October 07, 2006
Diversity and Political Correctness Run Amok!
Dangerously Subversive Dad has a post noting the ultimate in Diversity and Political Correctness.
It seems that a policeman in England, who happens to be a muslim, has been excused from having to guard the Israeli Embassy on "moral grounds,"
PC Alexander Omar Basha told chiefs he was unable to carry out duties at the London embassy — a top terror target — due to moral grounds after Israeli bombings in Lebanon.DSD is obviously upset about this, but also upset by a Tory, specifically one Richard Barnes:
Richard Barnes, a Tory member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, accused senior officers of lacking tact. He said: ‘I think it was crass management in the first place. They should have recognised there could have been a problem and not suggested this officer be posted at this embassy."Officer Barnes, this is not about "diversity" this is about "Political Correctness" and it is monumentally stupid. As DSD notes:"The Met keep banging on about diversity, but this case shows they have learned very little at all."
The Tory Party has purely and simply endorsed racism here. The idea that any public servant is free to make moral judgments and then decide to exclude their service from those they deem unfit, immoral or evil for that service is a truly disgusting and pernicious one."DSD is right on the money, but the original jerk in this little drama, Alexander Omar Basha is not only wrong, he is so far off the mark as to be ludicrous. Which of course, brings me to a "moral" argument from the other side of the coin:"I got mugged last week, and my mum last year. So I'm not serving you in this Post Office cos you're black and so were the muggers."
"So what if someone ripped off your veil and spat in your eye? I may be a copper but I dont like Muslims, I was on a tube train on 7/7."
"No, I'm not letting you through the ticket barrier - you're obviously a Sikh judging by that turban, and Sikhs killed the Prime Minister back in India, the bastards. As a good Hindu I reserve the right not to let you on the train."
"No way son, I know this is a youth club for everyone but well, you have to understand that as a Jew I feel you bear some responsibility for what is happening to the Palestinians. So you're not getting in."
As someone from the left might explain the clip, "It's for the childrennnnnn."
Posted by Woody at October 7, 2006 08:13 AM
More evidence that England has entered a long and dark night of submission to the dictates of Islam. What will be left of the place in, say, 10 years? or 5?
What will the rest of the continent look like? Will its people gently go into slavery?
Posted by Mike Austin at October 7, 2006 09:42 AM
Outstanding video compilation.
Posted by Jeremayakovka at October 7, 2006 01:36 PM
Perhaps, unlike the author of the post, the Chief Constable has decided it is better to reduce tensions than to aggravate them. If he has incidentally given America's professional hysterics something to type feverishly about, well that's gravey on the pudding, isn't it?
Posted by Jassalasca Jape at October 7, 2006 03:25 PM
JJ, so, you are willing to allow individuals in public service to choose who they will serve? I truly hope you don't need someone that decides you aren't the right race/religion/sex/culture/ethnicity. That would be a shame wouldn't it?
Oh, and the Chief Constable won't be reducing tensions, in the long run, he will be aggrevating them.
Professional Hysteric signing off.
Posted by GM at October 7, 2006 03:47 PM
jj: you're lack of depth of thinking is astounding. did it ever cross your mind that it is not a good thing to allow public servants to DISCRIMINATE against certain groups of the citizens they have sworn to serve? do you really believe that is a precedent that should be set?
Posted by ric ottaiano at October 7, 2006 04:34 PM
JJ, your thinking is terribly flawed.
Perhaps, unlike the author of this post, the Chief Constable has overlooked the fact that any first responder whose religious beliefs preclude him being prepared to lay down his life for the general good of the Nation doesn’t belong in the “first responder” business in the first place. A proper course of action, indeed the ONLY course of action I would consider, is affording the patrolman the opportunity of expanding his horizons in another line of work. That would certainly reduce tensions and improve the police department, wouldn’t it?
I suspect that you probably think that a Muslim-American serving in Armed Forces should be allowed to decide whether or not he will accept deployment in a combat zone where he is likely to be required to shoot the living hell out of another Muslim. Such a person would certainly be permitted to apply for “conscientious objector” status, but I would have to wonder why he joined the service in the first place.
Patrolmen in Great Britain may be required to take an oath – I don’t know if they do or not. But let’s assume for a moment that they do take an oath. What should we say about persons who affirm an oath of service and then refuse assignments based upon religious conviction? I’ll give you a hint – they deserve chastisement.
What should we really think about the Chief Constable? Lacking quality leadership, he should consider early retirement. Lacking leadership, he is worthless in that position and he may in fact be the reason why his force is “aggravated.”
Posted by Mustang at October 7, 2006 04:41 PM
