No, he should have been disciplined for not discharging his duties.
0voters
That’s right. PC’ness went to new levels in Britain today when a Muslim police constable refused to guard the Isreali Embassy in London because he was opposed to the bombing of the Lebannon by Isreal.
The Muslim officer managed to get the Metropolitan Police to give him a transfer to other duties.
Now, as far as I’m concerned, as soon as you put on the uniform you become impartial.
What’s next? A Christian officer refusing to guard a Mosque? Of course, if this ever happened the Christian would be booted out and there would be another million pounds of taxpayer’s money ploughed into an investigation as to how the police is “institutionally racist.”
Presumably, this Muslim PC can now refuse to protect Israelis and Jews in this country. And, presumably, non-Muslim officers can refuse to protect the Embassy of the Sudan and every other Muslim state on the grounds that they object to that state’s policies.
This comes after news that yesterday, a BBC newsreader was ordered to remove her cross because it may offend our Muslim friends.
Were the police right to give this idiot a transfer?
I voted ‘No’.
If the officer were being asked to act in such a way as to support or contribute to those Israeli policies with which he disagrees, he’d have a point. As it is, he’s maintaining the peace and upholding British laws as sworn to do. Enough said.
I didn’t need, nor appreciate, anything after “as soon as you put on the uniform you become impartial.”
Police officers are supposed to enforce the law, not cherry-pick which laws they want to enforce. Of course, they are welcome to make a political statement just like any other citizen — at the ballot box!
The very fact that it was a muslim seeking a transfer on so called “moral” grounds and he was given the transfer shows that the police are scared of being labelled as racists. This, as far as I can tell, is bowing down to political correctness.
The police officer was a muslim and requested the transfer due to POLITICAL and RELIGIOUS reasons and the police ignored any requirement of the officer to carry out sworn duty and instead gave the go ahead for the officer to be transferred without further question.
The very fact that it was a muslim seeking a transfer on so called “moral” grounds and he was given the transfer shows that the police are scared of being labelled as racists. This, as far as I can tell, is bowing down to political correctness.
The police officer was a muslim and requested the transfer due to POLITICAL and RELIGIOUS reasons and the police ignored any requirement of the officer to carry out sworn duty and instead gave the go ahead for the officer to be transferred without further question.[/quote]
Does this now mean a Muslim police officer can refuse to serve and protect a non-Muslim person in need for political and/or religious reasons?
Indeed. However, in the OP, the one requiring protection was an agent of the Israeli government. I was pondering how this affects just anyone off the street.
As DM mentioned, I would like to see how the authorities react if a Christian police officer were to refuse to discharge his duties on religious grounds.