6 thoughts on “Controversial Story: “Muslim Policeman in Britain doesn’t have to protect a Jew””
For an apologetics site, I would expect a more responsible treatment of this video. First of all, posting a disclaimer that there is not one subtantiated fact in the entire report. Second, there is no mention in the story that this sparked an investigation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/05/ukcrime.uknews21
Third, there is no discussion of the fallacies spouted by the commentator including the slippery slope fallacy as the most egregious.
This is basically a jingoistic editorial masquerading as news commentary with no relevance to the actual event that happened four years ago. I appreciate the anti-Muslim stance Confident Christianity espouses, but posting such obviously shoddy journalism on an apologetics web site does little to advance your cause.
This happened in 2006… A full inquiry was launched by Sir Ian Blair and since then no repeat offences…
Rick,
I appreciate admonishment and watching out for the quality of material and sources. Here are a couple of thoughts.
#1. I didn't re-emphasize any points in the editorial. I'm posting it so the information is presented to my readers to investigate. I do this once in awhile. If the information presented is actually untrue, I will either update the post or take it down entirely. No problem.
#2. It is possible for all of us to make mistakes once in awhile, especially when trusting the news for anything… unfortunately. So there's no reason to go into denigrating my site unless you see an established pattern of poor sourcing. And, in that case, I would expect for you to contact me to encourage better sourcing out of a true concern for the truth and for me.
#3. However, that being said, nothing in the link you posted suggested that the story had been refuted or was poorly sourced. All you have posted is that it is under investigation. Now, I can assume that while it is under investigation, the police officer has had his request fulfilled. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Plus, the link sourced for me the fact that the police do honor these kind of requests after being considered on an individual basis.
#4. I also think the commentator was using slippery slope in his editorializing on the situation. Yet, I don't think slippery slope is the most egregious of fallacies. Also, when it comes to decisions concerning the law, the slippery slope has to be considered because other people will use the law or decision to their advantage, even if unethically. The slippery slope is a part of what is currently being considered as the Supreme Court hears the case of Snyder v. Phelps, 09-751. Now, I realize this is not a one-to-one because of the difference between internal affairs of police policy and Supreme court decisions.
#5. The news report was an editoral, "My Word." So the person giving the report is going to editorialize. At least he is openly presenting his opinion during an editorial and not implying his editorial under the headline of the latest "breaking news." I find news reporters will slip in their commentary on non-editorial bits.
#6. I'm not sure why you are giving commentary on my cause. And I'm not anti-Muslim. Muslims are people and Christians are commanded to love people. I love the Muslim person. But I do not agree with the teachings of Islam. They are contrary to the teachings of Christianity.
Since I cannot know your heart very well from a single post, it sounds as though you are looking for something to tear down rather than truly watching out for the validity of the information. I apologize if I am wrong. The last article I posted had a fact that needed to be changed. I was notified and I changed it. Done. There was no commentary on my cause or on the integrity of the site.
Thanks, MJ
Resident of the UK – Thanks! So, do we know if this guy ever fulfilled his posting to protect the Israeli embassy?
I looked into this issue a little and the head of the Metro Police who called for an investigation into the incident surrounding this event, Sir Ian Blair, has stepped down from his post as of 2008 due to several concerning allegations. So perhaps this issue has not seen resolve yet due to other issues in the Metro police department needing attention?
But I haven't found any resolution on the matter. So apparently, this is still up in the air four years later. If anyone has an update they can source, please post a link.
Thanks, MJ
Perhaps not, but I guess it's encouraging that we haven't seen a repeat incident.
Also i wonder why the issue has suddenly come to light again – perhaps just due to the youtube video appearing??
For an apologetics site, I would expect a more responsible treatment of this video. First of all, posting a disclaimer that there is not one subtantiated fact in the entire report. Second, there is no mention in the story that this sparked an investigation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/05/ukcrime.uknews21
Third, there is no discussion of the fallacies spouted by the commentator including the slippery slope fallacy as the most egregious.
This is basically a jingoistic editorial masquerading as news commentary with no relevance to the actual event that happened four years ago. I appreciate the anti-Muslim stance Confident Christianity espouses, but posting such obviously shoddy journalism on an apologetics web site does little to advance your cause.
This happened in 2006… A full inquiry was launched by Sir Ian Blair and since then no repeat offences…
Rick,
I appreciate admonishment and watching out for the quality of material and sources. Here are a couple of thoughts.
#1. I didn't re-emphasize any points in the editorial. I'm posting it so the information is presented to my readers to investigate. I do this once in awhile. If the information presented is actually untrue, I will either update the post or take it down entirely. No problem.
#2. It is possible for all of us to make mistakes once in awhile, especially when trusting the news for anything… unfortunately. So there's no reason to go into denigrating my site unless you see an established pattern of poor sourcing. And, in that case, I would expect for you to contact me to encourage better sourcing out of a true concern for the truth and for me.
#3. However, that being said, nothing in the link you posted suggested that the story had been refuted or was poorly sourced. All you have posted is that it is under investigation. Now, I can assume that while it is under investigation, the police officer has had his request fulfilled. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Plus, the link sourced for me the fact that the police do honor these kind of requests after being considered on an individual basis.
#4. I also think the commentator was using slippery slope in his editorializing on the situation. Yet, I don't think slippery slope is the most egregious of fallacies. Also, when it comes to decisions concerning the law, the slippery slope has to be considered because other people will use the law or decision to their advantage, even if unethically. The slippery slope is a part of what is currently being considered as the Supreme Court hears the case of Snyder v. Phelps, 09-751. Now, I realize this is not a one-to-one because of the difference between internal affairs of police policy and Supreme court decisions.
#5. The news report was an editoral, "My Word." So the person giving the report is going to editorialize. At least he is openly presenting his opinion during an editorial and not implying his editorial under the headline of the latest "breaking news." I find news reporters will slip in their commentary on non-editorial bits.
#6. I'm not sure why you are giving commentary on my cause. And I'm not anti-Muslim. Muslims are people and Christians are commanded to love people. I love the Muslim person. But I do not agree with the teachings of Islam. They are contrary to the teachings of Christianity.
Since I cannot know your heart very well from a single post, it sounds as though you are looking for something to tear down rather than truly watching out for the validity of the information. I apologize if I am wrong. The last article I posted had a fact that needed to be changed. I was notified and I changed it. Done. There was no commentary on my cause or on the integrity of the site.
Thanks,
MJ
Resident of the UK – Thanks! So, do we know if this guy ever fulfilled his posting to protect the Israeli embassy?
I looked into this issue a little and the head of the Metro Police who called for an investigation into the incident surrounding this event, Sir Ian Blair, has stepped down from his post as of 2008 due to several concerning allegations. So perhaps this issue has not seen resolve yet due to other issues in the Metro police department needing attention?
Here are some relevant stories:
Sir Ian Blair Resigns: Downfall of the PC pc
As far as the facts concerning the original issue go:
Here's the London Evening Standard from 2006 (the grammatical errors bother me, but here it is): Met chief orders inquiry into Muslim PC Embassy Row
and the Telegraph's story from 2006, now hosted on the Free Republic's site: Muslim police officer excused Israel guard duty
Here's a commentary on the issue from the Telegraph in 2006:
Police can't pick and choose which duties they will fulfill
And here's a recent (2010) commentary on the issue: Muslim Police officer refuses to guard Israeli embassy: What are your thoughts?
But I haven't found any resolution on the matter. So apparently, this is still up in the air four years later. If anyone has an update they can source, please post a link.
Thanks,
MJ
Perhaps not, but I guess it's encouraging that we haven't seen a repeat incident.
Also i wonder why the issue has suddenly come to light again – perhaps just due to the youtube video appearing??