Is it just me?

[CarlMetro]

Or is this absolutely ridiculous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6284347.stm

A Muslim woman police officer refused to shake hands with the head of the Metropolitan Police on faith grounds.
The officer, who has not been named, was granted the exemption at a passing-out ceremony where new recruits met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair.

The woman's refusal was based on her view that her faith prevented her touching a man other than her husband or a close relative.

Sir Ian had questioned the validity of her refusal, Scotland Yard said.
A spokeswoman for the force said: "This request was only granted by members of training staff out of a desire to minimise any disruption to others' enjoyment and to ensure the smooth running of what is one of the most important events in an officer's career."

She added: "The officer maintains that she puts the requirements of being a police officer above her personal beliefs and only exercises the latter when she has choice to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------

How the hell can this police officer carry out her normal everyday duties if she refuses to touch another man than her husband? What is this world coming to :rolleyes:

[Gannex]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for an officer to request a dispensation based on her religious beliefs; here, it did absolutely no harm to indulge her. Now if she were to request that she never be required to touch a man in the course of her duties, obviously that request could not be granted, and she'd be a fool to even ask. But this little deviation from protocol will in no way interfere with her functioning as a police officer. It's hardly a problem, except, perhaps, for the blow it might strike to the oversized ego of Sir Ian Blair. Which is another reason I'm in favour of the lady!

[Hawkmoon]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for an officer to request a dispensation based on her religious beliefs; here, it did absolutely no harm to indulge her. Now if she were to request that she never be required to touch a man in the course of her duties, obviously that request could not be granted, and she'd be a fool to even ask. But this little deviation from protocol will in no way interfere with her functioning as a police officer. It's hardly a problem, except, perhaps, for the blow it might strike to the oversized ego of Sir Ian Blair. Which is another reason I'm in favour of the lady!

I believe that it is not only totally ureasonable, but that it sets a dangerous precedent.

It is the custom of the Western world to shake hands upon greeting someone. Why should a customary gesture of the West be set aside because of this woman's religious beliefs? Are her customs more important than those of the UK? By granting her this dispensation, the authorities have effectively said they are.

How can this woman say that she can't shake hands with a man because of her faith, yet still perform the duties of a police officer? If she can touch a man to arrest him then she can shake hands with the Commisioner. She can't have it both ways. It is hypocritical to suggest that she can pick and choose when it is OK to abide by her faith.

She has used her religion as an excuse to show a lack of respect for the position of the Police Commisioner. Wether the man in the position deserves respect or not is irrelevant. The position does, and by not shaking his hand she has effectively thumbed her nose at the police force, whether that was her intention or not.

I have nothing against people following the tenets of their culture or religion. What I have a problem with is minority cultures taking precedence over the established majortiy culture of a nation. It is happening in Australia and it sounds like it is happening in the UK. I believe that she should adapt her culture to suit that of the country she is living in. The country should not have to adapt it's culture to suit her.

[Gannex]

Hawkmoon, I don't think it's a question of whose customs are more important, England's or Islam's. That's a very tendentious way of putting it. It's more accurately a question of whether foreign customs are important enough to warrant being accommodated, where the burden of doing so is reasonable or, as in this case, non-existent.

It is not hypocritical of a person to say she will engage in a particular religious practice, but only where it is reasonable to do so. Many religious practices are preferences. It is only in the most extreme sects, where every religious practice has to be observed all the time, regardless of how much it interferes with normal life.

There is no disrespect shown to the Commissioner if she makes a polite small bow of the head, which I'm sure she would, instead of a hand-shake.

Where I disagree with you most sharply, though, Hawkmoon, is when you suggest that merely accommodating a desire to engage in a foreign practice is to allow a minority culture to take precedence over the majority culture. Of course the majority culture takes precedence. That's why deviations from it are permitted only in limited circumstances: the majority culture is, in computer terms, the default, and always will be. There is no risk of its being subordinated. I think your fears are exaggerated.

[Hawkmoon]

Hawkmoon, I don't think it's a question of whose customs are more important, England's or Islam's. That's a very tendentious way of putting it. It's more accurately a question of whether foreign customs are important enough to warrant being accommodated, where the burden of doing so is reasonable or, as in this case, non-existent.

It is not hypocritical of a person to say she will engage in a particular religious practice, but only where it is reasonable to do so. Many religious practices are preferences. It is only in the most extreme sects, where every religious practice has to be observed all the time, regardless of how much it interferes with normal life.

There is no disrespect shown to the Commissioner if she makes a polite small bow of the head, which I'm sure she would, instead of a hand-shake.

Where I disagree with you most sharply, though, Hawkmoon, is when you suggest that merely accommodating a desire to engage in a foreign practice is to allow a minority culture to take precedence over the majority culture. Of course the majority culture takes precedence. That's why deviations from it are permitted only in limited circumstances: the majority culture is, in computer terms, the default, and always will be. There is no risk of its being subordinated. I think your fears are exaggerated.

It was probably not the best time for me to read a story such as this, so you may be right and I'm exagerating a bit.

However, the organisers of the Big Day Out rock concert down here just tried to ban the use of the Australian flag at the concert as they deemed the flag to be "gang colours" and therefore not acceptable. I'm rather upset at this, as are most people.

This is just one example of anything Australian being forced into the background to accomodate or appease a minority group. We have had Santa Claus banned from pre-schools and schools taken to court to try and stop nativity plays because it may offend non-Christians. We have people replacing 'Merry Christmas' with 'Happy Holidays' so as to not offend non-Christans. Like you can take offence at 'Merry Christmas'.

I don't know how it is in the UK but down here some people have largely succeded in making patriotism the same as intolerance. To the point where you can't even wave the flag anymore.

So, you see why I don't like this exemption being given? It's a small, rather meaningless gesture that I have no problem with in isolation. Taken within the bigger picture of anyone from the majority being unable to criticise anyone from the minority for fear of being branded a racist and this small gesture is another brick in the wall.

[Roamy]

Come on gaylords - kick her in the cnut and blow her head off!! what is the problem here??

[oily oaf]

Outrageous!!!
As a devout Muslim of many many months standing I can state quite categorically that it's this very type of unilateral dissent that is putting me and my brothers in a very poor light indeed :mad:

Surely the correct procedure would have been for this young woman to offer her hand to the Commissioner before withdrawing it at the last split second and then thumbing her nose at him and poking him in the eye with the other hand.
How Sir Ian would have laughed as he realised that the devout young rascal was combining a theological protest with a hilarious attempt to bring some jollity to what would otherwise have been a deeply tedious occasion.

Yours Humbly

Ali-Bin Akhtar- Bin Liner Oaf
Bethnal Green

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oaf, You always do that, you get to a post ahead of me, and then I cant think for laughing!!!!

Ok, now that I have caught my breath, I think I am getting tired of reading these sort of stories.

Gannex, the problem I have with this is that it is just ludicrous that she should expect to work as a constable if she cannot touch men. Last time I looked, crime was mainly a male profession, so what is she going to do? Not be in on the arrest? Not deal with someone say at an accident scene or a fire where the police are there to help deal with the tragedy and NOT be compassionate and maybe have to "shudder" touch the person?

I am all for people coming to nations trying to keep some of their culture, but what people have to grasp if you give away little bits here and there and start giving some people preference (she wont touch men, does this mean all the women police should be given this option?) then you start down a very slippery slope.

Perfect example here in Canada. Sikh construction workers wouldn't wear the hard hat on the job. Safety regs state you wear the hard hat on construction sites. Doesn't matter that I think they dont' do much, I wouldn't get away with not wearing one. A Sikh tries it, not only does he have access to legal consul to help fight it with the human rights board at no cost, but he probably would have an expectation of winning. In Ontario, the human rights tribunal said Sikh's were right, but before the Supreme Court, it was made obvious public safety regs overrule religious rights.

It is not a logical process to allow Muslim women to be police and then have them dictate what they will do or not do. It is like a female fire-fighter trying to get away with less physical test to become one. It is a special dispensation, and it hampers their ability to do the job. You want the job, there is the job. PERIOD. You wont do it, then you cant have it. THAT is fair,and religion means little in this argument. Criminals don't give a rats behind about religion, they just are to be arrested. If a female officer wont touch a man in any capacity, then what damn good is she? I would say pay her half a constable's salary, she is only doing half the job.

Muslims have to understand they left the Middle East for a reason. When they come to the Western democracies, and they don't like the society, it isn't our job to make their world more Islamic, it is their job to adapt as best they can within their religion. I wont make them eat pork, care whether they were a hijab and I wont get in the way of them building a mosque. Just don't tell me what you will do and not do while working for the crown. The state is there for all of us, and last time I looked, that includes enforcing the law.

[janneppi]

Oaf, You always do that, you get to a post ahead of me, and then I cant think for laughing!!!!

Ok, now that I have caught my breath, I think I am getting tired of reading these sort of stories.

Gannex, the problem I have with this is that it is just ludicrous that she should expect to work as a constable if she cannot touch men. Last time I looked, crime was mainly a male profession, so what is she going to do? Not be in on the arrest? Not deal with someone say at an accident scene or a fire where the police are there to help deal with the tragedy and NOT be compassionate and maybe have to "shudder" touch the person?

You did read the story didn't you?

She added: "The officer maintains that she puts the requirements of being a police officer above her personal beliefs and only exercises the latter when she has choice to do so.
If she had refused to touch men on duty, then it would a serious issue.



Muslims have to understand they left the Middle East for a reason. When they come to the Western democracies, and they don't like the society, it isn't our job to make their world more Islamic, it is their job to adapt as best they can within their religion. I wont make them eat pork, care whether they were a hijab and I wont get in the way of them building a mosque. Just don't tell me what you will do and not do while working for the crown. The state is there for all of us, and last time I looked, that includes enforcing the law.
Where does it say she was born outside of UK? Last i checked, there are people born into UK from muslim parents.

[Hazell B]

[quote="janneppi"]You did read the story didn't you?

If she had refused to touch men on duty, then it would a serious issue.
[quote]

Exactly. This is only making the news because of the stupidity of the media's current picking at any little difference between 'them' and 'us' :rolleyes:

The woman's trained for her job, which involves touching a lot of men in the course of duty and training. She simply doesn't choose to touch men when it isn't part of the job.

Would you all expect a white manicurist to grab hands all day when she's not at work? A chiropractor (sp?) to rub backs on her day off? No. This is the same!

Bet it's happened many times but never been in the news. It's not news, basically.

[tinchote]

If she was wearing her uniform, I would say that it was about her job indeed. She should have given the handshake.

[viper_man]

Serious question - how does she handcuff people?

In fact how is she supposed to do a proper job as a police officer?

[schmenke]

She will most likely be relegated to a desk job, or issuing parking tickets :mark:

[BeansBeansBeans]

Serious question - how does she handcuff people?

In fact how is she supposed to do a proper job as a police officer?

With respect Viper, we're going over old ground here. She has clearly stated that she puts her duties as a Police Officer above her beliefs, and only exercises the latter when she has the choice.

[viper_man]

With respect Viper, we're going over old ground here. She has clearly stated that she puts her duties as a Police Officer above her beliefs, and only exercises the latter when she has the choice.

Just noticed that :crazy:

Surely if she chooses if and when she puts her duties before her beleifs, would that not be seen as sacrilige?

[BDunnell]

I would refuse to shake Jeffrey Archer's hand if it was offered to me (still attached to his body). Everyone has their own preferences when it comes to this sort of thing. We shouldn't pretend to be polite to people we don't respect.

[viper_man]

But she should shake his hand out of respect of him being her commanding officer.

[BDunnell]

But she should shake his hand out of respect of him being her commanding officer.

Why? He might be her boss, but that doesn't mean that she respects him.

There are better ways of expressing a genuine grievance, though, I must say.

[viper_man]

Certainly at a public event a police officer should be seen to respect her the commander of all police in the UK.

Imagine if a soldier did this at a passing out parade, and he didnt salute the Army General out of disrespect? He would get a beating he would never forget.

Not saying that this lady should, but out of respect, you should always be polite to your 'bosses' at a public event such as in this cirsumstance.

I believe that is as much a duty of hers as a police officer as arresting someone.

[schmenke]

Why? He might be her boss, but that doesn't mean that she respects him....

When in uniform you respect the rank, not the person.

[BDunnell]

When in uniform you respect the rank, not the person.

This may be why I find the idea of belonging to those organisations in which this behaviour, which strikes me as blind obedience, prevails, utterly alien.

[Hazell B]

Certainly at a public event a police officer should be seen to respect her the commander ....

Was it a public event? Was she technically even at 'work' and being paid to be there?

No.

I believe this is being taken far too seriously. A woman doesn't want to do anything that may offend her church and hasn't hurt anyone at all by sticking to her guns. I would hope we'd all be the same!

[viper_man]

Actually Hazell yes she was.

A passing out parade is a public event, and yes she was technically beginning her career as a police offiicer she second she went up and met the Commissioner.

[Hawkmoon]

Was it a public event? Was she technically even at 'work' and being paid to be there?

No.

I believe this is being taken far too seriously. A woman doesn't want to do anything that may offend her church and hasn't hurt anyone at all by sticking to her guns. I would hope we'd all be the same!

Two things:

1. She can't pick and choose when to apply her religion beliefs. If she truly believes in not touching men then she shouldn't have become a police officer. Potentially, she will have to put aside one of her religious beliefs every day she's on the job. That must be quite a conflict for a devout person. If she can do that, she can shake the Commisioner's hand.

2. She was in uniform at an official police event. As schmenke said, salute the rank, not the man. When she's not on the job, fine, don't touch him.

It will always be about 'us and them' whilst ever sections of a community seek to be allowed to do things differently from the societal norm. Whatever happened to 'when in Rome...'?

[Hazell B]

Actually Hazell yes she was.

A passing out parade is a public event ....

A public event's when any person can just arrive and watch. Is it public at police passing out? Army ones aren't - you have to be invited.

Okay, so she was at work. But not on duty, as such. I still don't understand why this is so important to us. If she wasn't good enough to do the job, she simply wouldn't be allowed to pass out!

[CarlMetro]

I don't think anyone is questioning whether she has the capabilities of a police officer. What is at question however is the small fact that due to her religious beliefs she can choose if and when she can make physical contact with a man.

What is to say that she won't 'decide' that she doesn't want to touch a male criminal during an arrest? If she did decide not to on religious grounds then the MET would have to stand by their policy of letting her feelings stand because they have now set a precedent.

[viper_man]

If she wasn't good enough to do the job, she simply wouldn't be allowed to pass out!

That is true I suppose, however its got to be said that recently the police have tended to look for applicants from more diverse cultures and beleifs. This could be another case of that.

[viper_man]

I don't think anyone is questioning whether she has the capabilities of a police officer. What is at question however is the small fact that due to her religious beliefs she can choose if and when she can make physical contact with a man.

What is to say that she won't 'decide' that she doesn't want to touch a male criminal during an arrest? If she did decide not to on religious grounds then the MET would have to stand by their policy of letting her feelings stand because they have now set a precedent.

Thats absolutely true.

Imagine this admittedly very far fetched situation, she is on duty and arrives at a robbery in her local area at a shop where her family is doing some shopping. Her colleage is busy interviewing people so she has to arrest the perpetrator who has given himself up, in front of her husband and family. Does she touch his hands so as to handcuff him or would her judgement be clouded?

[Hazell B]

She wouldn't be asked to arrest anyone in front of witnesses unless he's a danger or cannot be moved and neither can the witnesses. However, I see your point.

The thing is, she'll have had the pros and cons explained. We're thinking the police involved are pretty stupid if we say she can continue this non-touching during her working life. I don't think they're that stupid.

[luvracin]

It's ironic.

I know it's not officially every Police Force's motto, but I think the motto the US cops have applies in principle throughout the world - To Protect and Serve.

So here's this lady trying to "protect and serve", surely also these words are at the heart of ALL religions, but at the same time, her religious beliefs hinder her from protecting and serving.........

[Gannex]

The thing is, she'll have had the pros and cons explained. We're thinking the police involved are pretty stupid if we say she can continue this non-touching during her working life. I don't think they're that stupid.
Exactly!


I don't think anyone is questioning whether she has the capabilities of a police officer. What is at question however is the small fact that due to her religious beliefs she can choose if and when she can make physical contact with a man.

What is to say that she won't 'decide' that she doesn't want to touch a male criminal during an arrest? If she did decide not to on religious grounds then the MET would have to stand by their policy of letting her feelings stand because they have now set a precedent.

Carl, she cannot "choose if and when she can make physical contact with a man". The Police choose. That is why she had to have permission to not shake hands. If she were to "choose" not to touch a man while on duty, when touching him was called for, she would be bounced out of the force as quickly as you can say the word "fired". You are clouding the issue if you suggest there is any question of her willingness to do the job, all aspects of the job, including touching men.

This notion of a precedent, that because she has been allowed not to shake hands with the Commissioner, she must now be allowed to avoid touching any man while working; well that's just ridiculous. The law isn't that stupid. She has asked permission to vary from protocol on a ceremonial occasion, and that permission has been granted. It has been granted because the variation has absolutely no impact on the officer's performance or on the ceremony; all it will lead to is a break in the series of shaken hands when she comes up, and instead, from her, some other mark of respect like a small bow. It will add a welcome flourish to the proceeding if you ask me, but I am sure that this permission sets a precedent for only one thing: varying from protocol on ceremonial occasions. It has nothing to do with rules of behaviour for the officer while on duty. There, touching men is, has been, and always will be absolutely required. There is no slippery slope; there need be no disrespect.

[Drew]

I would have refused to shake his hand, but not due to religious reasons, due to him being a to$$er.

Yes, it is a big fuss when two children are killed by a paedophile, moron.

[Rudy Tamasz]

In the first place I don't quite understand why she joined the force from the point of view of her religion. She refuses to shake hands but she may be required to do so much more as an officer. One day she may have to search a dirty junkie up his a$$ where he hides a dose of crack in a small plastic bag. This is something that the prophet will discuss with her after she joins the majority!

[Bebee]

Two things:

1. She can't pick and choose when to apply her religion beliefs. If she truly believes in not touching men then she shouldn't have become a police officer. Potentially, she will have to put aside one of her religious beliefs every day she's on the job. That must be quite a conflict for a devout person. If she can do that, she can shake the Commisioner's hand.

2. She was in uniform at an official police event. As schmenke said, salute the rank, not the man. When she's not on the job, fine, don't touch him.

It will always be about 'us and them' whilst ever sections of a community seek to be allowed to do things differently from the societal norm. Whatever happened to 'when in Rome...'?

First off... Personally, I try not to shake hands with a bloke except on the first occassion (simply because I think it's rude not to). After that, I'd tell them politely that I usually don't do it and if you do put your hand out again, I won't shake it.

Next point, which is something that most people here are missing. As unbelievable as it may seem to most of you, Islam is quite flexible. There's like a hierarchy in what you should do, etc (not the best word for it, but it'll do for now). When she's on duty, she has to do whatever has to be done to enforce the law. She does not have a choice to 'pick and choose' - ethically, morally, legally and religiously.

Personally, I think this is just a case of trying to really stick it to the rest of us for no apparent reason. What saddens me even more is that some members on this forum still feel that way after it's been mentioned a number of times that it would not affect her in any way on the job. Furthermore, some comments made in this thread (I don't need to point out which one in particular because that's quite obvious) are totally unwarranted and are just taking cheap-shot at us. :rolleyes:

[Knock-on]

Totally agree BeeBee.

Here we have a woman that has successfully combined her religious beliefs with what can be considered a very difficult career.

I find it perfectly acceptable for her to say that she will do her job to the best of her ability but when it's a formal ceremony like this, she chooses to recognise her superior officer with the respect and acknowledgement that her culture and religion dictated.

I have worked in the Far East and met representatives from the Far East in my country. I have no issue with returning a bowed head instead of a handshake. She is not being rude but observing her customs in a sensible manner.

Why is everyone looking for a radical under each stupid news story. It's not like that teacher who was quite unreasonable in refusing to remove her headdress and couldn't do her job properly. In that circumstance, she was deceitful and underhanded in her dealings. Here we have the complete opposite with a young lady that has beliefs but also the free will to choose a profession where she has to make choices that might go against some of the customs those beliefs dictate. However, sh has rationalised the situation and combined those customs where appropriate into her duty.

Isn't this what we call moderation? Aren't the people that call for her to disregard her customs and demand she 100% accept Western customs such as shaking someones hand a little bit fanatical?

Whatever happened to tolerance, respect, understanding and acceptance of our differences?

[Hawkmoon]

Next point, which is something that most people here are missing. As unbelievable as it may seem to most of you, Islam is quite flexible. There's like a hierarchy in what you should do, etc (not the best word for it, but it'll do for now). When she's on duty, she has to do whatever has to be done to enforce the law. She does not have a choice to 'pick and choose' - ethically, morally, legally and religiously.

The Taliban weren't particularly flexible in their interpretation of Islam in Afghanistan.

This debate, however, is not really about Islam. It's about a person being granted permission to set aside a cultural protocol because it doesn't suit that person's belief system. That person has effectively been set outside the rules that govern everyone else. That's what I have a problem with.

This is a minor case, and in isolation, does no harm. What it does do however, is give other people the precedent to seek exemptions of their own. If we continue with the police/religion theme, if a Jewish officer seeks an exemption from having to work on Saturdays, how can the officer now be refused? Or a Catholic officer not wanting to work on Sundays?

These situations will probably never arise but the point is that in a free democratic society people have the right to practice whatever religion they choose. But that right comes with the responsibility of following the rules set down by the society. Rules that should not be set aside just because they conflict with an individuals personal beliefs.

Is it not better for society as a whole that the individuals beliefs come after those of the society?

[Gannex]

Just when I thought I was the only one supporting the officer, along come Hazell, Bebee and Knock-on. Good to see that cultural diversity and tolerance are not dead concepts.

Having said that, I agree with you, Hawkmoon, that it is absurd to ban the national flag at public gatherings, refuse to allow public references to Christmas, and that sort of thing. The funny thing is, it is always the politically correct brigade that demand these silly self-restraints, and almost never the minorities themselves, whose delicate sensibilities are supposedly being protected. In England, at least, if you ask most blacks, Jews or Muslims whether municipal Christmas lights should be re-named Seasonal Decorations, they will say "no". That's what opinion polls over here tend to find, anyway.

But this hand-shake thing is, to my mind, different, and completely sensible; I know we won't agree on that, though. No harm in a little diversity of views!

[fly_ac]

Give her a pair of gloves. ;)

[BDunnell]

Totally agree BeeBee.

Here we have a woman that has successfully combined her religious beliefs with what can be considered a very difficult career.

I find it perfectly acceptable for her to say that she will do her job to the best of her ability but when it's a formal ceremony like this, she chooses to recognise her superior officer with the respect and acknowledgement that her culture and religion dictated.

I have worked in the Far East and met representatives from the Far East in my country. I have no issue with returning a bowed head instead of a handshake. She is not being rude but observing her customs in a sensible manner.

Why is everyone looking for a radical under each stupid news story. It's not like that teacher who was quite unreasonable in refusing to remove her headdress and couldn't do her job properly. In that circumstance, she was deceitful and underhanded in her dealings. Here we have the complete opposite with a young lady that has beliefs but also the free will to choose a profession where she has to make choices that might go against some of the customs those beliefs dictate. However, sh has rationalised the situation and combined those customs where appropriate into her duty.

Isn't this what we call moderation? Aren't the people that call for her to disregard her customs and demand she 100% accept Western customs such as shaking someones hand a little bit fanatical?

Whatever happened to tolerance, respect, understanding and acceptance of our differences?

I agree with every word of that. Very elegantly put.

[Daniel]

Totally agree BeeBee.

Here we have a woman that has successfully combined her religious beliefs with what can be considered a very difficult career.

I find it perfectly acceptable for her to say that she will do her job to the best of her ability but when it's a formal ceremony like this, she chooses to recognise her superior officer with the respect and acknowledgement that her culture and religion dictated.

I have worked in the Far East and met representatives from the Far East in my country. I have no issue with returning a bowed head instead of a handshake. She is not being rude but observing her customs in a sensible manner.

Why is everyone looking for a radical under each stupid news story. It's not like that teacher who was quite unreasonable in refusing to remove her headdress and couldn't do her job properly. In that circumstance, she was deceitful and underhanded in her dealings. Here we have the complete opposite with a young lady that has beliefs but also the free will to choose a profession where she has to make choices that might go against some of the customs those beliefs dictate. However, sh has rationalised the situation and combined those customs where appropriate into her duty.

Isn't this what we call moderation? Aren't the people that call for her to disregard her customs and demand she 100% accept Western customs such as shaking someones hand a little bit fanatical?

Whatever happened to tolerance, respect, understanding and acceptance of our differences?
:up:

I don't know if elegant is the right way to describe you but your words are rather elegant :p

[Knock-on]

:up:

I don't know if elegant is the right way to describe you but your words are rather elegant :p


Oh I can be as elegant as any knuckle dragging, beer drinking, fag smoking, farting, snoring neanderthal, thank you very much.

[Walks off in a huff while scratching his arse and hoping Oily's left a copy of "Big and Bouncy" in the bog]

[schmenke]

...This debate, however, is not really about Islam. It's about a person being granted permission to set aside a cultural protocol because it doesn't suit that person's belief system. That person has effectively been set outside the rules that govern everyone else. That's what I have a problem with....

This is also why I’m uncomfortable. This issue is about respect for your superiors and colleagues. When in uniform you are representing your profession and all religious or social partiality should be restrained. This is why you are in uniform in the first place.

By refusing to shake hands with her superior, in full view of her peers, she has demonstrated a bias based on her religion. As such, she gives the impression that this bias may extend to her job and perhaps influence her duties as a public servant.

[Knock-on]

This is also why I’m uncomfortable. This issue is about respect for your superiors and colleagues. When in uniform you are representing your profession and all religious or social partiality should be restrained. This is why you are in uniform in the first place.

By refusing to shake hands with her superior, in full view of her peers, she has demonstrated a bias based on her religion. As such, she gives the impression that this bias may extend to her job and perhaps influence her duties as a public servant.


But what about a Sikh with a Turban on. Is that showing disrespect by not wearing a Helmet?

I think it's showing great insensitivity to demand she shakes his hand. Yes, it's accepted that this is the "done way" but surely the whole idea of this parade is for the new recruits to be recognised as successful individuals and as a collective force.

We appreciate what they do as a collective force but must also recognise that underneath that force are different individuals with different backgrounds, beliefs and experiences. By acknowledging these differences, we are moving one little step closer to understanding a religion that is still pretty alien to most of us.

For Gods sake, we have had a large representation from the Sub Continent in the UK since Queen Victoria's reign and Curry has become the National Dish yet the ignorant people out there still haven't a clue about Indian culture as demonstrated on Big Brother. What hope have we understanding a religion that until 10 years ago, was practically unknown to most Brits.

We are one of the most successful Multi-cultural nations in the world and yet we are still so blinkered when it comes to understanding anything that is not the traditional way. We are not talking about eroding the nations standards and traditions but of allowing others to express their respect and values in a different way.

I hate Political Correctness for the sake of it but this is nothing of the such. This is equality, moderation and should be encouraged. If a Muslim woman can work in the Police Force and bring the values and experience that the Police is soooooo lacking, why are people objecting to her demonstrating how some of the differences can be handled in a positive manner?

[schmenke]

...I hate Political Correctness for the sake of it but this is nothing of the such. This is equality, moderation and should be encouraged. If a Muslim woman can work in the Police Force and bring the values and experience that the Police is soooooo lacking, why are people objecting to her demonstrating how some of the differences can be handled in a positive manner?

She has yet to demonstrate this. This entire issue is about the potential conflict between the customs of her faith and her ability to perform her duties as a law enforcement officer. If I were a British citizen (not to mention taxpayer) I would want reasonable reassurances that no such conflict exists.

The Turban is not a sign of disrespect (not sure what you mean by "not wearing a helmet :confused: ) as long as it's a recognised part of the required uniform.

[janneppi]

I guess her word for it doesn't count then? IMO she has been quite reasonable in this, she asked permission while assuring it wouldn't affect her real duties.

[Gannex]

This entire issue is about the potential conflict between the customs of her faith and her ability to perform her duties as a law enforcement officer.
There is no conflict, schmenke. She has said she does not expect to be allowed a no-touch policy while on duty. So there is no conflict, potential or otherwise.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok, I can ammend my thoughts slightly. Since she will touch men, as she realizes it is part of her job, I can live with maybe her not shaking hands provided it was part of the process she has told her superiors about. To me, when she puts on the uniform, she is bound by all the traditions and duties that come with it, and if that means you shake hands with the boss when you graduate into being a Constable, so be it. That said, if the brass of the police knew what her feeling was and the reason was for it, and they were ok with it, I guess then it is ok. I don't think it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me...considering who and what she may be having to touch down the road.

AS for Islamics born in the UK, yes, I realize that. I also find the some of the most fantatical Islamic terrorists are often born in the West, such as the subway/bus bombers in London, and the 17 that were arrested in Toronto with a plot to blow up the Canadian Parliament. 16 out of 17 were Canadian born.....

Islam is a very rigid faith, with rules many of us non-muslims don't understand. I am just of the opinion it would behoove Islamic adherent to adapt to the west in that they live here now. Their kids have a tough job being part of both worlds, but the fact remains that the culture they are moving into is a tolerant one up to a point, but we have to understand how Islam fits in, and we have to see that there is an effort made to adapt. I think you have people misunderstanding Islamic motives, mores and ways when many are so quick to judge OUR culture. This happens and I think it is the main reason there is a lot of anti-Islamic back lash. That said, some Christians can be so intolerant of each other, the Islamic issue is not unique....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As an athiest I think that good manners should come before religion. I don't know Allah personally, but I'm sure if a muslim woman refused to shake my hand I'd be more offended than he would be if they did shake my hand.

However I think that this case has more to do with politics than religous believes. I think that the Muslim woman refused to shake Ian Blair because of his repeated terror sieges on Muslim communities.

[Daniel]

You're making some big assumptions there Jon......

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You're making some big assumptions there Jon......

What? That I know how Allah thinks or that this thing is all to do with politics not religion. ;)

Maybe cases like this have been happening for years but we haven't heard about them untill now because the media is trying to stir up civil war for some good headlines. (It nearly worked in 007 Tomorrow Never Dies :p )

[Mark in Oshawa]

Is this Commish that hostile towards minorities that a police officer would use a grad ceremony to make a political statement??

I am not from the UK, so this is all third party stuff, I can only go by what Iam told, but if this is a politcal protest of some form, well....

[oily oaf]

Anyone seen my copy of this month's "Big And Bouncy"?
I could swear blind I left it in the bog :confused:

Still I suppose you shouldn't let these little setbacks get you down :)
(lights pipe, tears open shirt and howls at moon)

[BeansBeansBeans]

Is this Commish that hostile towards minorities that a police officer would use a grad ceremony to make a political statement??

I am not from the UK, so this is all third party stuff, I can only go by what Iam told, but if this is a politcal protest of some form, well....

It's more likely that the Officer in question wants to greet the commisioner in a fashion suitable to her faith as it's her passing out parade and her family will be there and so on. As it isn't going to affect her ability as a Police Officer I don't see why it's such a problem.