London Jew accused of "breach of the peace" by looking "openly Jewish"

[everydaywonderful]

I'm gobsmacked by this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68856360

You might want to have a look at the conflict in the middle east board then. You'll find plenty of people on there who think the police did nothing wrong and should have arrested him for daring to be Jewish in the vicinity of a march supposedly calling sure a ceasefire. All sorts of accusations against him flying around there. You'll see that Jews are being treated just as badly as other minorities are.

For me that means the same thing tbh

Either way this man apparently cannot walk where he wants, where other people walk, because he is "openly Jewish"

I've posted the exactly wording used earlier in the thread and others have linked to it but actually I don't find the examining the semantics that helpful because it's the same end result.

This is the hypocrisy

"Policing Minister Chris Philp said he would meet Sir Mark to discuss his concerns.
He said: “No-one should be told their religion is provocative, nor an innocent person threatened with arrest solely because of someone else’s anticipated unreasonable reaction.”

Correct - an innocent person should not be threatened with arrest solely because of someone else's anticipated unreasonable reaction. But I can bet he has no issue with some people being arrested like this.

Yes, the point is that being Jewish shouldn't be seen as a provocation by these marchers. There is no reason for a Jew being present to be antagonistic, unless you're an anti-Semite.

I do not need your permission to post on here, especially when you are using black people to make a badly made point. Perhaps you are unaware of the treatment tha t black people have had meted out to them from the Police. Your analogy was, I think in poor taste. I suggest you think about the relevance of what you are writing.

Oh bore off

100%. This is the crux of the matter really.

Even if the police believe that the presence of a person - Jewish in this case - is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, the College of Policing clearly states "Police action should target the persons responsible for the breach of the peace." (my bold). And confirms "Action taken that is not directed at the person committing the breach will generally be unlawful."

There seems to be no suggestion that the police expect Mr Falter to breach the peace himself, so they should not direct any action against him.

The CoP says that action should only be taken against a person in Mr Falter's position in "truly extreme and exceptional circumstances.". While the situation was shouty and verbally aggressive, none of the videos make it look as if the circumstances were truly extreme and exceptional. At the time, at least.

It says:

Breach of the peace gives police powers to intervene and/or arrest when an individual causes harm, or appears likely to do any of the following.

• Cause harm to a person.
• Cause harm to that person’s property, in the person’s presence.
• Put that person in fear of such harm being done through an assault, affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.

So my reading - and the police's reading - is that a person can be arrested if that individual can "put that person in fear of harm through assault etc"

I don't think there's much dispute that the Met are racist towards black people, I believe there have been many official investigations that have proven precisely that. There are many, many threads that discuss this issue and I personally think that's a great thing that people are talking about it, drawing attention to it and fighting against it. But this thread is about a specific incident where a Jew was informed he must either hide his identity, leave the area or be arrested - because there were racists marching who wanted to hurt him. This is - to my mind at least - absolutely horrific and something that does not and would not happen to any other group. This type of racism is also something that I don't see generating as many conversations as other forms of racism (including anti-black racism) and the few conversations that are happening attract people defending and excusing the racists, which again I don't think we see with other forms. We certainly don't see it coming so overtly from public bodies. I believe it deserves its own thread, and if someone wishes to discuss anti-black racism I think they should start another. And I'll be sure to pop up and say "nevermind anti-black racism, what about anti-Jew racism?"

I agree a generic thread detailing all the ways the Met are failing in their duty to the public would be extremely welcome. I agree that is important different groups compare experiences and join together to fight for justice but I don't think that is what was happening in the post I replied to. The post I replied to felt a bit like when women start a thread to discuss their experiences of domestic violence and someone pipes up with "men get hit by women too, you know". Whilst that is true and while I believe that is something that deserves attention, it would not be an appropriate response to that thread. Obviously.

I am not offering you permission and I didn't raise the issue of anti-black racism, I was replying to someone else - maybe you meant to respond to them? This thread is specifically about someone being told to leave an area or face arrest because of their apparent ethnicity. If you have other examples of this happening they would be very interesting and very relevant. If not, I am not sure what you're trying to add to this conversation. But it really means nothing to me, prattle on 'til your heart's content, I'm off to bed :)

If you didn't want people to mention anti-black racism why did you continue the conversation from that one post then, now to multiple posts, maintaining the conversation?

There are far too many threads on MN where "this wouldn't happen to a black person" is used, and quite often fundamentally incorrectly and frequently where it absolutely would happen to a black person

So actually I find "this wouldn't happen to a black person" to be far more akin to "this happens to men to" than anything else.

I also find it interesting it was the discussion about black people you jumped on not the poster trying to drag trans people into this repeatedly. There's some bias in that too tbh

What a stark and shameful example of antisemitism. I hope that change will now be instigated to turn the tide against the antisemitism on the streets on London every Saturday. All Jewish people should be free to be themselves as openly as possible on all days of the week.

Also a bit annoying to see the thread getting derailed into an argument about anti-black racism. That is a different topic and not what the thread is about.

What’s being black got to to with anything?

it’s appalling and hopefully that officer has been sacked.

What’s being black got to to with anything?

Nothing whatsoever until a poster decided to "this wouldn't happen to a black person" it

Honestly even if that particular officer has been sacked this to me speaks of a top down cultural problem and I would love to see some change from the top down

It's not just that the officer felt okay to make the "openly Jewish" comments, its that the first apology, which would have been run past multiple people, was appalling as well so that they had to publish a second apology

That speaks to a wider problem than one officer unfortunately

There’s an Iranian man who has been arrested at these protests for holding a sign saying “Hamas are terrorists” after the crowd has attacked him.

Why are these peace protestors apparently so easily provoked?

Ironic that those defending the protesters are saying he was a campaigner against anti semitism. So he thought some of the protesters were anti semitic, went to the march demonstrating he was obviously Jewish and was arrested in case the protesters decided to attack him, proving his point! The police clearly thought enough elements of the crowd were anti semitic that they would not have been able to protect him from them. And why are they attacking Iranians, people who's family have fled the Iranian regime, a regime that tried to kill an Iranian on UK soil?

I don't get it. I have seen the clip on bbc news. Wasn't the police officer just concerned that the Jewish guy would get attacked if he walked through the protest? Genuine question.

Then why threaten to arrest him?

1. Why would the policeman be concerned of a Jewish man walking through a ‘peaceful protest’?

2. Why would the policeman threaten said man with arrest?

The bbc didn't show that bit. Did he threaten to arrest him when he wouldn't do as the police officer asked? What would have happened if the police had let the Jewish guy walk through the crowd and he was attacked? Again a genuine question.

What would have happened if the police had let the Jewish guy walk through the crowd and he was attacked?

I'm confused? These are supposed to be peaceful protests which Jewish people are joining in with. Why would he have been attacked?

Because people can be unpredictable in large groups and so surely it's better to air on the side of caution for all involved?

I firmly believe in the right to peaceful protest

I also firmly believe the if the protest is not peaceful to the extent that a man who looks Jewish cannot cross the road because he might be attacked by the protest then that protest is not peaceful and should be broken up by an appropriately staffed and equipped police force, instead of the Jewish man being arrested.

Again, arresting a man because he looks Jewish is not erring on the side of caution, its making "looking Jewish" the crime