The story broke out in the Sun — Britain’s best-selling newspaper — and predictably it was laced with sensationalism and condemnation. A Muslim police officer had been excused from guarding the Israeli Embassy in London. This was “the beginning of the end for British policing”, the paper quoted a helpful former police officer who, even more helpfully, went on to say that “what they’ve done is a grave insult to the Jewish community”.
Well well, what is the world coming to when a British police constable can be relieved of his duty on moral grounds? The constable in question is Alexander Omar Basha, a Muslim with a Syrian father and a Lebanese wife. He is a Diplomatic Group Officer protecting London’s diplomatic community. At the height of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon this August, he asked his superiors for special dispensation — which was granted — not to be called to guard the Israeli Embassy in London. The Sun claimed this was on “moral grounds” because the officer objected to Israeli aggression in Lebanon (though I doubt the Sun called it aggression, perhaps “policy” or “actions” but let us call a spade a spade). He had, the Sun pointed out, even attended an anti-war demonstration! Sir Ian Blair, the metropolitan police commissioner, has reacted swiftly to the Sun’s story by ordering an urgent review of the decision.
Police officers are required to swear an oath of attestation on joining the police force. This oath binds them to serve “without fear or favor”. It is similar in spirit to the Hippocratic oath for doctors, though in this modern age the elegance of that oath has been replaced by detailed legal guidelines on doctor’s duties. Clearly police officers, just like doctors, and soldiers and firemen and ambulance crews, cannot pick and choose who they will and will not deal with. Opinions, personal feelings, moral objections become irrelevant in the line of duty. But surely there is a line between being an officer of the law and being a sentient human being with all the vulnerabilities and sensibilities this entails. And when the duty in question involves an armed officer, human weakness becomes highly relevant.
If a man had lost his son in a school shooting, would you assign him to protect a child-killer? If an officer had been sexually abused as a child, would you assign him to protect a pedophile?
If a man’s family and friends are being killed and maimed, their homes bombarded and destroyed, their livelihoods turned into dust, would you expect this man to stand guard outside those who do this onto him? Could you reasonably, humanely, expect this of him?
Partly this is an issue not just of duty but of allegiance. The subtext is that a Muslim police officer who is the son of a Syrian is not quite British enough. He may have been born in Britain and have British citizenship but his allegiance is questionable. Remember Norman Tebbit’s infamous cricket test? It is one of the challenges of living in a multicultural society. When the singer Katie Melua became a British citizen a year ago she spoke of her pride at becoming a British citizen whilst reasserting her Georgian identity: “We still consider ourselves to be Georgian, and that is where our roots are, and I return to Georgia every year to see my uncles and grandparents, but I am proud to now be a British citizen.” I imagine Melua’s words reflect rather accurately the feelings of most British citizens who have roots elsewhere, be it Georgia, Syria or Lebanon. Most of the time this does not present a conflict of interest, except in times of war.
And so I find myself sympathizing and agreeing with PC Basha; how could he be expected to stand guard outside the Israeli Embassy when Israel was conducting a war against Lebanon?
Except that it now turns out that it was not on moral grounds that he was granted special dispensation but on safety grounds. PC Basha felt “uncomfortable and unsafe” and made this clear to his superiors. They conducted a risk assessment and decided it was better not to assign him to the Israeli Embassy at this time. He is now back on full duty and may be called to serve at the Israeli Embassy if need be.
Part of his concern seems to be linked to his personal safety and that of his family. A Muslim officer serving at the Israeli Embassy would be close to a red rag to a bull for Islamic extremists. He feared for his life and you can hardly blame him. But, as many have been quick to point out, police officers risk their lives every day; it is part of their duty. The difference here is that police officers risk their lives whilst on duty whereas this particular police officer would be making himself a specific terrorist target and putting his family in danger — something which goes beyond the call of duty.
There is also the question of whether the Israelis would be happy with the assignment of a Muslim police officer with family in Lebanon to guard their embassy in London. Am I alone in thinking that it would be more sensible to assign a different officer to this particular detail? It is a slippery slope, I realize. By that token you would not assign an Asian police officer to police a legal rally of the extreme right British National Party or assign a new father to guard a pedophile. My gut instinct is that good police managers do just that. They understand that police officers are human beings and though they will put aside their personal feelings in order to do their duty those feelings will still intrude and make them vulnerable. As one police officer put it, this is about ensuring that a police officer is emotionally equipped to deal with his duty. It is all very good lauding duty into a lofty unassailable value but we must remember that at the end of the day, police officers are human beings and deserve to be handled with sensitivity and understanding.
