London Police; You Look Jewish...

[eider]

Keeping protesters and counter-protesters apart to keep violence to a minimum during demonstrations is something police routinely do. So nothing to see here.

From the thread title, I had assumed it was some sort of racist judgement based on facial features. But, in actual fact, it was about what the man was wearing, that identified him as belonging to a group. In the video of his interactions with the officer, who was nothing but polite and verbally firm with him, the man confirms he is Jewish and that the identification based on what he is wearing is correct. The officer, out of concern for the Jewish man's safety, does not want him to place himself in the path of the pro-Palestinian protesters.

The officer's conduct is entirely reasonable: He is polite, non-violent, acting out of concern for public safety, and is not being racist.

Simply put, anyone who thinks this is anti-Semitism is a complete moron, or deliberately lying. They are also dangerously crying wolf, and by doing so reducing the chances that people take claims of anti-Semitism seriously in future. And by doing that, they are themselves a threat to Jews.

P.S. I see that the man involved is himself the chief executive of the organisation pretending the whole thing was anti-Semitic. So it seems it's just a vanity project on the part of himself. I wish he wouldn't endanger Jews everywhere by undermining the validity of claims of anti-Semitism in order to inflate his own ego.

Absolutely.
The Police Officer's very first consideration was for the man's health, safety and well-being, and in the heat of the moment he communicated his worries in a way that the man could later exploit.

[eider]

Then why did the Met apologize? And I don't expect an anti-Semite like you to side with the Jews here..

Of course the police have apologised and the Commissioner has invited the man to a personal meeting. That's good diplomacy.

Imagine the outcries from such as you if they had not.

Imagine the outcries if the police had done nothing and the man had been attacked?

[tabibito]

Of course the police have apologised and the Commissioner has invited the man to a personal meeting. That's good diplomacy.

Imagine the outcries from such as you if they had not.

Imagine the outcries if the police had done nothing and the man had been attacked?

People are complaining because the police didn't let the bloke put himself in harm's way?

[KingsGambit]

The larger issue here is that the man was, indeed, threatened with arrest. This concedes that the protest was not peaceful, and that the right of people to engage in an unpeaceful protest outweighed the rights of the man to exist in public. This means, practically speaking, that anybody who threatens violence while protesting gets to exercise veto powers over anybody else who wants to be in public. Consequently, there is every incentive to turn protests violent because that gives the protesters additional rights to turn those who disagree away.

This is the principle of the heckler's veto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

[KingsGambit]

People are complaining because the police didn't let the bloke put himself in harm's way?

Why should this have been the proper choice of action rather than dispersing the protest once things went violent, such as what police did at Columbia University the other day?

[tabibito]

Why should this have been the proper choice of action rather than dispersing the protest once things went violent, such as what police did at Columbia University the other day?

After things get violent, there is an injured person or three to attend to.

[Roy]

I keep telling ya, this sort thing will keep happening because there are no consequences. The only way it's going to stop is with massive lawsuits. Bankrupt a jurisdiction or two and watch how fast the word gets out.

No consequences?

The Police Commissioner and the Mayor of London have both been asked by the Prime Minister and Home Secretary to explain what happened and ensure it doesn't happen again. The commissioner has been forced to apologise, and is facing calls by MPs for his resignation.

[seer]

The larger issue here is that the man was, indeed, threatened with arrest. This concedes that the protest was not peaceful, and that the right of people to engage in an unpeaceful protest outweighed the rights of the man to exist in public. This means, practically speaking, that anybody who threatens violence while protesting gets to exercise veto powers over anybody else who wants to be in public. Consequently, there is every incentive to turn protests violent because that gives the protesters additional rights to turn those who disagree away.

[Roy]

Keeping protesters and counter-protesters apart to keep violence to a minimum during demonstrations is something police routinely do. So nothing to see here.

I rarely disagree with you, but this time I do.

There was nothing routine about this. The man was threatened with arrest for 'looking Jewish', and the Met Police Commissioner and the Mayor of London are being rightly condemned for the actions of one of their officers.

[Starlight]

People are complaining because the police didn't let the bloke put himself in harm's way?

An apt summary.

Also they are complaining that such an act, done to protect the safety of a Jewish man, was anti-Semitic.

[Mountain Man]

Absolutely.
The Police Officer's very first consideration was for the man's health, safety and well-being, and in the heat of the moment he communicated his worries in a way that the man could later exploit.

Yes, why should police attempt to contain a violent protest when they can harass an innocent bystander instead?

[Starlight]

The larger issue here is that the man was, indeed, threatened with arrest.

In my observation, police who are dealing with uncooperative members of the public routinely use variations on the "do you want me to arrest you?" line, to try to obtain compliance with their requests.

This police officer was trying to protect the Jewish man's physical safety, and ensure that the protest didn't turn violent, and to achieve that, he was asking the man to stay away from the protesters. He wasn't obtaining cooperation, so he used the standard "do you want me to arrest you" line. Seems that worked, because apparently he didn't arrest the man.

If your complaint is that police are far too cavalier in deploying "do you want me to arrest you?" lines and using them to get obedience from citizens for requests that the police shouldn't really be making in the first place, then I probably on the whole agree, but think that's a much wider issue than this one thread incident.

This concedes that the protest was not peaceful

Not at all. It simply means that the policeman in this instance thought allowing the man to interact with the protesters could lead to violence. It was a preventative measure, based on on-the-fly assumptions about the situation made by the officer that we are not really in any position to assess.

and that the right of people to engage in an unpeaceful protest outweighed the rights of the man to exist in public.

To "exist in public"? Seriously? Maybe take a few breaths and rethink the absurdities you're writing.

The man could "exist in public" literally anywhere other than where the protest was currently happening.

This means, practically speaking, that anybody who threatens violence while protesting gets to exercise veto powers over anybody else who wants to be in public.

More absurd statements. People are allowed to be "in public". All that's limited is freedom of movement in the immediate vicinity of a protest for people that might inflame that protest into violence. It's common for police to keep protesters and counter-protesters apart to prevent violence.

[Mountain Man]

In my observation, police who are dealing with uncooperative members of the public routinely use variations on the "do you want me to arrest you?" line, to try to obtain compliance with their requests.

This police officer was trying to protect the Jewish man's physical safety, and ensure that the protest didn't turn violent, and to achieve that, he was asking the man to stay away from the protesters. He wasn't obtaining cooperation, so he used the standard "do you want me to arrest you" line. Seems that worked, because apparently he didn't arrest the man.

If your complaint is that police are far too cavalier in deploying "do you want me to arrest you?" lines and using them to get obedience from citizens for requests that the police shouldn't really be making in the first place, then I probably on the whole agree, but think that's a much wider issue than this one thread incident.

Not at all. It simply means that the policeman in this instance thought allowing the man to interact with the protesters could lead to violence. It was a preventative measure, based on on-the-fly assumptions about the situation made by the officer that we are not really in any position to assess.

To "exist in public"? Seriously? Maybe take a few breaths and rethink the absurdities you're writing.

The man could "exist in public" literally anywhere other than where the protest was currently happening.

More absurd statements. People are allowed to be "in public". All that's limited is freedom of movement in the immediate vicinity of a protest for people that might inflame that protest into violence. It's common for police to keep protesters and counter-protesters apart to prevent violence.

Speaking of absurdities, if there was any danger of the protest turning violent just because a Jewish man happened to be nearby, then surely the protestors should have been dispersed instead of threatening an innocent man with an unlawful arrest.

[Starlight]

The man was threatened with arrest for 'looking Jewish'

I feel that is flatly false as a complete summary of the situation. It wasn't as if the officer was wandering the streets randomly threatening to arrest people for looking Jewish.

The reason the man was being threatened with arrest was that he was trying to enter an area where there was a protest march underway, and the officer thought the way he looked could trigger an incident with the protest marchers so the officer didn't want to let him enter the protest march area for his own safety and to prevent any violence.

and the Met Police Commissioner and the Mayor of London are being rightly condemned for the actions of one of their officers.

I'm usually pretty quick to condemn the actions of police (usually for shooting innocent people), as other discussions in this forum make clear, but in this case it appears to me that the officer was in the right: He had the safety of the public in mind, and specifically the safety of this Jewish man in mind. The officer's actions, in that sense, were pro-Semitic, not anti. He didn't use violence. He didn't arrest anyone. He used verbal communication and ensured a member of the public wasn't put in danger, and didn't trigger any violent incident.

[Starlight]

Speaking of absurdities, if there was any danger of the protest turning violent just because a Jewish man happened to be nearby, then surely the protestors should have been dispersed instead of threatening an innocent man with an unlawful arrest.

You're making a lot of assumptions.

With regard to keeping protests non-violent, from the point of view of the police, it's a matter of managing the risks. The police trying to 'disperse' a protest can trigger violence. Better to let the protesters march down the street, holding their signs, and shouting their slogans, and through doing so vent their steam. Plus the protesters do have an inherent right to protest. You can't just go around breaking up each and every protest.

But, generally speaking, what you can do is keep counter-protesters from engaging too closely with the protesters. If there is a counter protest, then you can mandate a certain amount of distance between the protesters and the counter protesters. They can, for example, hold their protests at opposite sides of a road, wave their signs, shout things at each other and a line of police can stand between them.

The police on the ground around a protest are often in a decent position to judge the mood of the situation, and have some sense of what is likely to trigger an incident and what isn't. The various videos of the protest march in the OP incident seemed to show some other incidents of counter-protesters engaging in back and forth shouting with those protesters, and the police generally trying to limit that interaction. That's reasonably common behaviour by police, to ensure public safety. Given that background of that particular protest, it's not surprising that the officer didn't want more people interacting with the protesters as they were already riled up.

It's also a simple fact in situations where protesters are riled up, that police will opt for practical solutions. e.g. get the smallest, or the most cooperative group, to disengage. Keeping members of the public away from angry protesters tends to be simply easier than trying to make large numbers of angry protesters do something. Even if the protesters are more at fault, they often get their way due to sheer numbers. Out of sheer practicality it's easier to redirect the one member of the public trying to engage the protesters than it is to make the hundreds of protesters do any given thing. Even if you sit down and work out that the rights of the one member of the public should be respected over those of the hundreds of protesters, as far as the few police officers on the ground are concerned they can do one thing to defuse the situation (redirect one member of the public) but not the other (redirect hundreds of protesters), so they do what they can.

Also, what is with the false "just because a Jewish man happened to be nearby"? The Jewish man was literally trying to walk right up to the protesters. They were literally a few yards behind the officer. The Jewish man wasn't just "nearby", but was actively trying to interact with the protesters. It wasn't as if the officer was randomly wandering around London looking for Jewish people to threaten with arrest. The officer was part of a line of officers stationed a few yards from a protest, with a job to make sure the protest stayed peaceful, and he thought a Jewish man deliberately interacting with the pro-Palestine protesters might inflame the situation so he didn't want to let that happen because keeping things peaceful was his job.

If the policeman was just wandering around London and walked up to a Jewish person and said "you look Jewish, you shouldn't be in public, I'll arrest you if you don't go away", then absolutely yes, that would be anti-Semitism and totally unacceptable. But that wasn't remotely close to the ballpark of what actually happened.