In "Ban the Burqa" in the American Thinker today, Pamela Geller discusses the Carnita Matthews case -- a claim of victim status that backfired on the lying Muslim accuser, at least initially. Pamela also explains why the burqa should be banned entirely.
Back in November, I reported on a burqa'ed Muslima in Australia, Carnita Matthews, who was charged with making a false complaint that used the Muslim victimhood card in her defense. "All cops are racist," she charged -- what race? Covered from head to toe in a burqa, with just a slit through which to see, the Muslima claimed that a police officer had tried to tear off her burqa.It didn't happen. Matthews was charged with making a false complaint to police. And the judge, Magistrate Robert Rabbidge, saw through her claim right away, describing her lie as "deliberate, malicious and ruthless." Rabbidge added: "There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knew that the complaint she was making was false."
Matthews, predictably, played the race card, saying: "You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn't handle it. All cops are racist."
Her lawyer claimed that Matthews had been a victim of mistaken identity. Because who really knows who was under that burqa? Only Allah can say for sure. But Rabbidge would have none of it. Matthews is the one who lodged the complaint against an officer, and signed a statement to that effect. Police prosecutor sergeant Lisa McEvoy said: "Her signature on that affidavit coupled with the signature on her driver's licence is exactly the same."
Matthews was found guilty, and was sentenced to six months in prison. Yet despite the indisputable evidence against her, the burqa'ed civilizational jihadist appealed -- and this past week, she won, all the while remaining inside her cloth coffin. A new judge, Clive Jeffreys, bought her claim of mistaken identity, and said that because she was wearing a burqa, there was no certainty that Carnita Matthews was the same woman who falsely accused the police officer. Jeffreys contradicted Rabbidge, saying: "I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint. Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false."
The Muslims expressed their gratitude for this in their usual way: it was an ugly scene. Australia's News.com.au reported: "More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting 'Allah Akbar' as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them. Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen." Matthews' dhimmi lawyer Stephen Hopper explained: "They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them."
Attacking cameramen: "culturally appropriate" for Muslims.
It's a matter of public health. We don't have rickets in civilized countries. Guess which countries do?
In short, deliberately malicious ruthlessness is culturally appropriate for oppressed minority Muslims.
Boorishness and malice are the cultural hallmarks of Muslim supremacy.
I supposed in Leftie (Labour)-controlled Australia, the savage Muslim men who attacked the cameraman will be let off as so-called victims; just as the Burka-ed lady! Western Left is forcing teh world to be SLAVES to Islam!
Why just ban burqa, hijab, niqab, or black tent of Arabia, ban Islam and whatever comes with it. Problem solved!!
"You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn't handle it. All cops are racist."
Every man, woman and child on Earth is a racist. That's why they call them gene pools. So Ms. Matthews, who sounds like a Rep Keith Ellison D-MN to me, apparently is a switcharoo.
And, before she plays the race card, she should take a sightseeing tour of the Caucusus and the Balkans to be able to "discover" that many Moslems are not Arabs, Turks or Persians.
And, while Ms. Andrews is running up the learning curve pole, she'll also find out that many Moslems are black African, east Asian and even meso-American. We can only hope that Native Americans in North America will jump on the bandwagon next, but there may be a hangup with the no alcohol thing.
But they have opened up an opportunity for vitamin manufacturers, who for the first time in my memory are advertising Vitamin D pills - in sunny Australia!
One of the Australian newspapers that ran this report, opened up a 'Comments' section, which you may access (at time of my writing, anyway: 23 June 2011) by clicking on the following link:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/beating-the-law-by-virtue-of-a-burqa/story-e6freuzi-1226078800517
Last I counted, there were no less than 158 comments, pretty nearly all expressing sheer fury at the Judge's letting this malicious liar off the hook; and the majority of those comments were also calling, unsurprisingly, for a burka ban.
Several commenters, too, had observed with alarm and disgust the naked aggression and strutting supremacism of the allahu-akbaring Mohammedan male mob that accompanied Ms Matthews to and from the court.
The cream of the story is that this creature - born a non-Muslim, and converted to Islam, I'm not quite sure at what age, she is now 47 - has a record of what I might call antisocial behaviour. Improperly displaying P-plates (which is what the officer noticed, and booked her for, when he pulled her over for a standard random breath test), is the least of what she's been up to on the roads.
From the article I've linked:
"THE woman at the centre of the burqa row, Carnita Matthews, has **a long record of driving offences and a history of not paying her fines.** {my emphasis. And my comment - surprise, surprise. Only query: was this creature attracted to Islam because she was already of a sociopathic disposition, or did the sociopathic attitude only manifest *after* she joined the Mohammedan Mob and underwent programming? - dda}
"Court documents have revealed that she had been fined seven times for traffic infringements before she was stopped by police in June last year for not displaying her P-plates in the incident that sparked the row that spilled over to the District Court yesterday.
"Since she first received her learner licence in 1998 at the age of 33, she has twice had her provisional licence suspended for totting up too many demerit points and twice had her licence suspended for non payment of fines.
"**The State Debt Recovery Office had to recover the fines.** {my emphasis - dda. What a piece of work she is...}.
"Both of those two suspensions for non payment of fines were later lifted. {Huh? How did she wangle that? - dda}
"It is not known how many times she was physically stopped by police and whether she had her face covered by a burqa or a niqab on those occasions.
"A number of times she was caught on camera speeding and disobeying traffic lights."
She should not be on the road, period.
She looks to me like a Sudden Jihad Syndrome/ Vehicular Jihad Against Infidel Road Users case waiting to happen.
I heard on the late news last night that she is now claiming compensation. There are consequences when a judge wrongly allows a guilty Muslim to go free.
But the judge has to show his face, doesn't he? He can't hide his identity, so there might have been unpleasant consequences for him if he had found her guilty.
In the future, will we have to have closed trials for Muslims on charges, with judges behind screens, to protect them from possible retaliation?
Or can Muslims expect to be found innocent of any charges?
A woman I met gets around in a burqa for fun. She told me the "booze bus" always waves her on when she is wearing her burqa. She has driven around the block and taken her burqa off, and the booze bus has stopped her. There are definitely benefits in wearing that rag.
On reflection, it seems the Powers That Be have decided Australia is to become a Third World country: over-populated, poor, rife with corruption.
In the name of human rights and social justice.
Not forgetting, of course, "sustainability".
The cop who booked her is damned lucky he had his dashboard video running. If not he would have been in very deep trouble. Her complaint of racism would have been taken seriously by the authorities and he could have found himself without a career and possibly facing a very damaging lawsuit. I think the original magistrate considered this and issued an appropriate penalty that would discourage like minded people from trying the same stunt. I hope that the Public Prosecutor appeals this latest ruling. Judge Jeffries decision will only encourage more of the same.
She belongs in Saudi Arabia, not in the country of her birth, that she has betrayed, and that she clearly despises.
Of course, women - because of a strict interpretation of the sharia - are not allowed to drive *at all* in Saudi Arabia, but hey, if she's such a devout Muslimah that she wears the full burqa, she ought to be able to submit to that extra little restriction without complaint, shouldn't she?
An interesting article from Miranda Devine's blog:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/lift_the_burqa_on_cowardly_extremism
A friend of mine suggested that,not only should we not tolerate their creeping sharia, but we should also not honour them by using their terminology: so, instead of calling it "burka" we should use "black sheet" or "black tent", we should not accord the title "Sheik" either and call Sheik Hilali simply "that Hilali guy" and, instead of calling their book "Koran" we should just refer to it as "their book", or even something more pejoratif. My friend thinks that this might at least get to them, as she says "little things add up".
I am feeling physically sick to think that my tax dollar keeps that bludging creature and her multiple brood in clover, since she and her ilk are not the "working kind".
A Jewish female poster at this forum, a couple of years ago, dubbed the Muslim female cover-ups (all forms thereof) "the slave rag".
I think it is a brilliant term and should be brought into general circulation.
One can create variants. The face-coverings - yashmak, niqab, burqa - can be referred to as 'the Muslim female Slave Mask', or just 'the slave mask', or 'her slave mask', for short.
The hijab and other less extreme forms of head covering can be referred to as 'the Muslim female slave rag'.
The part of the garment that covers the body rather than the head and/ or face, can be called the 'Slave Sack'.
Here's a brilliant article on the *real* significance of the Slave Rag - and it has nothing to do with modesty, and everything to do with power, control, and an open threat to every free woman who sees it - by one N Maruani, summing up the insights of a Persian ex-Muslim who lives in France, Chahdortt Djavenn.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=148041
'Outlaw the hijab'.
Excerpt:
'Djavann explains further: "The veil has never been innocent or innocuous. It has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries."
'She stresses that while the Islamists {that is, the sharia-pushers - dda} did not invent the veil, they have turned it into a weapon and made it the symbol of their cause.
'ADDRESSING THE growing phenomenon of veiled women in Europe, Djavann points out its centrality to Islamist propaganda:
"The political, ideological and psychological impact of the veil goes far beyond its appearance... If this weren't the case, why would the Islamists make it their main focus?... It constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law." '
When I see a Muslim female in the Slave Rag and/ or Slave Mask, prancing ostentatiously down the street (or scuttling in the wake of her arrogant, strutting male Mohammedan owner) I don't see 'modesty'. I see an open threat to all free non-Muslim women. I see the symbol par excellence of hideous, discriminatory, oppressive Sharia Law. I see the equivalent of a neo-nazi goose-stepping down the street wearing a Swastika armband or an SS death's head badge; or the equivalent of a Klansman in his hood and robe; or of a Hell's Angel's outlaw biker in the leather jacket with chains and tattoos. And the hair stands up on the back of my neck.
I raised the issue of Carnita Matthews' appeal in my reply to the JW article titled French burqa ban descends into farce
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/french-burqa-ban-descends-into-farce.html
I have copied that response to this article because it more appropriately belongs here.
************** Original Posting of June 20, 2011 ******
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 appeal 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.
Hi DDA - sorry, been to europe and didn't address your last reply before the thread went.
Anyway, you wrote:
"Of course, women - because of a strict interpretation of the sharia - are not allowed to drive *at all* in Saudi Arabia, but hey, if she's such a devout Muslimah that she wears the full burqa, she ought to be able to submit to that extra little restriction without complaint, shouldn't she?"
____________________________
Exactly - the Saudi woman is so very oppressed, so hidden and confused...yet these vipers will blow your genitals off if they have the chance...
"...When I see a Muslim female in the Slave Rag and/ or Slave Mask, prancing ostentatiously down the street (or scuttling in the wake of her arrogant, strutting male Mohammedan owner) I don't see 'modesty'. I see an open threat to all free non-Muslim women.
Hear Hear ! "scuttling in the wake of her arrogant, strutting male Mohammedan owner" I'm putting this one in my "I wish I had said that folder" !!!