Monday, November 22, 2010

Falling on your own sword.

Video here.

There is a lot of international debate lately about banning burqas/hijabs, mainly for the reason that those who wear them are essentially disguised, in a society that doesn't really go for people walking around in disguises (for security reasons).

Of course, some Muslims see this as discrimination (although you're not allowed to claim discrimination when banned from holding hands with your wife in public in Dubai), because it is convenient to shift the blame to the country you're in, as opposed to your own personal conduct within the culture of that country.

The funny thing is, in the news at the moment, there exists the story of a 46 year old Muslim woman from Sydney (Carnita Matthews), who has been jailed for making a false complaint.

"The mother of seven was stopped in June by a police officer at Woodbine for a random breath test. She later filed a police complaint alleging the officer who pulled her over had tried to pull off her hijab, which concealed her entire face except for her eyes.

The court was told that after being issued an infringement notice for not properly displaying her P-plates, the 46-year-old branded the officer "a racist" and claimed he only booked her because of what she was wearing.

"You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn't handle it. All cops are racist.""

OK, great. After this, she went to a police station and made a (false) complaint. "However, the court was told that an officer who three days later accepted a statutory declaration from a burqa-clad woman he assumed to be Ms Matthews failed to check her identification.

Ms Matthews' lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said there was no way for police to prove that his client was the one who signed the statutory declaration at Campbelltown police station on June 10. Mr Hopper said that meant Ms Matthews should not have been charged with the offence of making a false complaint to police."

Do you know what else that means? It means one idiotic woman, has made a big news story about what a liar she is, and at the same time JUSTIFIED WHY BURQAS/HIJABS SHOULD BE BANNED IN WESTERN COUNTRIES!!!

If her own defence is going to turn around and claim it could have been anyone in a hijab that gave the statutory declaration that day, then it goes to reason that because of that fact, no-one should be allowed to wear one, or at the least, remove it for identification purposes.

And if that is such a massive problem for you, then move to a Muslim country, it's that simple.

Of course this will provoke the usual calls of racism. But there are things I can't do in Muslim countries. If I want to do those things, I have to move here. So why different rules for Islam?

Stephen Hopper, in the pursuit of an excuse for one Muslim client (and who failed, because she's in jail), has pulled the rug out from under the cause of all Muslims in the West, who wish to observe their religious style of dress. Carnita Matthews, has sold out the cause for all of her brothers and sisters in Islam, to get out of a ticket.

Just wow.

Addendum 21/06/2011:

Remember when I said "Carnita Matthews, has sold out the cause for all of her brothers and sisters in Islam, to get out of a ticket"?

The Police Minister has in the press today made clear he intends to tighten up identification procedures for those who wish to hide their faces for religious purposes- Carnita has sold out her brothers and sisters in Islam.

When I think of Islam, I think of people drawing from a rich and extensive history of the written word, of intellectual thought, of science.

Increasingly however, we are confronted by images like the ones above, of aggressive Muslims shouting and acting violently in public, instead of engaging in reasoned argument, whenever things don't go their way (interestingly enough, things did go their way in the above picture, but it turned violent anyway).

I hate to sound like a radio talkback DJ after ratings, but I'm sick of it. I'm sick of scenes like this one in Australia. I'm sick of shouting and threats, hiding behind religion. Don't get me wrong, I'm sick of white Australians acting badly too.

I don't care whether jails work or not. I don't care if they're just breeding grounds for future criminals. If someone acts violently, they should be removed from society, and thrown in a dark hole. And if they don't learn the first time, don't ever let them out the second time. I'm sick of civil libertarians holding society to ransom over the 'rights' of criminals.

I'm sick of all of it, because law, and particularly order have become a joke.

I would much rather a society where people are raised right, with a sense of family, community, balance. But we don't have that society, and we're never going to have it.

Lock them up, and let them rot. If they're not from here, send them back. And fuck their 'rights'. Because the people who were born here, and would like to grow old here, are under attack from violent offenders, and it has to stop.

Ms. Matthews is a joke- a stupid woman who makes Muslims look like unintelligent criminals, hiding behind the symbol of her own oppression for personal gain. She broke the law, but escaped jail, and the absolute idiots in the photographs who support her celebrate that fact today.

When all they have done, is brought increased police scrutiny and security measures against their religion, over what? A minor driving infringement.

Where is their leadership? Why have they allowed this to happen? Why didn't she just pay the fine instead of turning this into a three-ring media circus?

Because she is stupid. Her supporters are stupid. And now everyone who covers their head will have to remove their burqa/hijab when dealing with police- exactly the thing Carnita Matthews had a problem with in the first place.

"WOMEN wearing the burqa or other head covering may be ordered to remove it to identify themselves in the wake of the Carnita Matthews case.

Police Minister Mike Gallacher has revealed that police do not currently have the legal power to require women to show their face if the women refuse on religious or cultural grounds.

He said he wanted the law tightened up.

"Police powers in relation to face coverings are not clear," Mr Gallacher said.

"It’s time to address that."

He said he had spoken to rank and file police who wanted the situation clarified.

Any decision on whether to appeal the controversial judgment by Judge Clive Jeffreys would not be made until after the judge hands down the reason for his decision which is expected tomorrow.

The government is also considering passing new laws requiring people who make complaints against police, or in the case of witnesses giving evidence, to have to provide at least one fingerprint and their signature.

This follows the finding by the judge that he could not be certain that it was Ms Matthews who made the statutory declaration complaining about the officer who stopped her car because the person who handed the document in to the police station wore a burqa.

Mr Gallacher said he was waiting until Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione returned next week to discuss exactly what needed to be done.

He said he did not expect this to inflame community anger about women wearing full face coverings.

He said he had been told that there was nothing in Muslim culture or religion that stopped women from identifiying themselves in certain circumstances.

Yesterday, Ms Matthews avoided jail because her identity could not be proven.

Ms Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney's southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station - what started the uproar in the first place.

More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting "Allah Akbar" as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.

Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen.

It marked a stark difference from their behaviour minutes earlier, when they had quietly assembled outside the lifts for prayer shortly after the judge's decision.

Mrs Matthew's lawyer Stephen Hopper defended their actions saying: "They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them."

Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a "false" statement.

"I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint," he said.

"Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false."

Mrs Matthews made the claim in her court appearance last year, saying police could not prove it was her behind the burqa when the complaint was handed in to police. The local magistrate rejected it.

The case had lit up the religious debate when a magistrate found Mrs Matthews had deliberately made false complaints that Sergeant Paul Kearney was racist and had attempted to tear her burqa off her face when she declined to remove it on request.

She was pulled over for a random breath test last June, and accused Sgt Kearney of racism only after he booked her for failing to properly display her P-plates.

The incident was captured on a patrol car video camera and helped clear Sgt Kearney, prompting calls for all police cars to carry in-built cameras to avoid false claims.

"I've got my P-plates on my car ... there was nothing wrong with how they were displayed," Mrs Matthews says on the video.

"You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn't handle it. All cops are racist."

She then threatens, "100 per cent", that she will take the matter to court and fight the charge.

France was the first country in Europe to implement a full ban on covering up faces in public.

France's burqa ban descended into farce when the first women to be summoned before a European court for illegally wearing the garments were refused entry, because they would not remove their face coverings."

Addendum Two 04/07/2011:

As predicted, Carnita Matthews' false assertion that Police officer had attempted to rip her niqab (face veil) away from her face, and the media circus that followed, has blown up in her (covered) face.

The State Cabinet has given Police new powers to remove face coverings of anyone suspected of committing a crime. "Suspected".

So the thing Carnita said happened but didn't, will now be happening all the time, because of her, and her own selfish, short-sighted motivations.

Story here:

ANYONE with a head covering - including burqas - suspected of committing a crime will be forced to show their face with police given new powers by the State Government.

Premier Barry O’Farrell announced this afternoon his Cabinet has approved the powers which will come into affect in the next few months.

Police will be given new powers to require motorists and others suspected of committing crimes to remove any head coverings so they can be identified.

Mr O’Farrell said there should be no discrimination – in favour or against any race – when it comes to helping police identify people suspected of criminal breaches.

“I don’t care whether a person is wearing a motor cycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else – the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear,” he said.

“I have every respect for various religions and beliefs but when it comes to enforcing the law the police should be given adequate powers to make a clear identification.”

Meanwhile, Attorney General Greg Smith said the Director of Public Prosecutions had provided advice that an appeal against the decision in the Carnita Matthews case was unlikely to succeed.

The Government will not lodge an appeal.

This is knifey, from 'the internet'.

No comments: