Should police be able to decline assignments?

[Giz]

Thought provoking article in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1887967,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Highlights:

"PC Alexander Omar Basha, who is attached to the force's Diplomatic Protection Group, objected to being posted to protect Israel's embassy in central London from possible terrorist attack because he disagreed with the country's bombing of Lebanon. "

"The case has provoked unease from those who worry that officers may be able to start picking and choosing their duties. John O'Connor, a former Flying Squad commander, told today's Sun: "This is the beginning of the end for British policing. If they can allow this, surely they'll have to accept a Jewish officer not wanting to work at an Islamic national embassy? Will Catholic cops be let off working at Protestant churches. Where will it end?" "


Now I wasn't previously aware that the police were able "allows officers to refuse certain duties on moral grounds". (If prodded I might have guessed that there would be something like the Army's guidelines on legal/illegal orders).

This seems to pose two issues:

1) Should the Police be able to refuse duties they as individuals see as immoral (rather than what the law would recognise as an illegal order)? Does this risk turning an agent of the state who will (theoretically) enforce the law impartially into someone who can enforce laws or turn a blind eye to infractions at their whim? Shouldn't society (i.e. the democratically elected legislature) pass laws, and the police are required to do what is required to enforce all of these... not just whichever of the statutes they personally agree with (i.e. thou shalt not kill... Isrealis?)

2) Should some individuals be thrown out of the police as obviously unsuitable for the responsibility of maintaining law and order? To take the example in the article, this guy would appear to be unwilling to try and prevent an unlawful attack (on a non-military target) on UK soil. Should not his Performance Appraiser be taking him to one side and saying "So Alexander, perhaps a career maintaining law and order isn't your true calling?"

 

[BPSCG]

No.

This is the same principle as the "Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for 'morning-after' pills?" discussion we had here a while ago.

 

[bob_kark]

A law enforcement agent needs to be impartial. If this police officer refuses to work at the Israeli Embassy, he demonstrates that he is not. As a result, I believe he either needs career counsiling/uptraining to instill impartiality or he needs to be fired. As it stands, this officer is a liablity.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thought provoking article in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1887967,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
"So Alexander, perhaps a career maintaining law and order isn't your true calling?"

1. A cop should not be permitted to selectively obey a lawful order
2. A cop ought to be allowed to request duty switching with another officer if a particular lawful duty disturbs him. He need not be required to have that grant approved.
3. A cop ought to be able to recuse himself from conflicts of interest.

His political objection strikes me as his problem, and your last line is the response I'd give.

I was against US intervention in Bosnia ( I viewed it a gross violation of the Weinberger Doctrine and counter to US national interests) but I did my duties for those operations as assigned, and with a will.

DR

 

[Giz]

Wow, I agree with 100% of the responses so far... has got to be somekind of record

 

[Cylinder]

A cop ought to be allowed to request duty switching with another officer if a particular lawful duty disturbs him. He need not be required to have that grant approved.

Do you mean the officer should be able to recuse himself by unilateral decree or that the organization should have the power to deny the request?

The former presents a challenge that would be hard to reconcile and is probably best illustrated by white police officers refusing to investigate white-on-black crime in the old south. Police should not have the opportunity to challenge their post - they can either "protect and serve" or find another vocation.

 

[slingblade]

No.

This is the same principle as the "Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for 'morning-after' pills?" discussion we had here a while ago.

I not only agree, but that was the example/analogy I was formulating as I read the OP.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Wow, I agree with 100% of the responses so far... has got to be somekind of record

Ditto here. If you have a problem with the types of duties or responsibilities you are or might be given, perhaps a career as a greeter at Walmart might work better for you ....

Charlie (accept the job, accept the responsibilities) Monoxide

 

[shuize]

Agreed. My first thought was of a religious officer refusing to protect homosexuals.

Time to find a new line of work.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Agreed. My first thought was of a religious officer refusing to protect homosexuals.

Time to find a new line of work.

Well played.

DR

 

[Skeptic]

Of course police should be allowed to decline assignments if it conflicts with their morals. Look at the police in the US south in the 1930s, for example--they declined to protect blacks from the KKK since it conflicted with their deeply-held beliefs in white superiority and the need to keep the darkies in fear of their betters. Surely there was nothing wrong with that?

 

[Beerina]

No.

This is the same principle as the "Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for 'morning-after' pills?" discussion we had here a while ago.

Pharmacists are private citizens running a private business. That is the entire difference between government (a construction of the people) and the people.

The government is not authorized, by the people, to demand private people do immoral things with their own property and lives.

 

[Beerina]

1. A cop should not be permitted to selectively obey a lawful order

...and keep his job. Like any private citizen, he can quit his job and go find another one.

Er, private subject.

 

[Nancarrow]

Of course police should be allowed to decline assignments if it conflicts with their morals. Look at the police in the US south in the 1930s, for example--they declined to protect blacks from the KKK since it conflicted with their deeply-held beliefs in white superiority and the need to keep the darkies in fear of their betters. Surely there was nothing wrong with that?

Cylinder made exactly this point already, except without your distinctly off-putting style of sarcastically saying the opposite of your real point.

 

[Darat]

Just a note about the incident that provoked this thread - it has (as often turns out to be the case) been revealed to be a bit more complex then the initial headlines would have had everyone believe.

...snip...

This seems to pose two issues:

1) Should the Police be able to refuse duties they as individuals see as immoral (rather than what the law would recognise as an illegal order)?

No - but of course they should and indeed should actively seek not to undertake any action that they believe is unlawful - "I was just obeying orders" is not an excuse.

Does this risk turning an agent of the state who will (theoretically) enforce the law impartially into someone who can enforce laws or turn a blind eye to infractions at their whim?

Yes.

Shouldn't society (i.e. the democratically elected legislature) pass laws, and the police are required to do what is required to enforce all of these... not just whichever of the statutes they personally agree with (i.e. thou shalt not kill... Isrealis?)

Yes.

2) Should some individuals be thrown out of the police as obviously unsuitable for the responsibility of maintaining law and order?

Yes.

To take the example in the article, this guy would appear to be unwilling to try and prevent an unlawful attack (on a non-military target) on UK soil. Should not his Performance Appraiser be taking him to one side and saying "So Alexander, perhaps a career maintaining law and order isn't your true calling?"

No for the example in the article (as I noted at the start of my response the matter was a tad more complex then him just saying "I morally object because Israel is at war with my wife's country so I need to be excused") but yes in principle.

 

[Tailgater]

I would say that an officer should not refuse an assignment, but the superior making the assignment should take that person's morals, race, and beliefs in to account beforehand.

 

[bob_kark]

Just a note about the incident that provoked this thread - it has (as often turns out to be the case) been revealed to be a bit more complex then the initial headlines would have had everyone believe.

Do you happen to have a link to an article that goes into more detail? The original article seemed to flatly state that the officer had a moral objection to protecting the Israeli Embassy.

 

[tkingdoll]

Just to make the distinction, in England the police swear allegiance to the Queen, not the goverment. I thought I'd mention it as it does make a difference to the perception of where the police's loyalties are supposed to lie.

 

[zenith-nadir]

A law enforcement agent needs to be impartial. If this police officer refuses to work at the Israeli Embassy, he demonstrates that he is not. As a result, I believe he either needs career counsiling/uptraining to instill impartiality or he needs to be fired. As it stands, this officer is a liablity.

Agreed. He is a total liability because he puts his religion over his duty as a police officer.

{edited to add}

• cite - A diplomat at the Israeli embassy in London has been killed by a letter bomb.
• cite - A car bomb has exploded outside the Israeli embassy in London injuring 14 people.

Thursday October 5, 09:05 PM

The Sun newspaper reported that Constable Alexander Omar Basha told his bosses he morally objected to Israel's 34-day war against Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

However, the Association of Muslim Police Officers, which represented Basha in media interviews, said he was moved last week because he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe" guarding the embassy in west London.

Guess who perpetrated the "car bomb" incident outside the Israeli embassy in London in 1994. Why it was none other than Hezbollah.

Israeli Embassy Attack in London

In all, Hezbollah is blamed by the United Kingdom, Argentina and Israel for the three terrorist attacks carried out against Jewish and Israeli targets on July 18 and July 26. 107 people were killed and 320 wounded in the attacks.

I'd say the guy is a liability to the British police force.

 

[Darat]

Do you happen to have a link to an article that goes into more detail? The original article seemed to flatly state that the officer had a moral objection to protecting the Israeli Embassy.

I should have provided a link to back up my claim when I made it - sorry.

The background to the reporting of the incident is that the story was originally broken by "The Sun" (so the fact they apparently got his name right and which embassy was involved was probably a happy accident) and the rest of the newspapers ran with the Sun's version... Later on they started to do a bit of their own research and the Met also officially responded - this BBC article (which was published when a few more facts had come to light) I think provides a better overview of the actual incident: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5408470.stm?ls