murder etc.

So... Ramrod says informants are few and far between, and then you go on to say that they'll be less? Then how can you rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering?

Sorry, *where* did *I* say we should "rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering"?

But how do you know who to wiretap without intelligence telling you who could be suspects? It is the chicken-and-egg story. And how come you have changed your mind about their right to privacy all of a sudden?

Again you seem to be assuming I have said something I haven't. Intelligence is available from the community, from informants and many other sources. All of this can be obtained without trampling on the rights of a complete section of society.

And I have not changed my mind about the right of privacy either. As I said I agree with phone tapping "*provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip"."

If the government was to tap the phone lines of every Muslim or every Black or everyone called Punky I would, naturally object, because they would have no justification for such an action.

If there was legitimately obtained evidence to suspect people of planning a crime, *then* their phones could be tapped (subject to proper scrutiny and review) and, if evidence was obtained, for that to be used in a court of law.
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

So the nazis were appeased and they went on to commit greater and greater atrocities.......point proven, thank you.

Point proven? Hardly, unless you can actually *demonstrate* a causal link between the two which I very much doubt.

Oh, BTW, this is the fallacy known as "Post hoc, ergo proper hoc" or "after this, therefore *because* of this..." implying that there is a logical connection between the two, rather than just two events happening one after another.

Bit of a dodgy argument there.......I'm fairly certain that you know the name of the fallacy that you are basing your argument on .....and I'm sure that you quoted it to me once

Yes, Ramrod, it's *meant* to be fallacious! I'm trying to point out that your "it's worth a try" argument is *also* fallacious!

And the fallacy is the "Burden of Proof" ie that your claim "it's worth a try" is attempting to put the onus on me to *disprove* that claim, when, in fact, the requirement is that *you* prove your case.

See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.htm for more information.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, *where* did *I* say we should "rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering"?

Without informants, how would you find out anything, without invading privacy?

Again you seem to be assuming I have said something I haven't. Intelligence is available from the community, from informants and many other sources. All of this can be obtained without trampling on the rights of a complete section of society.

We already said that informants can't be relied upon for the sole source of intelligence. So what are these "many other sources"? If you know a better way of gathering intelligence that is both informative, but doesn't break people's right to privacy, why not share it with MI5? Or if not them, then share it with me.

Aside from informants, which we discussed was not substiantial enough to be solely relied upon, I can't see any other intelligence gathering that doesn't involve breaking someone's human rights. The only one I can think of is if the police bust something by sheer dumb luck, like if they search a house for stolen goods and find Ricin.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

What Charles Clarke wants, however, is to lock someone up *without* charge and possibly without ever *being* charged, let alone having the evidence tested in a court of law, not to mention ignoring the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights for someone to be made aware of the charges against them and for a speedy trial.



I suggest you look at the history of the Special Patrol Group back in the 1980s and the reports of institutionalised racism following the Stephen Lawerence murder etc.


And I have not changed my mind about the right of privacy either. As I said I agree with phone tapping "*provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip"." If there was legitimately obtained evidence to suspect people of planning a crime, *then* their phones could be tapped (subject to proper scrutiny and review) and, if evidence was obtained, for that to be used in a court of law.

I really don't think we should be quoting the European Human Rights legislation here. Week in and week out, one hears and reads of examples of this pathetic legislature allowing the so called "human rights" of particular groups or individuals to trample on the lives of others, who presumably have less "human rights". And please don't blame sensationalist journalism here.

As with the SUS law in the 70s, quoting an area of policing from the 80s is equally defunct. Why not quote the police efforts to recruit more officers from ethnic minorities during the 90s and 2000s? After all it's more recent and hence more relevant... but then it doesn't really fit your argument, does it?

But it's the last point that interests me most: you talk about "reasonable suspicion", yet that is what this is all about. It has not been declared that EVERY Muslim will be stopped, questioned and searched whenever they leave home. It seems clear to me that what is being said is that people may be detained and questioned more often, and that there is a strong chance that there will be a larger proportion of Muslims among this element. But I think you will find that for someone to be detained and questioned, there will need to be suspicion in the first place. So, you are happy for a "suspect" to have their phone tapped (currently illegal under normal circumstances I believe), but not for them to be questioned (currently legal I believe)?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Point proven? Hardly, unless you can actually *demonstrate* a causal link between the two which I very much doubt.

You seem to be ignoring generally accepted history

linky
linky
linky etc....etc....

At Munich in 1938, Chamberlain had appeased Hitler by giving him the Sudetenland areas of Czechoslovakia, but in March 1939, Chamberlain promised to defend Poland if the Nazis invaded.

The main reason for this was because on 15 March 1939, Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia †“ a non-German country. People realised that appeasement had failed. They realised that Hitler wanted to rule the world, and would only be stopped by war.

As for you saying 'prove a link' between appeasement and subsequent nazi, that can't conclusively be done (you would need a paralell universe) but it is generally historically accepted that the link is there.

Originally Posted by graham

Yes, Ramrod, it's *meant* to be fallacious! I'm trying to point out that your "it's worth a try" argument is *also* fallacious!

And the fallacy is the "Burden of Proof" ie that your claim "it's worth a try" is attempting to put the onus on me to *disprove* that claim, when, in fact, the requirement is that *you* prove your case.

So my saying that perhaps watching the muslim community more closely is 'worth a try' is the same as you saying that they should be shot?!
I think it's safe to say the line could be drawn somewhere before shooting them.

edit.............I'm outta here

Originally Posted by me283

I really don't think we should be quoting the European Human Rights legislation here. Week in and week out, one hears and reads of examples of this pathetic legislature allowing the so called "human rights" of particular groups or individuals to trample on the lives of others, who presumably have less "human rights". And please don't blame sensationalist journalism here.

As with the SUS law in the 70s, quoting an area of policing from the 80s is equally defunct. Why not quote the police efforts to recruit more officers from ethnic minorities during the 90s and 2000s? After all it's more recent and hence more relevant... but then it doesn't really fit your argument, does it?

But it's the last point that interests me most: you talk about "reasonable suspicion", yet that is what this is all about. It has not been declared that EVERY Muslim will be stopped, questioned and searched whenever they leave home. It seems clear to me that what is being said is that people may be detained and questioned more often, and that there is a strong chance that there will be a larger proportion of Muslims among this element. But I think you will find that for someone to be detained and questioned, there will need to be suspicion in the first place. So, you are happy for a "suspect" to have their phone tapped (currently illegal under normal circumstances I believe), but not for them to be questioned (currently legal I believe)?

1. So do you seriously think we shouldn't be signed up to and abide by internationally agreed Human Rights treaties. And yes, sorry, I do blame sensational, not forgetting right wing, journalism.

2. The SUS laws are totally relevant because the tactics being suggested are exactly the same. The recruitment of more ethnic minorities to the Police is not particularly relevant as this exercise hasn't exactly been covered in glory, numbers remain dispropritionately low and many forces acknowledge they are institutionally racist (which makes policing by consent in ethnic communities more difficult; application of stop and search will aggravate this and, as a result there will be less, not more, communication between the police and the people they serve and less useful information being passed on to them regarding criminal activity generally.) If policing does not have the support and consent of the community, it is doomed to fail.

3. If we're talking reasonable suspicion as grounds for stop and search then I'm at a loss as to why innocent Muslims would be targeted. If there are reasonable suspicions of terrorist activity I would not expect your average Plod to be doing a stop and search. It's an extraordinarily blunt and ineffective tool.

Leaving the obvious discrimination issues aside, history tells us this tactic WILL NOT WORK.

Of course if you want to damage community relations and prevent the forestalling and detection of crime, do bat on.

I've had enough of this. Bat on. Graham for President.