How a police terrorism hotline is so frightened of a backlash against claims of discrimination, it positively discriminates instead.
The police force performs a very important role in our society, which has moved more to protection and detection from the approachable information-giving bobby of previous generations. Part of this change in priorities has been due to the changing nature of crime as the threat of global terror becomes a focus.
The Metropolitan Police
None more so than Britain’s Metropolitan Police, who, being the police force for London, is the unofficial main police force for Britain. Yet it’s possible that even though the 1990s buzz term of ‘institutional racism’ has faded in popularity, the Met Police are still favouring, or discriminating against, religious groups.
The Met Police Anti-Terrorism Hotline
In 2004, the Met Police set up their anti-terrorism hotline to allow members of the public to give information about actual and potential terrorists. It’s been a great success and given the police another ‘eye’ in the detection and prevention of terrorism. What different religious groups think of their website, though, is another matter.
The Website
No-one needs reminding of the perceived threat of Muslim extremism and the belief that Islam is the root of the global terror network. Yet the website of the Met Police contains more links to Islamic organizations than to any other religious group.
What needs to be asked is whether the police are targeting Muslims in their counter-terror operations and so expect a backlash, or if they are simply over-protecting themselves to counter possible claims by Muslims that the police aren’t doing enough to help them.
Over-protection
With claims of institutional racism fresh in their minds after the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and more recent research indicating police discrimination against minority groups when using powers such as ‘stop and search’, it’s unlikely they would show such a deliberate bias against Muslims. Instead, it seems a genuine protection method in an attempt to prevent claims of an over-zealous Muslim who might be claiming victimisation. In such a litigious society, it seems easy to claim harassment, especially when so many of the society appear to be against them.
Yet it is ridiculous that society has got to the stage where a police force feels that it is right and proper to over-protect one group of people. Muslims need no more protection than any other religious or not-religious group and to state otherwise is a discredit to Islam. Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all Muslims are victims but to draw attention to the differences, or perceived differences between groups only helps to highlight those differences rather than bridge the gaps. Unfortunately for the Met Police, they have just added to this.
The copyright of the article The War on Terror in Religious Intolerance is owned by Ben Hughes. Permission to republish The War on Terror must be granted by the author in writing.
In Australia, we have one National Security Hotline...where info is channelled to NSW and Federal police, ASIO etc...by "skilled" (non-police) operators. Our NSW police force of 13,300 officers cover an area twice as big as the UK so manning a hotline was out of the question for them. :) I read the Met has over 31,000 police. No wonder Constable Hollis seems to have time on his hands. :)
<i>"The Met Police Anti-Terrorism Hotline...It's been a great success..."</i>
Seriously, I wonder about the spin. Who really knows how successful security hotlines are in themselves as the reporting of crime prevention doesn't make the news. There is opportunistic arrangements too. For example, the stopping of a speeding car can also bring unexpected results...or accumulating police intelligence.
And I suspect many more organisations than those meeting the criteria to be listed as a terrorist organisation, are being watched. Somewhere between the hype that Islam has everything to do with it and true Islam has nothing to do with it, lies a 'truth'.
Sep 12, 2007 10:31 AM
Ben Hughes
:
Hi
Thanks for your comments.
Okay, so the UK is actually quite a small country in comparison to some, but is it that people (or the media) in the UK tend to blow things out of proportion or does Australia have the same security problems? 13,300 officers for the size of NSW really doesn't sound that many. Do you have the same level of crime out there at all...? I take your point about the perceived level of success and I wonder how much of that is spin and how much the public really do help. But the involvement of the public can generally only be a positive thing - I say generally because some of them shouldn't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces, but you know what I mean. The thing with terror organisations is that their covert work can only be detected by a lot of hard police work or the help of the vigilant public and this is the "success" the hotline can bring. In terms of your final paragraph, do you feel that all groups should be watched in case they are terror organisations, rather than just keeping an eye on Islamic groups, or is this getting a bit "Big Brother"?
Sep 14, 2007 1:01 AM
redback
:
G'day. I get the impression the size of a country can obscure things. The assumption is OZ is a bit more laid back than the UK and certainly far less terorism. Did you hear about the comedy team 'The Chaser's War On Everything' able to breach security at the APEC held here. The USA, however, gives me the impression of too many cooks in too many broths...and too much distrust. That their CIA is great on collecting intelligence, less so on analysing it. But hey, I'm clearly ignorant of any intelligence organisation as we all should be. I just have a profound hope all of them are getting the right balance in risk management...but hope aint based on empirical evidence. :)
There is only opportunity cost to go on ie what would have happened in the UK, OZ, USA etc <b>BUT FOR</b> for their watchfulness.
<i>"Do you have the same level of crime out there at all...?"</i>
Sounds a simple question. The level of crime, the rate of crime and the perceived and real risks of being a victim of which type of crime? Found this link below but I have a perception OZ is safer than the UK and USA...and am probably wrong. :)
<i>"do you feel that all groups should be watched in case they are terror organisations"</i>
The watching can lull us into a false sense of security as the Chaser simply proved. Terrorist 'organisations' as I understand them aren't as easily watchable. Do we need to have specialist watchers for everything...or multiskill? Do you think the focus is on the crime with the least political support? Speeding, drunken, unlicensed drivers; criminals bashing up criminals; students smoking weed; MPs ripping off the taxpayers or petrol stations overcharging for gas...all cop inconsistent watching. And the terrorist "sleeper cell" who hopes to stay below the radar for years???
Tis all about risk management and downplaying the collateral damage. And staying away from my street. :) But these times do call for tougher responses. Where do we draw the line...on our privacy/freedoms...on the extra tax needed to pay for extra security...on staying in a country doing the wrong thing...etc? Big Brother is well and truly here and keeps the best bedroom.
Sep 14, 2007 1:32 PM
Ben Hughes
:
Thanks for your comments. Maybe the world has become a bit too sensitive to many things and the risk assessment thing has gone a bit far recently as well. But if everything was ignored, we'd end up in a mess. We don't need special groups watching everyone, but the type and focus of crime has shifted and it's probably something we'll all struggle to keep up with now. Should he focus be on petty criminals or or larger criminals? Should we reduce the impact of drugs or potential terrorist cells? I don't know. But like you say, Big Brother is here to stay. I also think the media have a huge part to play in whipping up public feelings and directing emotions to where they want them to be, Like you say, I think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere for boundaries, but it's difficult to know where. But on this note, I think that some people don't help themselves - those people who say they are religious but act in ways which go comepletely against God's wishes.
Sep 14, 2007 10:24 PM
redback
:
The media is an interesting thing. When I read or hear its generalisations about what the majority of us do, think or feel, invariably I'm not among them. But I can't check all the stuff to find what generalisations I agree with. Of the limitless media options available to me if I had no life other than to watch it and read about it, I may also make 'bad' media selections anyway. :)
There is some sense in keeping an eye on antisocial behaviour if for no other reason than to monitor where we shift society's tolerance level to. There is an expression "creating a climate conducive to corruption" that can equally apply to terrorism. The thin edge of the wedge...for good or bad.
<i>"...I think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere..."</i>
I do support these hotlines being part of the mix. We are increasingly being conditioned to the fact the world (taxpayer) does not owe us a living so dobbing cheats in to the Tax or Welfare man, crime etc...to all the related hotlines...is part of the good side of the line IMO.
But, we also need to fix things without waiting for others. "Just Do It' T-shirts. Unfortunately, there IS a decline in "getting involved". Give up or persevere despite the challenges?
<i>"Should he focus be on petty criminals or or larger criminals?"</i>
Have you ever sat as an observer in a petty sessions court. I have and am no longer surprised at the low skills of the criminals who never get caught and the dumb luck of those who do.
<i>" I think that some people don't help themselves - those people who say they are religious but act in ways which go comepletely against God's wishes."</i>
There is enough discussion over in Mind & Soul that suggests to me tis a brave man that <b>knows</b> what God's wishes are. God is responsible for sunshine and warm fuzzy things...all else is someone else...may be the thinking that confuses. :)
