In NSW a police officer pulled over a Muslim female motorist wearing a full face covering. He asked her to remove the mask as to identify her as the legal holder of the driver’s license she presented. She objected strenuously calling the officer a racist, but did eventually comply.

This socially divisive mother of seven young Australians then accused the officer of physical assault by forcibly removing her face covering, and in tow with Guantanimo Bay survivor Mando Habib went to the police to file a complaint. The video recording of the incident was replayed and she was found to have fabricated the event and was subsequently charged with making false allegations against a police officer. She was of course found guilty and received a six month jail term.

On appeal yesterday the charges were dropped as the judge said that because she was wearing a mask when she made the complaint (in tow with Habib, he wore no mask) it is not beyond doubt that it was her wearing the mask and formalizing the complaint.

Judge Jefferies decided to disregard the fact that she never denied making the claim against the officer and went on to overturn the finding on the presumption that it could have been Bob Hawke wearing the mask and filing the complaint, is this finding not incredulous and pandering. People are convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence because the logic of the chain of events and the circumstantial evidence incriminating them is evident to blind Freddy.

That the police officers did not ask the liar to remove the mask when making the false complaint shows how inhibited the police as individuals feel when dealing with identification issues when it come to mask wearing Muslim women. Blind Justice indeed, definitely predicated on the politically correct social issue of the individual’s right to be a mask wearing Muslim in our mask less society.

Thank you Judge Jefferies.

Being the racist and bigot some call me.
I hoped some one else would post this thread, so thank you!
If we saw the crowd outside the court, racist or was it religious zealotry?
Celebrating this Lady's victory?
Or heard the roll played in the whole matter by that well known pair of Celebrity Muslim defenders Trad and Habib.
Just maybe those who condemn me, would be forced to admit, If she was White and Australian,no one would have ANY TROUBLE in branding her a Bogan trouble maker.
Again thanks for the thread , but stand by for the insults coming your,and my way.
As a post script find the words used by two NSW magistrates who are currently trying to save their jobs.
Both claim mental illness as a defense both spoke to people in far harsher terms than some before them on charges for such ever did.
And both offer evidence our system is infected with unrepresentative fools on the bench.

I think this is a massive own-goal for supporters of the right to wear the burqa or niqab in Australia. Police officers should have the capacity to identify people, and it is not unreasonable for them to ask someone wearing a burqa (or Mickey Mouse mask for that matter) to require that it be removed under certain circumstances.

Religious or other beliefs are insufficient justification for denying identification where this is required of those who don't share those beliefs. I disagree that the law is an ass in this instance, however. My prediction is that this ruling will lead directly to legislation that will remove this inconsistency. Perhaps that was the Judge's intent.

Lastly, the behaviour of the appellant's supporters outside the court was repulsive.

If my memory serves me correctly Australia already has a Law that deals with this. Abeit it's a very old Law but it states that something like, "It's offence to be out at night wearing a mask, striped shirt & slippers." Strange but true.

Sounds to me like a procedural issue.

I am not a lawyer, but I have always understood that the Appeals Court can find purely on the facts of law and legal procedure, and is not required to determine whether the circumstances surrounding the original case were "right" or "wrong". Which presumably is why "the fact that she never denied making the claim against the officer" was not taken into consideration - it was irrelevant to the grounds of the appeal.

If the process of validating the complaint was not completed according to the legal requirements - in this case, properly identifying the complainant - then the appeal was correctly upheld.

Which of course says nothing about the validity of the lower court's original decision concerning the conduct of the person involved.

If the law is an ass in this case, then it is to do with the rules governing what an Appeal Court is allowed to determine.

Of course, not being a lawyer, I might be entirely wrong. Put it down to having watched too many cop shows on TV.

If the news report I heard last night was correct, the judge in the appeal in question is going to deliver his reasons for judgement today. It is premature to be either condemning this decision, or rejoicing in it, dependent upon one's feelings with respect to claimed rights to cover the face in public in Australia.

Two things are already clearly evident. One is that a loud-mouthed, probably female, trouble-maker was obstructive and abusive to a policeman while that policeman was legitimately attempting to confirm that the person presenting a driver's licence (the loud-mouth) was in fact the person shown in the photo ID thereon. This became evident as a consequence of a false claim (one potentially seriously damaging to the reputation of the policeman concerned) which was subsequently made as to the policeman's conduct during the incident, the investigation of which revealed to the court, and now all of Australia, a full photographic and audio record of the incident that showed nothing of what had been falsely claimed had taken place!

The second thing evident is that an otherwise thoroughly respectable conviction and sentence for the attempt to falsely accuse the policeman involved of misconduct has been quashed on appeal on the intrinsically respectable technical grounds that it was not possible to be sure that the person shown in the photographic record was in fact the layer of the false complaint, BECAUSE HER FACE HAD NEVER BEEN ABLE TO BE SEEN AT EITHER RELEVANT TIME!

The appeal judge has doubtless done Australia a great service in making this formal decision, because it is one that cannot be ignored.

The decision highlights not only the necessity of a policeman being able to demand to see a person's face in any public place, but of an obligation resting upon ALL persons of being facially identifiable to ANY person who might ordinarily become to be a witness in a public place.

Something must now be done about the 'right' to cover the face in public, and BO'F has the mandate to do it.

Dear SOG,

I also thought that wearing any kind of face covering or mask was
illegal - and you could be asked to remove it at any time. I was asked by a security guard to remove my beige lambswool cossack hat (that I thought was cute) while attending "Question Time," and being ushered to my seat in the Public Gallery of Parliament House in Canberra. I asked the guard, "Why, what's wrong with wearing a hat?"
He simply replied - "Them's the rules," so I obliged. I wonder what he would have said if I told him I had to wear my hat for "religious-reasons?"

The police officer was merely doing his job and it sounds like this
woman over-reacted. She didn't get very far. As for the judge's
decision - not being a lawyer - I'm not sure (as others have pointed
out) - how limited were the judge's powers in this court - or what the
point was that the judge was trying to make. So I can't say "the law is an ass," on the decision the judge made. The fact remains - she
was made to remove her face covering - and that given the circumstances - was the right thing to do.

The lady should not have removed her face-cover in contravention of her belief-system, no matter what the policeman said or how many times he said it - but she did, and when she was ashamed of that act (as indeed she should), rather than face her guilt she made up a story, a false story against another (the policeman), which is terribly wrong.

It looks like the policeman did not strip her, so other than the fact that he was serving the state as a policeman he was OK. What he should have done if he considered it so important to check her identity (which it probably wasn't), is to either use that new technology that allows one to see beneath people's clothing, or to wait for a policewoman.

There is another important point at issue here, & that is road safety.

I don't believe it is possible to drive a car safely when ones vision is so restricted by cloth.

I also believe that there is far too great a chance for the vision of a driver so clad, to be totally obscured in an emergency situation.

I can now see the reason the Saudis don't permit ladies to drive cars. We should institute a similar ban, at least on those wearing this ridiculous mask.

Looks like? the cop never touched her she lied.
She is a trouble maker her supporters too.
Here is a true story, from my past job.
I was in a northern country town, 3 Muslim youths members of my union, had been kicked out of their Motel, drunken revelry damage, and females being sick all over the room.
On telling them it would be imposable to save their jobs I was told I was a racist, and to have a HAMBURGER.
A cousin was on his way from Sydney location, to transport these three home.
I stayed with them, till he arrived.
4 hours in to what was to be that wait, about 8 at night, a phone rang Cousin had been grounded in a town not far from my home 172klm an hour on P plates.
all 4 said the cop was a racist.
I [it was my job] went to court with them, 9 relations screamed racism at that police officer out side the court.
TELL me why are they any different than white trash?
I transported them the 4 hour drive to cousin, it was my job,being told every minute how racist Australians are.
LAWS are for everyone.

Forrest Gumpp: Something must now be done about the 'right' to cover the face in public,

As I stated previously. It's a very old Law but it states that something like, "It's offence to be out at night wearing a mask, striped shirt or black pyjamas & slippers & or carrying a bag or sack for carrying impliments for unlawfully gaining entrance to a building, etc."

Okay folks, you seem to be talking about a different case to the one I have read.

From the SMH.

''I felt very uncomfortable so I partly lifted my veil. He wasn't satisfied with that so he moved closer to me in a threatening manner, moved his hand closer to my veil where I felt that he was going to rip it off my face. I then in fear before lifting up my veil stated I am not allowed to show my face.''
Yesterday, Judge Clive Jeffreys said there was no evidence the statutory declaration had been made by Mrs Matthews or even that it was knowingly false.
''All we know is that a person with a black burqa came in [to Campbelltown police station] with a man in a brown suit with an envelope and that's it,'' he said.
''I'm not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint and even if I was … I would not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false.''

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-convicted-of-police-veillifting-lie-set-to-go-free-20110620-1gbzk.html#ixzz1PyN8tdiY

When sonofgloin says “This socially divisive mother of seven young Australians then accused the officer of physical assault by forcibly removing her face covering, and in tow with Guantanimo Bay survivor Mando Habib went to the police to file a complaint.” Well not quite. She has said she felt physically intimidated into doing something against her will and her religion and the judge found there was a reasonable assumption that this was a genuine belief, thus there was reasonable doubt that the complaint was knowingly false.

This is entirely separate to the issue of identity.

It is not rocket science folks.

Or am I talking about a different case?

...Under the law in NSW, police have the right under certain circumstance to ask for identification. One of the applicable circumstances, as in the case of this event; (section 171-3 of the Road Transport (general act) 2005 of NSW). If you are a car driver OR passenger, Police have the legal right to ask for ID.
It appears to me, from viewing the show in question on TV, The women presented her drivers licence on request, for that purpose.

...Where the confusion arose was the Officers request for her to remove the burka to enable the legally correct request to be satisfactorily completed (which obviously it was not, at the point the woman refused to remove the veil).

...The fault was with the Police as I see it. I concluded from the documentary that the Officer involved with this event was an exceptionally calm Policeman, behaving with exceptional courtesy under the provocative behaviour of the women in question. Most Police would take the option of the next step, one would expect; off to the police station to complete the legal request to prove identification.

I have seen comment previously, so I cannot affirm its correctness,
that the Koran states that it is a lessor sin to lie to or cheat a
non moslem.

Put this together with it is only islamic driven terrorists who load
children up with bombs and send them to kill others, including
moslems, then you have a totally different thought process that seems
to have been built in from birth.

Put this together with the very high level of cousin marriage over
generations and it might appear that the behaviour outside the court
can be understood.

I believe that the most rabib of Irish terrorists would have been
horrified at the thought of loading up a child with a bomb.

Yuyutsu; Why would the woman be ashamed if she revealed her face ?
What could be different, I have seen hundreds of thousands of women's
faces and very few I thought should be covered up.

On this current matter that is the crux of the matter isn't it ?
She is told that she must never be seen. She must hide away.
Another question, why is this imposition put only onto women ?
Why are men allowed to dress normally ?
Why are women prevented from driving in KSA ?
Why is education not allowed for women ?
Is it because they might find out what fools they have been ?

Is it just a stunt to conrol women ? What poor souls they must be.

"Yuyutsu; Why would the woman be ashamed if she revealed her face ?"

Because she had a principle and she broke it.

She bowed down to power.

If you make a vow, you keep it till your last breath, you don't break it because you fear trouble from some policeman.

"Another question, why is this imposition put only onto women ?"

I support no external imposition - by men, by women or by the state. In this case, at least as far as we are told, there was only one imposition - by the policeman on behalf of the state.

csteele

I heard about the same case as you did. As far as I understand law in Australia, anyone is required to provide visual proof of identity in such procedures as declaring an affidavit or while driving a vehicle which does not comply with basic safety standards such as obscured P-plates or other infringement.

On one side we have a woman who does not want to comply with an police officer's request - for whatever reason. She claims threatening coercion. Writes a complaint but, again her identity cannot be confirmed because, again she will not reveal her face.

The signature on the Driver's Licence was completely different to the one on the driver's license held by the woman driver.

I want to say that in this instance that it is religion that is an ass but I do not want instigate islamophobic rant - because when we really analyse the situation it is the way religion is used - ANY RELIGION - to limit, hobble, curtail, restrain, prevent women from being people. That many women may be comply with their own subjugation is another sorry result of the universal stupidity towards women's appearance.

Expect to hear from the usual suspects soon - the ones who only post on threads about women.

In cases such as this , inevitably people who do not want Muslims in Australia will have a field day . As one contributor says , until the reasons of the appeal court have been examined , let us all defer reaching a conclusion about the wearing or removal of burquas / similar Muslim facial covering and how to deal with these in the criminal law .

Presumably , Muslim women , when obtaining a driver 's licence , must be photographed without facial covering , otherwise the photograph would be useless . Are they photographed by women only ? Would it not be possible for a driver or other woman wearing a facial covering , who is being apprehended by police , to unveil only to a woman police officer ?

Can they do the driving test , veiled ? If so , how does the examiner know that the applicant is not already a qualified driver doing the test on behalf of an unqualified driver , seeking to obtain a licence ?

If there is no woman police officer in the car which stops the Muslim woman , the veiled driver can be told that she must stop at the scene until a policewoman can attend the scene to view the driver 's face . This , of course , will be inconvenient both to the woman driver and the police .

In future , when a veiled woman wishes to obtain a driver 's licence , she should be told that a condition of obtaining one will be that she must unveil , if apprehended on suspicion of committing a traffic offence .If necessary , the traffic legislation should be amended to enable this condition to be imposed .

Can someone explain to me - if the woman in question showed her face for her driver's licence - why was she so adamant not to show her face to the police officer. BTW. The woman was an Australian - who had
converted to Islam - so it really is a bit bizarre - because she would be familiar with the laws of this country.

Dear Ammonite,

I don't want to play down the identity matter because it is an issue but the charge of falsely making a complaint has been dealt with by a higher court and even if it were a completely stand alone matter the judge deemed her not guilty.

Thank God for reasonable judges, it is probably why they sit in higher courts and luckily for the woman in question, judging by the tenor of some of these posts, she was not tried in the court of public opinion.

As to ascertaining identity why does the face have to be the only means? We are a smart and accommodating country, why not use something like a thumb print. We use it for hypersensitive information now and it is widely used in elections overseas. Perhaps an orthodox Muslim woman who is set on wearing a veil in public and wanting to drive might have her thumb print reproduced on the back of the licence. All police officers are trained to read fingerprints so why not? A small press of an inked thumb on to piece of paper then on your way.

csteele

Your suggestion is reasonable, I guess. But I can't help looking towards a world where women are as free as men to show their faces to the sun (and not risk Vitamin D deficiency) - I try to respect religion but until a religion arrives that subscribes equal dignity to both women and men, I find it near impossible.

We simply wouldn't have ridiculous issues like we are experiencing now.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fight-mental-health-stigma-maloney-tells-mps-20110621-1gdjy.html
Read the link again csteel, can you say this woman is not at least a lieing trouble maker.
You like and often do, reminding us our attitude to multi culturism is wrong.
This lady,possibly from your part of the world? shows it is a two sided matter.
The filmed behavior of her supporters informed me,they had bought certain very bad attitudes with them.
I note the childlike attempts to make this a men vs woman thing white black pink or green male female she is a trouble maker and a fool as are her support team out side the court, no Berka or no more Muslim migration.

Belly

I have acknowledged that women are as much to blame for donning garments like the burqa as much as men. However, we are not EVER going to have a problem where a man has to lift his veil for identification purposes.

It is not a male versus women thing is it about common sense. Covered from head to foot because of a religion and an attitude towards women's appearance is absurd. If men were supposed cover themselves the same way in the name of religion I would be just as outraged.

There is nothing childish about wanting people to live healthy lives which means exposure to the sun. I am not alone in this, many men agree with me also.

This entire situation is the result of human madness. I knew when I started I'd get accused of gender wars. You shame yourself with your comments - you know me better than that - you rush to heap praise on my posts when you agree. Can you not see that when (IF?) equality between the sexes results in women not wearing absurd clothing covering their entire being, then women like the one in question will simply be another uncooperative person who should be fined, rather than literally hiding behind a piece of cloth.

Now, now doubt, csteele will have a go at me for not respecting another freaking stupid, waste of time religion!

Cssteele and Yuyutsu, let me expand the discussion along cultural lines given you see it as a cultural issue.

In the last census we are described thusly;
37% identified as Australian origin,
32% identify as English origin,
9% identify as Irish origin,
8% identify as Scottish origin,
4% identify as German origin,
3% identify as Aboriginal.
3% identify as Asian origin,
2% identify as Greek origin,
2% identify as Middle Eastern,

When I look at the incarceration numbers by ethnicity I find with little shock that the Aboriginal Aussies and the Middle Eastern Aussies are in double figures.

I know why the Aboriginals are 25% of the jail inmates and it is our faults collectively, we broke the souls of a people that had a hunter gatherer culture when our ancestors were inventing the steam engine, they did not stand a chance of surviving European Colonisation socially intact.

The collective Middle Eastern incarceration rate is also above 20%, and with some justification it seems given that the Middle Eastern Crime Squad is the largest ongoing dedicated squad in the NSW Police. Now this incarceration statistic I do not understand, unlike my Aboriginal mates I can see no reason for it. You cannot construe that their culture per se is anti social because it works just fine back home, but it does not travel well. The abrasive nature of the hostility to the welcoming nation moves from generation to generation and the liar has seven kids thus far, that is seven little Aussies that will always just seek to co habit rather than to belong.

Sonofgloin,

I did not mention "culture". I care for individuals, not for cultures.

The lady had a principle (in this particular case, the principle was that she must not expose her face where men are present) - and the police demanded that she break it. That's all that counts!
How she acquired this principle is none of anyone else's business and if it happened to be a matter of culture, then so be it.

Further down the line however, she did not behave as a lady - she broke her own principle then blamed somebody else for that, which could have gotten an innocent person in big trouble had her version of events been believed. There is no hiding under "culture" for such despicable behaviour.

Well Sonofgloin:

… why don’t the Police deal with this issue themselves, since it is an issue of law and order already under Police control; Police have the legal right to insist on “proof of identity”, under the circumstances of this event (see my post above), the law is currently in place to back them up. I mean to say, we are all pretty inclined to blame everyone outside of the real culprit here; that is the Police themselves. It follows naturally then, this whole event was the creation of ineffectual policing and should never have made home base as an issue, as it eventually did; you would have to agree.

Female officers can look at these women. Why not just hold her there till a chick copper rocked up? Anyway, these people who fly the flag of fundamentalism love a fight and that judge - typically - gave them a supposed win. I don't care if they wear the burqa in the street. I see them all day and couldn't care less, but I do care about them wearing where there's apparent security issues such as in banks. The head scarf - hijab? - is a non-issue.

I believe the VAST majority of people believe the issue with the burqa is a security/safety issue. The feminist issue is something COMPLETELY different for most people. In regards to that, if they want liberation from antiquated dark age-esque beliefs, let them ask for it. Nut up and fight your own fight. Many will back you.

Yuyutsu, I would have thought that any technology that allows a man to see underneath a woman's clothing would be much more offensive to a muslim than revealing a face. I find this statement of yours hard to understand.

Belly, I can sympathise with why you have the opinion that you do, based on your experience. One thing to keep in mind from that though is that youth of any race or creed will do their best to justify their behaviour and blame someone else. "Racist" was just the most convenient label they could think up (doesnt show much intelligence I agree). Its not that different to those that look down their noses at women, or aboriginies, or poms or irish.

Csteele, the use of a fingerprint is a remarkably sensible suggestion. Give people a number of ways that they can identify themselves quickly and easily. They can choose. If they choose none = no licence. No doubt there would be outcry about police having a record of fingerprints of "innocent" people, but hey, have a few options and choose one or none. I like it!

Ammonite I agree totally with you on this.
ALL religion is fraud.
Once I could understand things like tax breaks,Glebes for C of E special laws .
But, csteel is on almost every issue fire to my water, I doubt she cares as much for majority's rights, if at all, as she does for such as this trouble maker.
I saw in the link I read a woman who is nothing but a trouble maker, supported by trouble makers.
Muslim men, a long time ago, put women in burkas for reasons other than keeping sand out of they eyes.
No woman should be treated like these men some of them treat them..

Dear Country Gal,

I've got to admit I think that csteele's finger-print suggestion is an
excellent one. Either that or call fro a female police officer to come by (might be a cheaper option). There are ways of getting around
any situation, if one is properly trained in advance. Perhaps this could be something the police force needs to look at - and prepare their officer for in the future because I'm sure this problem is going to come up again. Might be worth investigating and saving themselves future problems.

Well,
if she can't be identified then she won't be able to access any welfare either or at least shouldn't be able to.

DD I agree with you, if there is legislation in place then non compliance warrants the next protocol in the procedure. Regarding the cops, they should have identified her at the time she swore the complaint, but they did not and that is the element of doubt that her (if indeed it was her in court, how would we know) council presented and Judge Jeffreys obviously considered weighty.

Why he considered it weighty is any body’s guess. But my appraisal is based on his career path, he was a product of uni in the "conscious" seventies, he is not a QC which is "different" and he was appointed by John Hatzistergos just 11 days before John could no longer make any appointments.

Judge Jeffreys verdict does not surprise me and it is in the spirit of the law. The cops stuffed up. But he should have have dismissed the appeal and the judiciary unite to dismiss all subsequent appeals, that would send a message.

Just a current affairs observation on NSW judges, we all expect the beak to be crusty and peculiar but when I heard two judges pleading for their jobs and using terms such as major mental illness , depression, mood swings, ongoing medication, and of course bi polar, all I can say is it keeps me from committing felonies.

Dear Belly,

No my friend you need to read the link again. The lady's complain read ''I felt very uncomfortable so I partly lifted my veil. He wasn't satisfied with that so he moved closer to me in a threatening manner, moved his hand closer to my veil where I felt that he was going to rip it off my face. I then in fear before lifting up my veil stated I am not allowed to show my face.''

I say again this is her original statement. She never claimed the police officer touched her and for you to continually call her a liar is slander.

The question is did she feel physically threatened into complying with the officer against her wishes, if she did then she would have been within her rights, just as anyone else is, to make a complaint against the policeman. The judge was completely correct in examining the evidence from the video, which by the way the woman in question knew she was being filmed, and dismissing the complaint. It should have ended there.

Again, at no stage did the woman say the policeman had actually physically assaulted her or had removed her veil. Her statement was more about what she discerned as threatening behaviour from him.

The district court judge ruled the Magistrate, who made no claim to be a mind reader,  had no way of being sure about the veracity of those professed fears. A reasonable ruling in my book.

Tactically this seems like a really silly move. It's given credibility to those trying to get full coverings banned. The outcry from other muslims should have been deafening rather than supportive.

Yuyutsu all law is about external imposition. Society does not work if individuals think it's appropriate to disregard law's whcih conflict with their own values. What we need is to minimise the intrusion of law to that which is essential rather than what others consider desirable.

R0bert

Dear Ammonite,

I am certainly not going to have a go at you for not respecting a religion.

The fact that members of the Jewish faith and some  versions of Islam still insist on the genital mutilation of their infants is something I could never excuse or respect.  The fact we now have two members of the Mormon faith vying to be the next president of the US, while members are still condemned for arranged child marriages and polygamy, is of deep concern.

But while I admit that the burka can still raise my hackles what really matters to me is that I live in a country that is prepared to tolerate religious freedoms where they don't directly and unduly impact on the rights of others.

So I am not asking you to respect any religion but rather that you respect a culture prepared to tolerate religious differences, that culture is yours and mine and on the whole I'm proud of it.

As to this woman being downtrodden and subjugated, judging by her manner I think she is reflective of a few other mothers with five or more kids that I know, just don't make their day any harder than it already is or you will get a piece taken out of you.

Country Gal,

"Yuyutsu, I would have thought that any technology that allows a man to see underneath a woman's clothing would be much more offensive to a muslim than revealing a face. I find this statement of yours hard to understand."

Please note that I never mentioned "muslim". The question is whether or not the individual in question is offended, not some arbitrary "muslims".

Five reasons why this technology is acceptable:

1) The lady had a principle: SHE would not reveal her face [to men]. One is only responsible for one's own actions, not for the actions of others, so one's principles always pertain to what one does or doesn't, not to what others do or don't. Using this technology therefore actually helps her to keep her principles.

2) It is only the face that would be seen, not the whole body.

3) It can probably be done electronically, so the policeman does not actually have to see the picture. Automatic image-comparison already works in airports.

4) We are not talking about a Peeping Tom here, but about a policeman who in the course of his duty of protecting lives from criminal activities needs to identify a person, for an absolutely essential reason, hopefully.

5) If the technology was used discretely so that the lady did not know about it, then she would not be offended. In the normal case when her license matched her face, all she would notice is that the policeman asks for her license, looks at it for 10-20 seconds, returns it and says "thank you, have a nice day".

As an afterthought, I believe that iris-identification technology is now good enough and since her eyes must be exposed that would suffice.

R0bert,

I agree, so now it's down to the question of what is "essential". Obviously, as we currently have thousands of unessential laws intruding on our lives, agreeing to join the police force which enforces them, is immoral. Let us give the police the benefit of the doubt, however, that the need to obtain that lady's ID happened to be essential in this case.

The burqa in our culture and society with the laws of the land has no place. Claiming religious excuses and racial intimidation is unacceptable.

As late as the 1950s and 60s in the highlands of New Guinea a tribe was found that had elders that were practitioners of cannibalism. They
considered it essential for religious and cultural reasons. If these practitioners were living in Australia would they be exempt from the laws of our country?

Aquarius,

"As late as the 1950s and 60s in the highlands of New Guinea a tribe was found that had elders that were practitioners of cannibalism. They
considered it essential for religious and cultural reasons. If these practitioners were living in Australia would they be exempt from the laws of our country?"

The answer is "No", but are you writing about current Australian laws or about what those laws should be?

Agreed, one should not eat another against their will (and I personally believe that should extend to animals too!), but if someone agrees to be eaten - for whatever reason (no special exemption for religious/cultural reasons) while another wants to eat them, then the state has no right to interfere. How much more so in the case of wearing a burqa.

(however, if you, like myself actually, don't personally like burqas or cannibalism, you don't have to allow a cannibal or a person wearing a burqa in your home, or in your shop or bank-branch for that matter)

What was almost as unsettling as the court decision was the cheer squad that turned-up to comfort defendant.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/my-wife-has-suffered-for-her-burqa-says-carnita-matthews-husband/story-e6freuzi-1226080194183

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/magistrate-brian-maloneys-new-strife/story-e6freuzi-1226080217846
The link, it could have been one of 3 highlighting lawmakers failures, may only prove they are human.
I think it may add to along held view I hold the law can, at times,is in the hands of idiots.
Surely laws exist that could have seen better out comes.
A point worth noting,some are feeling they need to be very careful in contact with Muslim women.
The signature on her drivers license was different why.
Who took the test, the photos,
Can we ever be sure it is the person who claims to be behind the burka?
Are we to see the letter box style black headdress in official photos.

csteel some facts. this liar was sentenced to six months in prison for lies.
A good result.
With help from two professional tellers of un truths she won an appeal.
No halo over her head and csteel I CHALLENGE you, Trad and the other to tell me if you would even comment if it was not a Muslim.
Say a bike rider in full face helmet.
Lexi female police are not always around,this woman may well have refused to be finger printed and to do it by the roadside may leave room for challenges.
No big deal men who often,no slander just honesty, wed their first cousins then claim to own them force this stupidity on women.
No wonder mums and dads have to arrange the weddings try telling an Aussie to put a bag over her head and tell me if you would do it again after you get up from the floor!

Dear SPQR,

A case like this was always going to attract attention from divisive elements with agendas to promote, some of whom appeared in support of the woman outside the court and others on the other side some of whom have appeared on this thread.

But the fact that a mother and her seven children have been delivered from the ordeal of having to spend six months split apart not to mention the environment of a prison, through an incorrect and unjust application of the laws of this country, is something that should be worth celebrating by any fair minded individual, which I hope the majority of us are.

Still a great Aussie tradition that fairness thing, hate to see it go personally, copping a bit of a hiding here though.

Dear CSteele,
It’s been a long time since we crossed swords. The last time we did, as I recall, you were droning on about the need to apply Queensberry rules when dealing with terrorists.

It is hardly in the spirit of Queensberry for someone to accuse a public servant of an offence –which could have seen him lose his career and livelihood –and no doubt caused him some trauma, but get off without penalty when exposed as a false accuser.If the lady concerned was guilty of the charge, then she should face prescribed penalty.

Unfortunately it seems be a universal rule that if one group imbued with a fair-go ethos comes into disputation with another who has an anything-goes ethos, the fair goers lose out-- especially when the anything goers have seven children a piece .

Sonofgloin:

...I agree totally. It is more evidence of an enveloping toxic radiation, not only seeping into Canberra, but into the highest levels of States. The “burka” incident is simply more evidence of the creeping impotence caused by Political correctness. Add this one to the decimation of an entire cattle export industry from the “spanner” of Animal Cruelty nutters.

Dear SPQR,

Yes I still have an issue with the civilian death toll resulting from the secret service of a country using unmanned drones to bomb schools, mosques, and funeral possessions against the expressed wishes of the sovereign nation in which the raids were occurring.

I was recoiling at the imagery of the torn and broken bodies of dead children, you, I recall, had no problem with what was happening.

Now that our portrayal of the other is done shall we address the matter at hand?

"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." Sun-herald

So if the officer had insisted she raise her veil for identification purposes he was exceeding his authority.

Further less than a quarter of the over 5,000 police complaints made each year are deemed actionable this is despite 23% of them being made by other police.

I hope you are not suggesting that although each of these had the potential to act detrimentally on the careers of serving members there should be the threat of a six month imprisonment term for those that are found to be baseless? Or should that apply only to burka wearing women with multiple children?

Look frankly this woman does not appear to be the most pleasant going and she is certainly guilty of past traffic infringements but one only has to be in any major town or city on a Saturday night to see unpleasant women having a crack at a copper. 

As long as we have a robust system to deal with complaints against police then people should not be intimidated in making them. If they are then the law is indeed an ass!

As to; "Unfortunately it seems be a universal rule that if one group imbued with a fair-go ethos comes into disputation with another who has an anything-goes ethos, the fair goers lose out-- especially when the anything goers have seven children a piece ."

Bunkum!

Those advocating fingerprinting at the roadside have not thought
through what is involved.
The fingerprints have to be taken and registered when the licence issued.

It means each car has to be equipped with fingerprint readers.
The data has to be captured and sent back to the fingerprint centre.
The match found by the computer has to be examined by a finger print expert.
A finger print expert has to be rostered on shift for the checking
of burqua wearers. Not many burquas would be allowed out at night
on their own I would think.

Iris checking would also have similar problems and costs.
Why should we bear such costs just for that group ?
Let them obey the law like the rest of us.

BTW, I have a relative in the prison service and he says the moslems
cause more trouble than the rest of the prisoners.

Belly

Thanks for your understanding.

I really loath the full face burqa, on so many levels it is just wrong. However, equally I would not agree with passing laws telling people how to dress.

I also agree that the women at the centre of the storm in a teacup was being opstreperous and would be of that character irrespective of what she was wearing. I don't believe in special dispensation because she has children for whom she is obligated as a parent to set a good example and avoid conflicts with the law.

To deal with these situations as they currently exist, the finger print is probably the next best thing. However it is human stupidity at the heart of all this, the men who insist (sometimes by force) for women to cover up and the women who go along with this.

Dogma is an ass!

Dear Bazz,

Geez mate you live in a complicated world. Can't we just keep this thing simple? Put an image of the person's  thumbprint, at actual size, on the back of the license, then if they need to be identified ink the thumb and press it onto a piece of paper, something all policemen are trained to do and compare it to the one on the license.

If polling booth officials in third world countries can manage it it shouldn't be too difficult for us or do you think that is not the case?

Ah well Csteele it does sound simple doesn't it ?
Unfortunately when it gets to court, the defense will ask if the
constable is a finger print expert.

The have to have a certain number of points for it to be accepted as
a match.
Imagine trying to make such a check on a windy rainy night at the side of the road by sight.
You got to be kidding.

Actually Bazz like a great deal csteel says it is rubbish.
To the best of my understanding finger prints are not required to get a drivers license.
It will be true soon, that much more formal ways of proving ID will come.
It is questionable, at least, that this woman told the truth about any thing that happened that day.
The in car police film showed she lied, for this she was convicted,then set free by a foolish law giver unfit for his office.
You may not agree, but hear me out, csteel charges ,with out naming, ME and others, she has done so often.
Because without a thread of racism, I highlight the criminal culture within some Muslim groups.
MATHEMATICS! judges do not pick on them, but they are over represented in our courts and prisons.
This COP doing his job, should have been supported by us, the community and the courts.
I warn, every view has value BUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS the second or is it third Language csteel speaks here insults true our freedoms and in My view our country.
Once with pride from the true left, Once something to be Proud of its achievements.
I note it is now like a hermit crabs shell inhabited by just may be its owners killers.
Cares nothing for women and girls dressed as letter box's in the name of A God that never existed.

Dear Bazz,

It is a hell of a lot simpler than what I had to face on a dusty SA road when I was younger. I have stamped on the back of my license that 'Corrective lenses must be worn' and my photo ID had me wearing glasses. This copper, not in the best mood possibly because I had a bunch of pissed mates being yobs in the back, decided I had to prove I was wearing contacts. Holding my eye opened while he shone his torch in it was bad enough but when he claimed he couldn't be sure and wanted me to take one out I objected. It took me walking him away from the car and explaining there was no way I wanted to put a dirty lense back in without a cleaning solution and as I was the only safe driver he didn't want me leaving them here wandering over the road. Finally he asked me instead to read his numberplate. Once done we shook hands and I was
on my way.

Now I understand he was making things difficult because he was copping a bit of nonsense from my mates. He could have made me read something at distance right from the start but the letter of the law is a powerful thing to drag out when you think someone needs to be taken down a peg or two.

Let's get this burka thing sorted with a good protocol for dealing with the issue of identity when it arises. When rights and responsibilities are clear and known by both parties it will take a lot of heat out of the matter, something we all should be wishing
for.

Ah dear Belly,

Still prattling on, never letting a fact get in the way of a good prejudice?

You wrote"Looks like? the cop never touched her she lied." But your problem is she never claimed he touched her. I have repeatedly told you the facts yet you keep ignoring them. Why? The term 'blind prejudice' seems apt unless you have a different take.

No matter how much you rant and rail those facts are not going to change and you are going to have to accept them. If you don't then it speaks to something rather nasty in you that I am thankful is not more widespread in Australia.

Dear csteele,

We all sat and watched on television during the news report showing a recording (video and voice) of the incident filmed from a fixed camera in the front of the police car.

The entire incident which was presented in court and it bears up the claim presented in court by the
policeman. The burqa-clad person had a perfect Aussie accent and everything was clearly heard what she said. She was yelling and accusing the policeman on a variety of issues - religious and racial
included. At no point did the police officer make any motion to touch her or her garments and in a calm manner proceeded to explain the offense and request the removal of the burqa for identification purposes for comparison with the drivers licence image. She was offensive and behaving irrationally. As a result the burqa clad individual who appeared in court could not be identified as that same person who appeared in the video. The judge had no other option but to
come up with the judgement that was made. As no ID of the offender was possible.

It was shown in the media that two burqa clad identically looking women left the court.

Like most of these things there is something more behind the story.

The burqua's driving record was read out on the radio today.
She has many many offences going back to the early 2000s.
The reason she was on Ps was because she had been a suspended driver.
I didn't count the number of offences but it must have been about 20.

She is really a menace to have on the road. I wonder if the incidents
were because the burqua obscured her vision. A number were speeding fines.

csteel you and I could in all probability have beer or coffee and leave as Friends.
But it is you who rant and rave behind that self satisfying smirk, you truly do think you are better equipped to judge me.
Never going to get under your massive ego shield, but you are from a minority so small and unrepresentative you speak in a hollow drum, to your self.
But I greatly VALUE YOUR IN PUT.
You give evidence the new left is as lost as it ever was, it can be just as awful as the extreme right.
In time Trad his side kick and those like you will brick by brick build your defensive wall, around in any ones terms an idiot, [yes of Australian birth].
But csteel, I honestly know yes I do YOU WOULD NOT EVEN POST HERE IF SHE WAS NOT A Muslim.
Bigotry comes in many forms and is always wrong, I still beg for a life far better than these women get this dress is males looking to control you should feel shame at trying to divert the conversation away from the very reason we are talking.
I note lies are every day currency in some parts of the world and lieing to non Muslims is demanded in their holy book.

Dear Lexi, 

You wouldn't have a link to the entire tape would you. I can't seem to find one. It is hard to form an opinion whether her fear was justified without viewing the whole incident including the actual breath-analyzing. The judge obviously saw something that lead him to think her fear may well have been legitimate.  I am not for one moment accusing the officer of knowingly eliciting that fear. 

In fact I think the officer behaved very well toward the woman in question. The only query I would have would be was he aware at the time that there was no legal requirement for the woman to comply with his request that she reveal her face to him as it was not an indictable offense? If he was then his insistence that she do so is rather fraught.

It would appear justice has been served all round despite the dubious lawyering from her side but if I were facing six months in the slammer I would probably allow my team full discretion. Even without that she was not headed to jail.

Dear Belly,

Yes we could probably enjoy a civilized beer together, the anomininity of the Internet certainly lends itself to certain unfettered bombastic behavior that one doesn't see over a quiet ale, but then I think you would be surprised just how many people you could do the same with, one of them being the judge in this case. He seems a thoroughly decent bloke not quite "a foolish law giver unfit for his office.".

I think the standard of what we call decent behavior has diminished, we know what it is when we see it from afar, Atticus Finch comes to mind, but often it is hidden in the moment. Sometime it might take some reflection over a quiet beer to recognize it.  

Dear csteele,

Try the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fMeM4506xk

and also:

http://www.news.com.au/national/...police.../story-e6frfkvr-1226078884650

Just for your information Carnita Matthews has a long record of driving offences and a history of not paying her fines.

I had problems with the video. If you can't access it - then just
Google - "Police Video - Carnita Matthews" and see what you get. Good Luck.

cont'd ...

I made a typo with the video.

It should read:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fMeM4SOGxk

Dear Lexi,

Thanks for the links. Both Youtube ones seem broken. I did find this one;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxaMLAAtRm4&feature=related

It was the Channel 9 story.

The editing was quite interesting. If you look at the time log you will see it goes from 18:24:40 to 18:24:45 then back to 18:12:06 to 18:12:14, onward 18:26:06 to 18:26:19 then backward again to 18:25:17 to 18:25:31 then forward to 18:26:50 to 18:27:06.

All rather slick but what I wanted to see was when she alleged she was intimidated, through the breath testing and requests to raise her veil. It seems the NSW police are not prepared to release this portion.

I do not doubt that it would show the officer acted calmly and professionally but there may well have been an incident, granted misconstrued, that was intimidating enough for this woman to feel she had to raise her veil. The second judge certainly thought so and I would be interested to have the opportunity to make up my own mind.

There must be a reasonable explanation for them with holding it.

Secondly I am wondering how all of a sudden the media has details of her driving record which isn't the prettiest. They didn't appear to have been released at the first trial but why do they surface now? Again there is probably a very good explanation.

So was the woman acting unreasonably when she became upset about having to lift her veil? Probably not. Did she loose her 'nanna'? Obviously! In that anger did she overstate her case, probably. All very human reactions though. Did it deserve six months in jail? Definitely not! On the evidence available should the officer have been investigated? Definitely not. Did he deserve being called a racist? Definitely not. Would decent protocols have helped the situation? Yes.

Finally Lexi I'm not sure you could call her accent purely Australian but then I do have a tin ear for these kinds of things.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/government-rushes-to-close-costly-welfare-loophole-20110623-1ghoo.html
I post this link as evidence the threads title is quite true.
And that we are badly served by those sitting in judgment.
Just maybe they come from another planet.
And the PC has its hand on the throat of us all.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-seek-law-change-to-lift-veils-20110623-1ghmi.html
And evidence from within those who control her religion that she could have unmasked.
The Photo is very sad indeed while wanting to laugh I also felt like crying.
I question the manhood of the perpetrators of this crime on women.

csteele your desperation to minimise and excuse the "alleged" actions does not help.

"Obviously! In that anger did she overstate her case, probably. All very human reactions though. Did it deserve six months in jail? Definitely not!"

The conviction wasn't about the in the heat of the moment reaction, was about the false complaint that someone claiming to be the woman lodged regarding that incident after the event. A complaint that could well have put the officer and his family through a lot of distress and if he had not been fortunate enough to have that recording have caused years of trauma for them.

It's clear that procedures for accepting and acting on complaints will have to be changed in the light of this incident but it's also very unlikely that the person who lodged that false complaint was someone else.

This isn't a poorly educated new arrival being put through the mill by officialdom, it's as I understand it a woman born here with a history of disregard for traffic laws and consequences with an apparent contempt for others who got caught out trying to harm an innocent party.

Someone who by her actions makes a credible case for those wanting ban's on burqua's and similar attire.

R0bert

csteele

We have only the information publicly to make an analysis.

1. The woman refused to provide identification.

2. She or another made a statement claiming police harassment, but identification could not be proved.

3. While not admissible in court, she has prior infringements (but then I have had some speeding fines) so these claims are irrelevant, but unfortunately add smoke.

4. That she has children is irrelevant.

5. There is no evidence that the policeman was behaving badly.

You can ASSUME that she was treated unfairly, but at risk of making
an ASS out of U and ME.

Apologies to all.

;P

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/jp-awad-chennaoui-did-not-see-face-behind-the-burqa/story-e6freuzi-1226080880188
This link includes the film of the roadside event.
It has further information and while three links are a bit to handle are well worth while.
I felt the need to get out of my verbal confrontation with csteel, I can not hide or walk away from my view such people muddy the waters.
Some times if we are not very careful they actually do it so well, we question our own belief.
I hold the view POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is a very real danger it forces minority views on majority's and is blind, deliberately so, to honesty and truth.
The three links inform and together in my view CLEARLY condemn the crowd the support team and the woman, be aware we all must not let justice be only for majority's.

csteel read the three links, the last one has the unedited film all of it.
You may just be a judge or something, but the fool law giver will not drink with me I have standards.
It is out the back
Too big to bring in
Your humble pie.
evidence has hit the table in those links that you can not avoid.
Finally you play with words,intended slur, is weak and you only add to my claims you are lost.
PS
NEEDLESS provocative but if you look you will find here who I am'
Allan [Belly in real life ]Bell.
How about taking that Burka off and unmasking.
While old csteel no one ever said I am
gutless.
Csteele lets forget the coffee I wasted far too much time in the company of leftist script writers of fairy tails in my youth truth has value.
Belly

People please!

If any of you would like to review my posts here they will find my focus has been on addressing the title of this thread "The law is an ass". I have often referred to what may have drawn the judge to his conclusion that he could not determine that the complaint of the woman was knowingly false.

 Many of you have tried to highlight different issues which is fair enough in a democracy however the denigration by some of Judge Jefferies was in my book unwarranted and without basis.

I remember a judge I went to school with telling me, over a quiet beer at of all things a comedy bar, that there are very few evil people, all the others are just ordinary people with a different life story to ours.

In my second post I said;

"Thank God for reasonable judges, it is probably why they sit in higher courts and luckily for the woman in question, judging by the tenor of some of these posts, she was not tried in the court of public opinion."

It is a theme I have maintained throughout this thread.

And I am very thankful that I live in a country where there is judicial review of cases and that there is a decent separation between politics and the law. The baying mob should be kept at bay and cases decided on their merits and Ammonite I would hope that any humane judge does take into account at sentencing the fact there are seven children involved.

Possibly the issue of burkas and identity deserved it's own thread because it has certainly muddied this one.

I'm not claiming this judge is Atticus Finch but the reaction of some here has helped remind me of the book.

Dear Belly I will have to wait until I am home in a few days as my phone doesn't support Flash and won't play the video, but thanks for the link.

RObert:>>"Obviously! In that anger did she overstate her case, probably. All very human reactions though. Did it deserve six months in jail? Definitely not!"<<

RObert, definitely yes. I heard a cop on the news making the comment that this decision would make every cop who was about to pull up a burqa wearing Muslim hesitant, he went on to say that they would of course do their job and stop the vehicle. But I thought what if two vehicles of interest attracted the cop’s attention as happens on nearly every shift, one driven by a face and the other one driven by a burqa, who would he chase?

csteel the difference between me,ALP forever and forever, and the green left is I think I can support my claims with truth.
I can FREELY in the name of constant improvement and accountability, see past some in my party's belief in a word that white washes truth SOLIDARITY,I find fault in my team/sides actions
I could set out a case,GREEN/LEFT makes the case, inventing it as they go along.
NOW tell me please, do, how did you get the idea the judge said he could not rule on that?
And remind me then why she was sentenced to 6 months in prison.
I will inform you off this, in court a law giver said, [he may have been one challenged by mental illness] he could not prove it was her in the black postal pillar box her husband forces her to wear.
SOG look again at her actions her record her intentions.
6 months was a fair sentence ,if she had served it it would have not been for her fashion sense.
But for lieing, charging a cop with a crime he did not commit.
Being a recidivist trouble maker, haveing [joke] Friends without any IQ at all.

Dear Belly,

You keep banging on about the ALP and the Green/left, time to drop it mate and realize you belong to the GOB party (Grumpy old bastards).

Don't fret because I will be joining you in the not too distant future, I am already showing signs of it now. If I had the power I would ban facial tattoos on anyone under about forty.

However Belly I'm sure that in earlier years you would have had a far more expansive notion of what constituted justice. Age tends to bring with it its own set of fears, fears for self, family, culture and country. The young don't share them but they are real to you. 

I am also certain those fears will come to me and they will battle with my notions of truth, justice and especially tolerance.

Perhaps I will end up like you but so be it and I may well find myself ranting at some reasonable bloke on a site run by Graham Young Jnr. But I will tell you one thing for sure, my moniker will be Sixpack.

My only hope for others reading the exchange is there is someone like myself to highlight when I am talking rot.

ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) ACT 2005 - SECT 171/173

S171...

Authorised officer may require production of driver licence and name and address from driver or rider
(cf former Act, s 19)
(1) An authorised officer may, in the execution of his or her functions under the road transport legislation, require the driver or rider of a vehicle or horse to do any or all of the following:
(a) produce his or her driver licence (in the case of the driver of a motor vehicle),
(b) state his or her name,
(c) state his or her home address.
(2) A person must not:
(a) refuse to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer under subsection (1), or
(b) state a false name or home address.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(3) In subsection (1), a reference to a driver of a vehicle (in the case of a motor vehicle) includes, where the driver is the holder of a learner licence and the motor vehicle is not a motor cycle, a reference to a holder of a driver licence occupying the seat in or on the motor vehicle next to the driver...

Cont. below....

cont...

...S173.

Authorised officer may require responsible person for vehicle and others to disclose identity of driver who commits offence
(cf former Act, s 21)
(1) If the driver of a motor vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence under the road transport legislation:
(a) the responsible person for the vehicle, or the person having the custody of the vehicle, must, when required to do so by an authorised officer, immediately give information (which must, if so required, be given in the form of a written statement signed by the responsible person) as to the name and home address of the driver, and
(b) any other person must, if required to do so by an authorised officer, give any information that it is in the person’s power to give and that may lead to the identification of the driver.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) (a) if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the court that he or she did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the driver’s name and home address.
(3) A written statement purporting to be given under subsection (1) (a) and to contain particulars of the name and home address of the driver of a motor vehicle at the time of commission of an alleged offence under the road transport legislation that is produced in any court in proceedings against the person named in the statement as the driver for such an offence is evidence without proof of signature that the person was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence if the person does not appear before the court.
(4) In this section, "responsible person" has the same meaning as it has in Chapter 3

Cont..below

Cont from above..

...Here are the rules applicable to the situation. When studied a little deeper, It becomes clear why the Police Officer desisted from his efforts to check her ID against the license photo. Obviously, the right to not reveal the face behind the burka can be legally used as a means to escape the law under the road traffic act outlined above. A neat scam..

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/einfeld-in-another-traffic-scrape-20110624-1gjvn.html
I ask just what is happening to our lawgivers?
Is the law truly,actually,blind to its own faults and actions?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/brothers-of-aggro-carnita-matthews-minders-linked-to-radical-muslim-cleric/story-e6freuzi-1226081615711
Read, under stand, just what looks to be behind this rude aggressive woman.
For just a second, put your self in the shoes of this police officer.
Charged with a crime.
He did not commit.
Be aware it is true,lies are a weapon for some of these people used as a cowardly thing, not unlike a child bluffed to die bomb strapped to chest.
6 months? not nearly enough

CSteele,

<< I would hope that any humane judge does take into account at sentencing the fact there are seven children involved>>

Bunkum!

It could be argued that a humane judge

(and baring in mind the meaning of the word humane includes:
“Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns” )


Taking into account the best interests of the children, might have imposed the maximum sentence –and, even gone further.

In support of this proposition I present :

1) Exhibit A -- The woman's abusive outburst when lawfully detained/questioned & subsequent dishonesty. Behavior which can only be interpreted by impressionable minors as an exemplar.

2) Exhibit B – a record of her husbands beliefs --ditto previous comment.

<< A man claiming to be Matthews’ husband, Hamdi Abu Ibrahim, sent out the call on his Facebook page this week and later thanked: “ALL THE HERO’S (sic) AND LIONS OF ALLAH WHOM (sic) HAD THE CHANCE TO COME TO THE COURT AND FIGHT FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH ... ALLAH HAS GRANTED YOUR OPPRESSED SISTER VICTORY OVER HIS ENEMIES AND HE GRANTED US A JUDGE THAT FROM THE WORD GO HE WAS DEFENDING YOUR SISTER WHERE EVERYONE ELSE WAS DETERMINED TO SEE HER JAILED, BUT ALLAH HAD OTHER PLANS”.
His Facebook page, with the profile picture of a bloodied fist replaced yesterday by a handcuffed figure in a burqa, has messages from supporters such as: “Allah akbar, may all the pigs burn in hell inshallah”.
It features videos of Osama bin Laden, slurs against infidels and “Kufaars” (non-Muslims), “American pig savages” and “Zionist dogs”.
Last weekend Ibrahim wrote: “YA ZIONIST DOGS THERE WILL BE A DAY VERY SOON THAT YOULL FIND NO SHELTR NOR A WALL TO HIND (sic) BEHIND AND WE WILL EAT YOUR FLESH AND SPIT IT TO OUR DOGS TO CHEW OFF.”
And this: “HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO STAY WEAK, NO MORe MR NICE GUY, WE WILL DEFEND OUR iSLAM AND OUR SISTERS WITH OUR BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOD.>>
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/lift_the_burqa_on_cowardly_extremism/

The law is an ass ---and its advocates often show themselves to be an asses ass .

@ Belly:

Re Einfeld - surely this is a case of a flawed individual, rather than the law or "law givers"? Einfeld was never in parliament, where laws are made, and in any case has to answer for his actions to the law.

Personally, I think the guy's bizarre behaviour is consistent with him having undergone some kind of breakdown. I don't thInk you can extrapolate the actions of one judge to the entire judiciary or to the law itself.

There might just have been the possibility of using this clause;

(a) the responsible person for the vehicle, or the person having the
custody of the vehicle, must, when required to do so by an authorised
officer, immediately give information (which must, if so required, be
given in the form of a written statement signed by the responsible
person) as to the name and home address of the driver,

Revealing the face "could" be construed as giving information, ie the image.
An image could be construed as information.

Anyway, a simple update of the act fill fix that.

You may not be aware that wearing the burqua and refusing to show
her face may well have been to avoid a further cancellation of her
licence and another driving conviction. She has a list of convictions
that you couldn't jump over, approx 20.
They were read out on the radio the other day.

morganzola, just a comment on your observation regarding Einfeld, a fine man with issues, this comment from me earlier:

"we all expect the beak to be crusty and peculiar but when I heard two judges pleading for their jobs and using terms such as major mental illness , depression, mood swings, ongoing medication, and of course bi polar,"

They both got a pass, I say medication or not they should not be deliberating justice outcomes.

Dear SPQR,

Let me see, so you don't think the fact that the woman has seven children should be a mitigating factor in her sentencing but what a man alleging to be her husband and  some yet unnamed posters posted to his blog should?

Thankfully that isn't what the law is about in this country, yet.

As to "The law is an ass ---and its advocates often show themselves to be an asses ass ."

If you deem those who support our legal system as asses ass' then I suppose I'm one.

As to your exhibit A  "The woman's abusive outburst when lawfully detained/questioned & subsequent dishonesty."

What we saw is an angry woman who against her wishes felt she had been forced to raise her veil. The law as it currently stands does not give the policeman the power to insist that she do so, if he insisted then it was unlawful.

I'm not blaming him as the rules would appear to be conflicting and the best thing that can come of this is that some clear guidelines are set.

As to her honesty a higher court has said she does not have a case to answer and that is good enough for me, if it is appealed and further evidence finds her guilty then I will likely accept that as well.

csteele,
Thank you and we support the police officer in this case.

http://thuppahi.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/ameer-ali-of-peradeniya-perth-ban-the-burqa/
Ameer Ali of Peradeniya & Perth: “Ban the Burqa”

Daniel Emerson, Amanda Banks And Belle Taylor, Courtesy of West Australian, 6 August 2010

A leading WA Muslim has risked a backlash from his community by calling on the winner of the Federal election to ban the wearing of burqas in public. Ameer Ali, an economics lecturer at Murdoch University and vice-president of the Regional Islamic Council of South-East Asia and the Pacific, makes the call in an opinion article in The West Australian today.

Dr Ali, describes the burqa and similar robe the niqab as “the lingering relics of a patriarchal, misogynistic and tribal culture” and argues there is no religious obligation in the Koran for it to be worn. The native Sri Lankan, who arrived in Australia in 1977, argues that the niqab – which covers the entire female body apart from a split gap for the eyes – and the burqa, which has a mesh instead of a gap, not only covers a Muslim woman’s anatomy but also “governs her mindset”. He argues the rise of Islamism, or political Islam, combined with “liberal immigration policies of Western governments”, has increased the worldwide spread of the garments, which make it impossible for the wearer to properly interact with others around them.

Dr Ali, who was the chairman of the Howard government’s Muslim advisory council, said yesterday he was prepared for an angry backlash from some sections of the Muslim and wider community. But he felt compelled to speak out and not “pander to the whims of political correctness”. He said he had received anonymous threats in the past after airing similarly contentious views on Islam. “Of course they will create all sorts of personal attacks but you see I am not attacking the religion. I am attacking the culture,” Dr Ali said.
click on link at top to continue reading

Kerryanne

Thank you for that very helpful and informative post.

Ammonite
Your welcome and btw if you go back to the other thread that is the person& others who invited you the other topic. Dont worry about Ikebal hes of no consequence.
We understand your unwell its ok. Just take it as a compliment and if you ever want anything just *ask get well.

Cold here today.!

Dear CSteele,
<< What we saw is an angry woman who against her wishes felt she had been forced to raise her veil>>

No, what WE saw, was a woman lawfully apprehended screaming abuse at a police officer.The officer's 20 minute in-car-video shows that at no time did he attempt to remove or even touch her veil.

YOU say, she was agitated because she was afraid she’d be forced against her wishes to raise her veil.And I guess -- being modest and mild mannered-- such was all too much for her to cop.

Unlike you, I don’t have The Mentalist’s power of telepathy, so I don’t know why she reacted the way she did.And in view of the magistrates description of the woman as “ deliberately malicious and …ruthless”, I am also reticent to accept her justifications.

However there are two things worthy of note:
1) The person apprehended , and the person who made the charges --if they be two different people , it is all the sadder -- seems to have had a pre-set antipathy towards the police. –and if the Facebook pages are related, the wider community, and

2) The person who layed the charges of “racism” appears to have known how to pull our (i.e. multicultural Australia’s) strings.

Both of the of the above indicate major problems with multicultural policy.

This is not likely to be resolved by new/special provisions. The problem has deep roots.
( some who have have suggested fingerprinting need to be aware that some fundamentalist Muslims cannot shake hands or even touch an infidel)

CSteele,
<< the woman has seven children should be a mitigating factor in her sentencing>>
No. I do not believe that having her having seven children should be a mitigating factor.

In fact it is conceivable that given her behavior with the officer and, in court that saw the magistrate describe her as “ deliberately malicious and …ruthless”

And given the postings under her husbands name on Facebook – which cannot be proven to be her husband –but seemed to be from someone with intimate knowledge of the case and the defendant.And to share her antipathy.

It is conceivable that should the woman be incarcerated and the children be placed in foster care (which is not likely given the husbands presence) the children might actual benefit from the experience

Dear SPQR,

You said, "Unlike you, I don’t have The Mentalist’s power of telepathy, so I don’t know why she reacted the way she did."

This is essentially the ruling of the second judge that I have been supportive of while you and others seem so incensed. This is why he said it could not be determined that the woman willfully filed a false complaint.

You said "And in view of the magistrates description of the woman as “ deliberately malicious and …ruthless”, I am also reticent to accept her justifications."

This is the same magistrate who was found to be incorrect in law twice. So what clouded his judgement? Perhaps like others he had difficulty in seeing the forest for the trees, or rather the woman for the burka.

You say "It is conceivable that should the woman be incarcerated and the children be placed in foster care (which is not likely given the husbands presence) the children might actual benefit from the experience"

I think we have tried that as a country using just such a mindset and have had to offer two apologies. I think we should pass.

@ CSteele,

<< I think we have tried that [ removing children] as a country using just such a mindset and have had to offer two apologies. I think we should pass>>

Hmmmm …It appears to have missed your notice, CSteele --but, we’re still doing it!
http://www.smh.com.au/national/number-of-children-removed-from-parents-soars-20100701-zqqv.html

And one of the most common grounds is where the wellbeing of the child is felt to be at risk. Some even propose obesity as valid ground for removal:

“ SEVERELY obese children should be notified to child protection authorities, and even taken into care, if their parents are unwilling or unable to help them lose weight, experts have argued.
The continuing failure of parents to ensure treatment for their obese child could be considered medical neglect when the child is suffering, or is at high risk of suffering, associated severe health problems”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/call-for-obese-kids-to-be-taken-into-care/2009/02/01/1233423045494.html

If obesity threatens a risk of “ severe health problems” and requires intervention. How much more would a value system that preaches this:

“HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO STAY WEAK, NO MORe MR NICE GUY, WE WILL DEFEND OUR iSLAM AND OUR SISTERS WITH OUR BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOD.”

SPQR do not bend thanks for the thread thanks for representing nine tenths of Australians.
Your thread has bought out interesting things, the links I posted include the trouble makers out side the court.
And NO ONE! could make a film More anti Muslim Than all those who defended this woman did.
I posted in another thread, unsure this one would survive its lurch away from its subject, saying an appeal has been called for ,fingers crossed.
CSTEEL,thought you would take a step back after getting to see it all but will question anything you say in future ,this clearly is a case of a crime she got away with.

Not sure how this crept in, sonofgloin...

>>...Einfeld, a fine man with issues...<<

Sorry, but on all the evidence, the guy is nothing more than an arrogant bully.

Oh. And a liar.

Dear belly,

You said "unsure this one would survive its lurch away from its subject", I thought I had made every effort to keep the thread dead on its subject, ie whether or not the law is an ass. I have been stridenly been putting the position that particularly in this case it clearly was not.

If the thread was suppose to be about bashing Muslims then all I can say in my defense was that it used false and misleading advertising.

Perhaps to keep you happy the title should have been "Let's make damn sure these trouble- making burka babes get what's coming to them whatever the law says".

Csteel: Perhaps to keep you happy the title should have been "Let's make damn sure these trouble- making burka babes get what's coming to them whatever the law says".

Thanks csteal. Sounds like a plan to me. She can't go around flouting the Law then clam Racism, or is it Religionism? In this case. & oh, "you can't do that to me I got babies." snif, snif.

Chuckle, chuckle, "stupid Australians."

Csteel I made no reference to any post from you.
I am pledged to avoid and ignore one poster.
Will keep my promise.
But do I have the right? not sure! we all switch subjects mid thread.
I will be blackened for saying this.
I CAN NOT HIDE my discust at thread not remotely animal welfare being high jacked.
As I exile my self from this thread too,I must at all costs even taking long service leave from OLO not become entangled.
Say this csteel no matter what you race you motivation we could have that coffee,I have great Friends even Muslims from all over the world.
Chant your mindless chants at me,but if you want to see a one sided view a refusal to see truth and honesty, look into the nearest mirror see you on another thread hopefully it will be let live not smothered by subjects not related.
PS Banjo got verbal thrashing for introducing dreadful cruelty against girls in to such a thread, so some can and others can not.
If any cause is worth while it should not need to invade others to get interest.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/muslim-carnita-matthews-cash-call-on-burqa-legal-bill/story-e6freuzi-1226091002407
The Law is indeed blind/deaf/dumb/ and stupid!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10737262
No doubt, none, some will find this NZ link offensive.
I do not, yes it is crafted to get on the nerves of some.
But it seems to me to have much to offer.

Way to go Belly. I've been trying to say the same exact thing my self.

& buggar the Politically Correct, Greenie, Overly sensitive crybaby types. As Chopper would say, "harden the $@(# up"

Dear jayb,

I will tell you who the cry baby types are, those who think a few women in burkas mean the end of civilization as we know it, a threat to our way of life, to our freedoms, to our laws.

Mate, they are a few women who are choosing to adhere to a particular version of a faith. If I see them in the street I mightn't like it but the last thing on my mind is terror. I don't start screaming "Ban them now!"

We have discussed Belly's fears before but what on earth has you sooking up so much? Why are they so scary to you? Why have they got you going weak at the knees? I just don't get it.

Do you think Chopper would be all a tremble like you lot? 

Toughen the $&@! up indeed.

Just get a grip fellas.

jayb what we have here is a boycott.
Greens are Boycotting me sprouting these unrepresentative things, because they can.
On line very few coal face truck drivers street sweepers are here.
My links are not some thing I make up, they are comments made in Australian and world news papers.
Those papers sell to every day folk and speak for them.
I charge.
Yes I do CSTEELE and the Greens, with refusal to except free speech refusal to see the views of the majority as valid.
Csteele time and again in the thread about a criminal! charging a police man with a crime SHE KNEW he did not commit defended her and insulted us, for being? CONCERNED ABOUT SUCH AS HER.
I know, it can be debated in ten years, but it will be true the GREENS have peaked, a party once growing every election ,now full of the belief it can drive this country from the very boot of the politics car is standing up and screaming against? my right to say as I wish.
Stand tall against this brand of left wing book burning.

csteel: I will tell you who the cry baby types are, those who think a few women in burkas mean the end of civilization as we know it, a threat to our way of life, to our freedoms, to our laws.

Well sweetie, Someone has to save us. As the song goes. "where will you be when the ship hits the sand. You'll be inside prayin' for dry land."

Do you know what's happening in Britain & Europe? Why they are starting to do something about this religious curse, Islam.

It's because their freedoms are being eroded by these fanatics & the greenie, sensitive crowd are supporting them. When you find that you have lost you freedom to the Islamists then you'll blame everyone else & refuse to take the responsibility, as per usual. Then you'll want someone to save your arse & call upon us. By then it'll be too late. You'll wear the Burka weather you like it or not, & you'll stay home when you're told to, & not have any male friends, & sit in the back room when hubby has his freinds over. Oh, you'll be allowed to fetch the beers. Won't that be nice.

Actually when I think about it. All greenie types should wear the burka or at least put a bag over their heads, preferably a plastic one.

Dear Belly,

Sprouting Greens? Marvelous imagery but hardly accurate. I am not, nor am I likely to ever be a Green.

I'm just a proud Australian standing up tall (excuse the paraphrasing) against this brand of rightwing burka burning.

I have no problem with you having your say but you seem to want to claim the right to do so unchallenged. Well that is not what OLO is about nor is it my intention. However you are certainly not being boycotted so please don't claim it.

As to being a street sweeper I'm not sure there are too many of those around nowadays but I do earn a fair slab of my money directly on the tools, and no I do not have a university degree, not that I'm sure it makes a difference. I generally take people as they come, even ex-union officials despite knowing what the bulk of the workforce generally thinks of them.

Dear Jayb,

England and Europe have the same kind of beat up merchants as you and Belly. France has around a thousand of their four million Muslims wearing burkas and you would think the barricades were being stormed.

Here one women is acquitted of knowingly falsely accusing a police officer and you and Belly are wetting yourselves.

Both of you should grow a spine. You present as a pair of overhyping fear mongers.

As my kids would say, Chill!

And in the end if you two still want to be knocked kneed cry babies, have the good grace not to accuse us of being the same.

The thing is CS is that I have lived amoungst Muslims for 2 years. I have an intimate knowledge of their ways. Did you know that because I'm not a Muslim I am considered not to have a God? Therefore I am an animal to be slaughtered. & I bet I don't get stunned before they cut MY throat.