French burqa ban descends into farce

Fine!!! Throw her in jail w/o her burqha, and allow her to appeal her sentence in court only if she agrees not to put it back on. In fact, strip search her before throwing her in jail.

Najet, meanwhile, simply stayed at home, with the 34-year-old saying she knew she would be stopped from entering.
............................

Well, maybe.

It is also likely that Najet doesn't recognize the French courts, given that they do not enforce Shari'ah law, and are made up of filthy Kaffirs.

Will Naject face (pun intended) any consequences for ignoring a court order? Probably not.

Back to the drawing board, indeed...

Revocation of citizenship and expulsion...or does that make too much sense?

Charge Hind for the second offence of wearing a burka in public, and Najet for contempt of court. Deny them bail on the grounds that there is a serious risk they will offend again, and then throw them into prison, whilst they "try to work out how they can deal with the challenge to the new law". Does anyone know if the French still use the Devil's Island prison?

Charge her with contempt of court, arrest her, and process her. She can go to her hearing in the French equivalent of the orange jumpsuit.

Happy now, France?

Deport her. Show a backbone Frenchies.

Deportation of her and her family to a country of her choosing seems a fitting punishment.

Agree with everyone above. Arrest her for contempt of court for failure to appear, and deport her to the Islamic paradise of her choice. Make sure she takes her relatives with her.

If I was in charge of the court, I would consider these two in contempt of court and have police arrive to arrest them. Upon arrest, they would be taken into custody. Once in custody of the court they can be forced to wear whatever the criminal system indicates they should wear. Once they are de-robed, bring them before the judge and render their verdict along with the extra charges for being in contempt. I would go a step further and charge the Muslimas the time and money required to get the officers to go out and pick these two up. If they like Jizya so much, lets apply it whenever and where-ever we can.

"state prosecutors began trying to work out how they can deal with the challenge to the new law."
How strange that the prosecutors need time to "work out how...". It's clear from reading the above comments that solutions are there IF you want them. These prosecutors don't lack solutions..they lack b*ll*cks!

Only fools and politicians did not know from the outset, that the burka ban would end in farce.

Score:
Muslims - one more.
Infidels - still scratching their heads.

How about a one way ticket to Nigeria or Iran?

"The law ... forces me to dress a certain way, when all I want to do is live according to my religion."

Yet she's happy to obey another law that forces her to dress in a certain way. She's chosen to live according to that other law, so deport her to some place where it's in effect.

Isn't this a case of contempt of court? The article does not mention it but I certainly hope they gave her another fine.

Let her enter the court with her she-mozlem headress and sans all other garments.
That would get the attention of the ummah, the ulema, the ulama and any other kufar spectators.

salami 'n' bacon y'll !

When this ban first came into force, I said at the time that it was toothless, in that the police were specifically ordered not to remove the burkas themselves. What is the point of enacting a law, if you refuse to allow the means to enforce it ?

Sarkozy brought this in as a sop to the supporters of Le Pen, but like all politicians, failed to think it through. I hope Le Pen now makes big political hay over this, and her party gains in strength and support.

By the way, a muslim and muslima have left France, and are now in the UK. They are using *our* money to sue the French government, because the muslima was 'forced' to leave France (her 'home', ha ha), to reside in a country where she *is* allowed to wear her bin bag. And our witless government are letting them do it.

It's going to come down to civil war in Europe. Patriots and lovers of freedom vs the islamic hordes. There is no Western government with the integrity, guts, or concern for its indigenous citizens which would take a stand. The Geert Wilders of this world are few and far between, alas.

This seems to me to be highly suspicious behaviour:

"Hind and Najet, **who keep their features hidden at all times and refuse to identify themselves beyond their first names**".

So how are they to be identified? Who *is* it inside that Slave Sack and behind the Slave Mask?

It might be two Mohammedan Males, for all anybody knows!

Nobody knows till the mask comes off. And refusing to give their last names - whether birth name or married name - is extremely sus. Are they who they say they are? Are they involved in welfare fraud? Are they in France legally or illegally? Are they the second/ third/ fourth 'mosque wives' of some Muslim polygynist? This needs going through with a fine-tooth comb by all the relevant authorities.

And arrest them and a couple of no-nonsense French policewomen, backed up by a large force of gendarmes and the army if necessary (to head off any potential male MOhammedan insta-mob), take that damned Slave Mask off their arrogant faces; a mug shot gets taken, plus particulars for every other form of identification currently known to the kufar police (Fingerprints. Footprints. Voiceprint. Retina scan. DNA sample (finger prick, by a nice French nurse. And a nice lady dentist checks their teeth to find out *exactly* how old they really are, and takes down all the particulars, for future reference if needed). Cross-check all those identifying details; just in case they turn out to be connected with unsolved crimes.

And then they get frisked from head to foot, and frog-marched into court to face the music.

I actually suspect them to be "re-verts to islam" - probably from some militant leftist party. Or even the local bike for what they are now only allowed to call in France "disadvantaged youth" - you know the ones who burn down thousands of cars during non-Muslim holidays, such as Christmas.

An example MUST be made of these brainwashed anti-French peasants. Their headcoverings should be removed in public and they should be charged in court and punished under French law. After the predictable Muslim outrage and anger, the French should make it clear that all future Sharia inspired law breakers will be deported to their countries of origin - including first and second generation Islamic "French." If they want to live an Islamic lifestyle,they are free to live in an Islamic country.

At least the French are attempting to counter creeping Sharia. In England, the millions of lefties who sway and determinedly elect our dhimmi governing parties, will be horrified by the actions of the Islamaphobic French.

Actually, I think the French court did the right thing, particularly in the police not forcibly removing the women's coverings.

It would be tactically stupid, and perhaps immoral, to meet a non-violent action with a violent response. That type of tactic simply doesn't work in a free society, and with good reason.

I think a good tactic would be to levy a fine against the women for contempt of court, for not showing up in court in compliance with the law. Showing up in a burkha is not in compliance with the law.

Contempt of court fines are usually administered directly, and don't need a jury verdict (I'm assuming French law is not more liberal). Once the fine has been assessed, the French police can attach the women's bank accounts, or as is more likely, deduct the fine from her government support checks. Whatever. The court date will be reset, and further fines assessed.

Even if the fines are a few hundred dollars, very few people are comfortable seeing a few hundred dollars taken from their accounts regularly. And there, you have a proportionate, effective response that doesn't make the government seem like an overarching bully.

This type of farce is about to go world-wide or should I say West-wide if we are not careful.

I'm sure most, if not all, Jihad Watchers are aware of the story of Carnita Matthews the Muslim woman in Australia who falsely charged a police officer with racism. If not, have a look at the following YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ADpByIim4A

Well, she's appealed her conviction and won!

I can't believe the ruling. As I understand the story, the judge more or less ruled that the individual who delivered the false accusation was in a burqa. He has doubts that Matthews was the one who delivered the accusation.

I don't think it matters who 'delivered' the accusation; it matters who signed it.

As far as I've heard, the signature on the complaint is that of Matthews. That was verified at the first trial.

I'm hoping (but not expecting) that the judge in this case made his silly ruling in order to p**s-off Australians in order to get them angry enough that they would demand that their politicians ban the burqa.

Mind you, it isn't enough to just ban the burqa. The legislators have to introduce regulations that make it possible for police and courts to do their job when they are dealing with burqa related issues.

Obviously, the French legislators didn't think about the side issues of their burqa law before they enabled it. In that respect they come off looking like the intellectual equivalents of the Coyote in the Road Runner cartoon's.

Below, is the announcement of the conviction being over-turned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO2qP0Tjn80

Here is some additional information on the ruling:

http://www.news.com.au/national/muslim-woman-accused-of-making-false-police-statement-avoids-jail-over-identity-doubt/story-e6frfkvr-1226078884650#ixzz1Pr49ICG6

There is one caveat to this story. The second court case may have been heard because there was no evidence that Matthews actually signed the racism complaint (i.e., the prosecutor may not have presented evidence from an accredited hand writing expert to say it was hers).

Now, an appeal isn't a retrial, so the facts as established at the first trial are the facts for the second trial. If the authenticity of the the signature was not determined at the original trial, the the appeal court judge may have been forced to consider the issue of who dropped off the complaint. If that can't be established then there is doubt. Hence the unpalatable ruling.

These are the type of issues that get left out of media reports because they are a bit convoluted for those without a legal background to follow.

Even if the above caveat is true, it still appears that Ms. Matthews is guilty of racism herself and she should be charged as such. It's time that Western governments started showing the Muslims that two can play the litigation game.