PC Policing

SouthernN'Proud

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
from tonguetied.us



Police in Australia are being told to treat minority suspects differently from other ones so as not to be accused of cultural insensitivity, according to the Herald Sun.

Among the counsel being given to officers in Victoria in a religious diversity handbook are that they should consult Muslim religious leaders in cases of domestic violence involving people of that faith.

Advocates for Islamic women called the guidelines appalling and dangerous. "The implication is one needs to be more tolerant of violence against Muslim women," said Joumanah El Matrah of the Islamic Women's Welfare Council.

Police are also warned against interviewing Aboriginal suspects or setting court hearings during Aboriginal ceremonies involving "initiation, birth, death, burials, mourning periods, women's meetings and cultural ceremonies in general." They are also advised not to bother a Sikh who is reading the Sikh Holy Script -- a process that normally takes 50 hours.


**end**

So now we cater to the cultural differences of criminals.

Hogg's right...it doesn't matter. Just because someone decided to break the law, they should still be allowed to do whatever the hell they choose. So unimportant.

Last I heard, the phrase was "Law of the land", not "Law of the HOMEland".
 
I am slightly insulted, by the way, (or I would be if I gave a fuck) that you insinuate I'm suggesting that police should not rigorously clamp down on domestic abuse and suchlike. That has absolutely nothing to do with the irrelevant stories you have been posting about.

I am not a fan of PCism, I simply refuse to accept that most of the articles you post about it are remotely relevant or have any kind of tangible effect on anyone.

Additionally, the case may be that guidelines like these are handed down to inform ordinary officers how to go about their duty by not adding fuel to an already delicate situation, as much as is possible. This is not just a PC thing, but to save the police time and trouble sorting out problems they can do without.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
So now we cater to the cultural differences of criminals.

Hogg's right...it doesn't matter. Just because someone decided to break the law, they should still be allowed to do whatever the hell they choose. So unimportant.
Click to expand...
Actually your article says "suspects" not "criminals".
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Australia is the aboriginal's homeland. They were there before anyone else. Maybe they should set the law?
Click to expand...

So now we should allow Native Americans to dictate our legal structure because they were here first.

Pathetic.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
I am slightly insulted,
Click to expand...

'Bout time it came back around, wouldn't you say?


I am not a fan of PCism,
Click to expand...

:bs: I can read.


Additionally, the case may be that guidelines like these are handed down to inform ordinary officers how to go about their duty by not adding fuel to an already delicate situation, as much as is possible. This is not just a PC thing, but to save the police time and trouble sorting out problems they can do without.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how that sounds?

Police have two primary functions. To protect the citizens from unlawful behavior, and to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. In what way do either of these functions depend on the cultural background of anyone? Do they enfore rape differently for a Russian woman than a Brazillian woman?

It's painfully clear. You are clueless beyond explanation. You prefer to try and live in a theoretical world. Well, you don't pal. You live in the real one. And if some thug walks up to you and beats, robs, and traumatizes you, I certainly hope you tell the bobbies not to do anything to him if he is of a different culture than you, because it might make a delicate situation worse.

I deal with criminals every day for a living. That means I also deal with their victims. You want to tell me about delicate situations?

Grow up.
 
Stop throwing around insults, please. If he irritates you to that degree, may I introduce you to the concept of the ignore list?
 
a fair trial by a jury of one's peers requires that the jurors approach the case with the thought that the prosecution is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since the trial begins with the prosecution not having introduced a single piece of evidence, it follows that a defendant must be innocent, until proven guilty.

What's your big problem with this system?
 
Your definition is flawed. Our system uses due process as a basis. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable law. The system is highly flawed. It is skewed towards the prosecution, unless you have too much money.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
'Bout time it came back around, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

I whole-heartedly apologise for persecuting you and your people. Please, as an outsider I only wish to be accepted as a part of this discussion forum community.

SouthernN'Proud said:
:bs: I can read.
Click to expand...

Evidently. It's your skills of comprehension I would call into question.

SouthernN'Proud said:
Do you have any idea how that sounds?

Police have two primary functions. To protect the citizens from unlawful behavior, and to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. In what way do either of these functions depend on the cultural background of anyone? Do they enfore rape differently for a Russian woman than a Brazillian woman?

It's painfully clear. You are clueless beyond explanation. You prefer to try and live in a theoretical world. Well, you don't pal. You live in the real one. And if some thug walks up to you and beats, robs, and traumatizes you, I certainly hope you tell the bobbies not to do anything to him if he is of a different culture than you, because it might make a delicate situation worse.

I deal with criminals every day for a living. That means I also deal with their victims. You want to tell me about delicate situations?

Grow up.
Click to expand...

Come on, spare me the bollocks. It's nothing but a guidebook on how to deal with religious sensitivities. If they have an immediate issue to attend to, that is a different story. If it involves raiding an aboriginal or Muslim area during a religious period, then some discretion must be shown or the police will have a bigger problem on their hands. Nothing more.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
So now we should allow Native Americans to dictate our legal structure because they were here first.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

No. That was a fairly flippant response to your "law of the land, not the HOMEland" comment. Australia is the aboriginal's homeland, not that of the Muslim's or of white people. Read your own article. No where did I comment on the USA.

Also, the wiping out of Native American culture should be a history lesson on how cultures are really dealt with by invading peoples.
 
Gonz said:
Your definition is flawed. Our system uses due process as a basis. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable law. The system is highly flawed. It is skewed towards the prosecution, unless you have too much money.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's anything wrong with my definition but I'll backtrack a little. The issue is that you are assuming all suspects are criminals. You should certainly know that this isn't true.

I personally have been a suspect on a couple of occasions where the police simply had the wrong person. If I had been in the middle of a ceremony involving "initiation, birth, death, or burials" when this happened I'd have raised hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top