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.