In the West, the female face is not a private part. This necessary and eminently logical move comes in the aftermath of the Carnita Matthews case, which set up a perfect Catch-22 wherein the defendant would not remove her niqab for reasons of Islamic "modesty," and then won an appeal because she could not be positively identified behind the veil.
"NSW police given power to remove veils," from the Australian Associated Press, July 4 (thanks to JN):
Muslim women can be forced to remove their face veils during routine car stops under new powers granted to NSW police.
Premier Barry O'Farrell said cabinet had approved the move today so police could properly identify motorists or any other people suspected of committing a crime.
"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motor cycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else, the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," Mr O'Farrell said in a statement.
Last week, NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said police needed stronger powers to identify women who wear full facial veils.
It follows the case of Sydney woman Carnita Matthews, who in November 2010 was sentenced to six months in jail for falsely accusing a police officer of forcibly trying to remove her burqa.
The case arose after Ms Matthews was pulled over while driving in Woodbine in June 2010.
However, the sentence was quashed on appeal last week after NSW District Court judge Clive Jeffreys ruled there was no evidence to confirm Ms Matthews filed a criminal complaint against the officer, because the person who did so was also wearing a veil and wasn't positively identified.
An appeal has been launched against the decision but Mr O'Farrell said Attorney-General Greg Smith had been advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions it was unlikely to succeed.
However, Mr O'Farrell said the new police powers - which are expected to be in place within a couple of months - should help prevent a recurrence of such a case in the future.
"I have every respect for various religions and beliefs but when it comes to enforcing the law the police should be given adequate powers to make a clear identification," he said.
Police have had the power to ask women to remove face veils during the investigation of serious offences but did not have such powers during routine car stops.
Muslims trying to inmpose their vile ideas on Australians........I hope the police rip their f*&*^&g burkhas off their misereable hateful heads....
Burqa Jihad comes to New Zealand:
“Burqaphobia” in New Zealand makes PM go into full blown dhimmitude
http://sheikyermami.com/2011/07/05/burqaphobia-in-new-zealand-makes-pm-go-into-full-blown-dhimmitude/
With this kind of cowardice, servitude and full blown dhimmitude NZ will go the way of the Dodo within 5 years!
How can Matthews hide behind muslim beliefs when, clearly, her name is a kuffar name, which means she no longer has even a woman's diminished rights under islamic law? She obviously does not observe islamic rules, except, like all of them, when it suits her. Muslim women aren't allowed to drive, anyway, and must be accompanied by a senior male family member if she goes out - presumably that bloke won't be wearing a veil, or other kind of batmask, so can be identified. Jeffreys should be put out to grass, now - and maybe prosecuted for anti-australian acts and/or words/deeds - it is outrageous that he let her get away with it - ask him what he would have ruled had it been a white caucasian male that had worn a disguise/mask - that says it all - not just the law that's an Ass, Jeffreys is clearly a Jackofallasses! And a dhimmi traitor, to boot!
Not bad..........for now. However; a ban
on all muslima garb should be forthcoming.
Presumably if the woman (but could be a male) refuses then she is charged with an offence, goes to court and argues that there is no way that the prosecution can prove that it was her under the black sheet who did the refusing and thus case dismissed - by the precedent of the Carnita Matthews case. Unless the legislation covers that then it will fail and the situation will be worse than before. What is needed is for private individuals and corporations such as banks to refuse entry of burka clad people onto their premises just as they refuse entry of people wearing bike helmets which cover their face. Those bandits are at least somewhat more identifiable on account of their clothing than a muslima wearing a tent and head covered.
Islam,
Where it's Halloween every day, all day,
Funny one. Slightly scary.
There were no niqabs in Australia in the good old days...Australia had strict standards for immigration...But somewhere along the line, they got loose, let nearly anyone immigrate including niqabs...Now they have niqab problems...
Since they can't get rid of it, the best thing to do is control it...The police are totally justified...an out of control niqab is a public hazard...
One astonishing reason Muslims continue to believe in Islam is that they believe the Koran has scientific miracles
Their most elaborate case is the Embryology of Humans in the Koran.They say it was not discovered until the 20th century and that it is 100% scientifically accurate
Wrong,Galen said the same thing hundreds of years before the Koran but Galen and the Koran have one undeniable scientific error in their embryology
Read about it all,plus a video on the subject by Dr William Campbell
http://www.antisharia.com/2011/07/04/does-the-koran-miraculously-state-the-embryological-development-of-humans-without-error/
Do not disrespect Islamic scientific discovery! Koran 18:86 says the sun sets in a murky pool. That's something the West hasn't discovered yet.
Quran Science and reading the New Testament the Quranic Way are some of my main joys. Fun never-ending.
The real story here is that this bhurka bitch filed a complaint and deliberately tried to convince the court that the officer had assaulted her, tried to remove her veil and had not treated her with the respect she "so richly deserved"(gag).
The video camera in the police vehicle clearly showed not only that this was not the truth, but in fact she was the real offender and had clearly lied her ass off! (hey WHAT a surprise an islamist not telling the truth!)
She tried to use the old islamophobe card to get a polite and courteous peace officer kicked off the force and when the true story came out, this piece of crap took the position that "you could not prove it was her".
And the Dhimi(it should read DUMMY) Australian courts agree with her? Good Lord!
This vindictive monster should have been given sixty lashes - in keeping with the justice of the muslim cesspools she seems to so desperately want us to emulate.
Better still, as in a recent British Columbia case, they could simply return her to her husband who could gouge her eyes out and bite her nose off in true islamic fashion.
Of course one can also argue about two glaring holes in both these so called scientific theories. The individual sperm and the all important female egg are not mentioned. Back then they didn't have the microscope so for Galen or allah they didn't exist. People thought that the baby developed from the male fluid.
In the primary interest of Officer and public safety this is, and should be plain commonsense. The arguments for removing any form of a mask that stops identity is overwhelming. If Muslims want to practice this in Muslim countries that is their choice but it does not belong in the Western World.
From the Quran:
Believers, do not enter the houses of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless you are given leave. But if you are invited, enter; and when you have eaten, disperse. Do not engage in familiar talk, for this would annoy the Prophet and he would be ashamed to bid you go; but of the truth God is not ashamed. If you ask his wives for anything, speak to them from behind a curtain. This is more chaste for your hearts and their hearts. (Sura 33:53, N.J. Dawood translation).
the Quran requires only that women and men dress modestly. Beyond that, it never requires face or full-body coverings of any form for men or women.
Will the Islamophobia never cease?
Do not disrespect Islamic scientific discovery! Koran 18:86 says the sun sets in a murky pool. That's something the West hasn't discovered yet.
Good laugh! I bet not Copernicus, Galileo, not even Einstein, saw that one coming... We're waiting. :-)
Australia: New South Wales police given authority to remove face veils for identification on traffic stops
...............................
Finally—some common sense. I hope the French—who have run into similar farcical problems with the Burqa ban—will institute the same policy.
Of course, expect Muslims to challenge this almost immediately.
Expect false charges of "disrespect" and even sexual assault brought against Infidel police. It won't be pleasant.
Still, better to deal with the consequences now rather than allowing a situation to develop where the face veil is considered sacrosanct.
I just hope the NSW authorities stick to their guns.
Abject dhimmitude prevails:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1568075/Support-for-NSW-police-veil-law
A freedom sack dealer advises infidels how to deal with the issue:
"there are ways around the sensitive issue of removing veils. "
"They could politely asked to be taken in front of a woman and do it if they have issues doing it in front of a man. And that doesn't do any harm to anybody",
Good going Carnita! Your lying and bitching has had the opposite effect of what you intended. Thanks for the helping hand. ; )
It is the gaol of Islam to have the whole world converted to muslim, under control of the Mullahs, by fear, and with everyone praying five times a day to Allah.
Even though their numbers are small now. They are united like an army to their cause. Subterfuge and disguise are great weapons in a battle. They have the advantage.
Billy The Kid had 'WANTED' posters of his face on every street corner, but can you imagine if he'd been wearing a burka !!
They never would have caught him.
; )
"Carnita" Matthews? How did I miss this? Doesn't carnita mean meat in Spanish? Where's that Australian Muslim cleric who said women are like "uncovered meat"?
last week i went to a fruit market on west 52nd street. I was in line paying and there was a woman in front of me wearing a Neqab. I was wondering what would happen if she paid by credit card. but she paind in cash!!!!!!!!!
In effect what happened here was that the Muslima first did a hate crime hoax and said: "Yes! It was me! And I was a victim of islamophobia, oppresion, bigotry and hate! I am a victim!"
And then, when her miserable lies are dismantled, she says: "No! It was not me! I am a victim of islamophobia, oppression, bigotry and hate! I am a victim!"
I bet there are joy and gratulations again within the family circle.
A disgusting, petty, self pitying and sad little affair.
"Do not disrespect Islamic scientific discovery! Koran 18:86 says the sun sets in a murky pool. That's something the West hasn't discovered yet."
------
Well to be fair, you are an ignorant kaffir who has been reading from an online Zionist English translation of holy Qu'ran. Were you to read it in Arabic you would know that that verse actually says:
Koran (18:86) "The sun does not actually set in a murky pool. It only seems so to the unbeliever. Actually, the sun only appears to be in motion and sets and rises because the Earth is rotating about its polar axis at approximately 15 angular degrees per hour and makes a complete rotation in 23.9 hours. Rate of rotation is a function of planet's mass and orbital position. As Earth rotates on its polar axis, it makes a slightly elliptical orbital revolution about the Sun in 365.26 days. The rates of rotation and revolution are functions of a planet's mass and orbital position. Allah is ever merciful, ever wise."
Muslim women can be forced to remove their face veils during routine car stops under new powers granted to NSW police." These Muslim Women are passengers no doubt. Who drives with their face covered?
It's a joke right? ... But if not...
Back into your 'cave' (18th sura) you lying dog. Don't you know you are not allowed "bid'ah", or 'innovation' in Islam?
Good 'linguistic' sarcasm: http://islam.thetruecall.com/Quran_Chapter_18:86.htm
Choose your poison - LOL! - Funny, ignorant superstitions. Ha ha ha! Good one.
Thanx a ton for this link minoria. I spent several years at University studying ancient Greek as well as Classical History; so, the topic was of interest to me.
As I read the article at antisharia.com I immediately thought there has to be a real connection between Galen and the Qur'an, meaning that Muhammad had read Galen's work or an 'abstract' on it.
But that idea seemed very tenuous. My impression is that Greek culture, would not have been prevalent enough in the Arabian peninsula at the time of Muhammad to make the connection likely.
Yet, the correspondence between Galen's theory and 'Allah's' theory seemed too obvious to be written off as coincidence.
Furthermore, the connection would be even more tenuous if Muhammad's reputed illiteracy was a fact. Even if Muhammad knew a scholar who could read Galen (translating from the Greek to Arabic), would Muhammad even have been interested in listening. Even if he was, would someone with no education whatsoever even understand Galen's treatise?
No, there was no way I could think of to connect Galen and the Qur'an.
Then the answer came from the YouTube link provided by antisharia.com. I had forgotten about Uthman and his 'tinkering' with the text of the Qur'an.
Now everything fell into place. By Uthman's time, the Muslims had captured Egypt and consequently Alexandria, the centre of Hellenistic art and science. From that conquest many of the great literary treasures of Greek and Roman culture fell into Muslim hands.
Now it was possible to see Galen's ideas sneaking into the Qur'an. Eureka!
So, thanx again for my little adventure. I even got a chance to read some ancient Greek, something I haven't done for decades.
I can't wait until the muzzies start howling over this one. If it's illegal to wear a ski mask in a bank here in the US, why permit a niqab?
You said: Of course, expect Muslims to challenge this almost immediately.
I think the best way to handle that gravenimage is to give the officer at the scene some legal discretion.
The regulations for the law should allow the officer to:
1) Arrest the offender and transport them to the police station where a properly trained and 'Sensitivity educated' female officer can verify their identity in private. The offender will also be required to fill out an evaluation of the 'Sensitivity' officer's professionalism. This evaluation will consist of 1 or 2 hundred thought provoking questions. The offender will also be responsible for getting back to their vehicle any way they can.
OR
2) Impound the vehicle on the spot in which case the offender will be subject to paying the towing company for towing and storage. At the point the officer impounds the vehicle the offender is on their own to get home or wherever they need to get to. So they can use public transportation, a taxi, or hitchhike if that is legal. Obviously at nighttime or in remote areas the officer would have to go for option 1) to protect the offender.
If 2) is selected by the scene officer then there may be a problem getting the car out of the impound because the offender is going to have to prove their identity. If there are no females working for the towing company . . .
All of the above should cause enough inconvenience that most veiled individuals would opt to show their faces. It they didn't the first time, they probably would the second time.
By the way, the above would be in addition to any other fines provided by the law for non-compliance.
I think the sexual harassment charges you anticipate won't be an issue as long as law enforcement makes sure that all their vehicles are equipped with video cameras. After all, that is what got Carnita Matthews in trouble.
Shame on you Battle of Tours for being so closed-minded.
Of course you should accept Qur'an-based science as the final word on understanding the world of physics.
I can see that you are going to be a hard-sell on this issue as your mind has been clouded by distractions such as facts, truth, education, reading books etc. ;but I am up to the challenge and am willing to make the effort to educate you on the matter.
Below is a link to a debate that took place on Iraqi television between a physicist and a real scientist armed with the Qur'an. I'm sure by the end of the debate you will understand that the Qur'an is the source that all Western scientists should refer to when doing groundbreaking research.
Hold on to your seat because you are about to learn a scientific fact that has been hidden from Western knowledge for hundreds of years: THE EARTH IS FLAT.
Once you understand the importance of this revelation, you will understand why Islam decided to stay in the 14th century.
That was the period in which they made most of their advancements to the understanding of science (such as the flat earth model and the much talked about "Big Bang Theory" proposed by the science division of the 'Jihad or Bust' movement).
Their decision to remain in the 14th century combined with their unwavering adherence a system of logic and rationality unique in this world, has ensured them a place in the annals of the history of science unequaled by any other civilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wppjYDj9JUc
I hope I've opened an entirely new world of understanding and exploration for you Battle of Tours. I also hope that I have made it possible for you can see what truth is found in the Qur'an.
Post Script: the above diatribe has been approved by the John Esposito Foundation for the Advancement of Taqiyya as the establishment of Western Dhimmitude
Note to Post Script: Please make all jizya payable to the foundation. Please ensure all cheques are payable through a sharia compliant bank.
I would have emailed the below link directly to Spencer, but he only acknowledges people who agree 100% with him and Geller; especially Geller.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14025386
Note the following sentence: "Muslim Women's Association said it had no problem if police handled the issue sensitively, including the deployment of female police officers."
This is the loophole, requiring "deployed" female police officers to handle the situation. Like all police departments worldwide, most officers are men, creating a situation where the Muslims hope a male officer will not force the issue. I hope Australia tells them to pound sand.
CGW wrote: "it's illegal to wear a ski mask in a bank here in the US"
You assume too much. There is no such law.
My local bank formally had a sign on the front door along the lines of "Please remove your hat and sunglasses before entering." This made perfect sense, as it makes it much easier to identify a robber.
One day the sign disappeared. I kept asking tellers why the sign no longer graced the front door and every time they demurred. I finally realized that they removed the sign because bank management was liberal and did not want to offend Muslims. I now have a different bank.
As an Australian that deplores the effect that Islam and the refusal of Australian politicians to adequately speak out against its corrosive effect on our free and egalitarian society, I hope this power is extended to all public officials. It is a disgrace that our country, which lead the way - with New Zealand - in women's suffrage and women's rights, should even consider tolerating the tradition of ritual covering as an acceptable practice in Australian society.
Finally a judgment by the courts that makes sense. After decades of holding hands with Islam the western world is finally starting to wake up to commen sense.. Now if they could only open up their history books and read for themselves all about Islam, Muhammad, Sharia Law, the Hadith, Jihad, and the Qur'an.
Has anyone one elsee ever noticed that a Muslim is never wrong or remorsful in civil matters? To me that is unbelievable. Another words Muslims are never guilty of any wrong doing, Never not even once.
We can expect special stickers on the windshields of their cars, so the police will know that the driver is perfect, always perfect and never breaks any law or does anything wrong, so not to bother pulling them over.....
That was the period in which they made most of their advancements to the understanding of science (such as the flat earth model and the much talked about "Big Bang Theory" proposed by the science division of the 'Jihad or Bust' movement).
And they went into their 'golden era' of Islam with both eyes wide shut. There they remained, scripture is all, and science is damned… don't even start on philosophy! The whole universe of billions of galaxies, each with hundred billion stars, and hundreds of billions of planets across the light years, is all revealed in the Quran?… !Ay, caramba!
I didn't know "Big Bang" was revealed by Gabriel, now interpreted 'correctly' by Islamic cleric-astrophysicists as the "Big Boom!" This obeyed in full submission by jihadis everywhere, eager to "big bang" their loins into those 72 virgins, who then miraculously 'quantum jump' back to pure virginity. Holy Brian! What scientific geniuses!
Hmm, will have to search Quran more thoroughly to relieve my scientific ignorance, now that I know the Earth is flat… and the ISS is circling flat earth so is visible only because it's visible… like a ship approaching harbor… Now I understand. Coke bottle glasses must help, eh? Islam really knows how to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Thanks, Peter, had sudden 'enlightenment'. :-)
If you follow the link below, you will see the two signatures of Carnita Matthews. One is on her driver's licence, the other is from the affadavit that falsely accused the police officer. The bone-headed dhimmi judge said that he was not satisfied that the two signatures were the same. It beats the daylights out of me why he did not pass them both on to an expert who could have made an informed decision. Most likely, he just did not want to stir up any trouble with our peaceful Muslim neighbours.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/new-twist-in-carnita-matthews-burqa-case/story-e6freuzi-1226085143698
Carnita Matthews' Muslim 'family' are none other than the members of local chapter of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) here in Australia. They are quite open about it. One of them obligingly wore a Brotherhood hoodie when he valiantly escorted the niqab'd Carnita from court after her conviction was quashed. She, like many of her Anglo converted sisters is a freakin' head case. Completely deranged by Islam. Confirmed powers of veil removal or not, I pity the next NSW cop that has to tackle her or one of the other ever-more-numerous 'black crows'.
See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwMBOynKpXE&feature=related
These gross Quranic falsehoods should be constantly brought to the attention of Muslims - no free passes for this ignorance.
Touché! Thanx for the laugh Tours. By the way, is it all right if I call you Battle? I usually like dealing on a first name basis.
Yes, the whole field of Islmanic science was revealed to Muhammad by the archangel who put the Gab in Gabriel.
Thanks for your update on the evolution from Big Bang to Big Boom. I was unaware of this phenomenon but it makes sense.
What mystifies me is why the Muslims scientists, who have shared with us so many of their fundaMENTAL scientific ideas, have won so few Nobel Prizes. This feels like some sort of conspiracy.
I wonder if the answer lies in the Qur'an. Hmm. Hmm. Let me see. Why yes here is:
And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences.” (An-Nisa’: 161)
Why didn't I see this before? It is the Jews who are devouring the rightful Nobel Prize wealth of deserving Muslim scientists. As the Qur'an proves, this whole travesty is done through false pretenses. There is a conspiracy!
What a great book. It knows everything!
I guess that's why the jihadists are heard to say "The Qur'an? Read it. You'll love it. It's to die for!"
Hi antipodean. In regard to your comment It beats the daylights out of me why he did not pass them both on to an expert who could have made an informed decision. Most likely, he just did not want to stir up any trouble with our peaceful Muslim neighbours.
From what I've read, the appeal judge's decision had nothing to do with dhimmitude and it definitely didn't have to do with pacifying Muslim neighbours.
It did have everything to do with the upholding the law as he is sworn to do. It had to do with 'mistakes' made by the police and the prosecutor prior to the appeal.
I dealt with this issue when I reported Matthew's successful appeal in my post regarding the French burqa law:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/french-burqa-ban-descends-into-farce.html
The important thing to understand is an appeal is not a retrial. It is a contesting by the prosecution or the defense that a decision at a 'lower court' is invalid because of a mistake in law or a mistake in mixed fact and law.
That means that the facts to be considered by the appeal judge are restricted to the facts as established at the actual trial. No new evidence is admissible except in very special situations.
I'm sure that the appeal judge would have loved to submit the signatures to a handwriting analyst for proof but he can't do that. That had to be done at trial. In case you think I'm trying to trick you, ask yourself why the prosecutor at the appeal didn't call for a handwriting expert. The answer is simple: he couldn't do that just like the appeal judge couldn't do that.
All the appeal judge can do is look at the evidence as established in the trial, listen to the arguments presented by both sides and then determine whether there was a mistake in law or mixed fact and law at the trial.
The prosecutor at the trial didn't bring in a forensic handwriting expert to validate the driver's license signature perfectly matched the complaint signature.
I suspect the prosecutor believed that the testimony of the officer who took Matthews signed statement was evidence enough. The original judge and/or jury also must have thought so, but they were wrong.
The original trial was a criminal prosecution and the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' That is a fundamental principal of Western Justice. If you want us to ignore that principle then you are arguing for Sharia justice and I know you don't want to do that.
The appeal judge made it clear that had the officer who accepted Matthew's complaint asked her to show her face so that he could positively verify her as the one in the driver's license and as the complainant, then there would be no doubt and the original verdict would have been upheld (and Matthews would be off to jail).
Now, I don't blame the officer who took Matthew's complaint. There is no way he could have anticipated that accepting that complaint would lead to a 'landmark' trial and appeal. He was just doing business as usual. He did compare the signatures however. Unfortunately, that might be enough identification for police procedure but it isn't if a criminal trial is going to be involved. This is just bad luck for all of us.
The prosecutor at the trial should have known better. It was up to him to know he was dealing with 'reasonable doubt' issues and he had to cover all the loop-holes. I'm sure he thought he had a 'slam dunk' and got a little careless. More bad luck for us I suppose.
Now something no one has considered in this story in their effort to fling crap at the appeal judge is sometimes they make their unpopular decisions to change the system when they know there is no other mechanism to do so. Judges can't make law (except indirectly) but they can do things to force the law to change.
This happened in the US with the famous 'Miranda' ruling. The judge knew Miranda was guilty but he also had seen dozens and dozens of cases where the police had abused Constitutional rights when dealing with arrested citizens.
That judge gave a ruling that was very unpopular but it forced the police in every state in the US to clean up their act. Some states even codified laws or regulations based on 'the Miranda rights.'
Now in the case of Australia, the appeal judge's ruling was not a disaster it was just upsetting. In point of fact, it had something beneficial attached to it. It made it clear to the police that they were going to have to take greater care from a legal perspective when dealing with individuals who are wearing a burqa.
The judge did not give any protection to Muslims in his ruling. He didn't say or even imply that Muslim women have special rights or protections that other women don't. His ruling spoke to burden on the police to establish positive identity when a criminal trial is concerned. It also spoke to the lower courts and the prosecutors to notify them about positive identity being required for criminal cases.
Furthermore, the appeal decision has lead to the fastest implementation of a remedial action I've ever seen. Kudos to the politicians who expedited the the solution.
Peter You have done a great job of supporting the reasoning of the judge and I understand the concepts. However ask yourself if beyond a "reasonable" doubt now means beyond "any" doubt in the case of islamists
Common Sense should have been used here. Anyone with a lick of that would have no doubt about the perp in this instance the burden of proof notwithstanding.
Incidently even with the passing of the law how is that going to help? The next time a Muslim will refuse to show his/her/its face, the officer will not forcibly remove his/her its mask because he will fear the back lash and the indivdual will walk because he/she/it cannot be identified.
We need to educated our courts about the inability of the gd islamists to tell the truth.
This bitch needed to roast.
What a great book. It knows everything!
Isn't an open mind a wonderful thing? ;-) Battle's cool, first names okay.
Thanks Canto28, for 'enlightening' video. How could my eyes been so covered I could not see?... Better adjust my burqa.
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your detailed explanation of the case. I am not a legal expert. It is a shame that the proper processes were not followed in the first instance. Hopefully the new laws will mean that this will not happen again.
Cheers
Believe me Toro, I am in complete sympathy with you. I think the b*tch should have done her six months time.
Filing a false statement, especially when such a statement could have cost someone their career is a despicable act. It was doubly despicable when you think about how courteous the officer was to this piece of excrement.
The problem is, even if the appeal judge decided to do 'the right thing' and uphold the trial judge, he would have known that an appeal to a higher court would be successful.
So the b*tch still gets off and he has it on his official record that one of his decisions has been over-turned. That might reflect negatively on him if a vacancy to a higher court comes up.
I thought the right think for the state to have done is charge her with a hate crime after her appeal was over.
They probably would have run into the same loop hole in that trial but they probably could have held her in jail for 24 hours while they processed her. They also could have tied her up in court for quite a few days. Overall, they could have made her life miserable and issued some payback for her immoral and unethical behaviour.
Regarding your question: Incidently even with the passing of the law how is that going to help? The next time a Muslim will refuse to show his/her/its face, the officer will not forcibly remove his/her its mask because he will fear the back lash and the indivdual will walk because he/she/it cannot be identified.
refer to my reply to gravenimage near the middle of the postings. Something along what I suggested might work. The idea is to find something that is legal but tediously retributive. This is designed show the b**tards that two can play the game and we can play it better than they can AND we are going to make money off of them as we play it. At last, they will be paying us some jizya.
You are welcome aussie_antipodean. If anything I said was useful to you I'm glad.
I agree with you. It is too bad, but in most ways, no one is at fault (except Matthews). Even a psychic would not have predicted that a b**ch screaming at a cop over a minor traffic violation would result in a 'landmark' court case?
I also share your hope about the new law or regulation. Even if it isn't the exact solution needed, it is a start. With time the government will fine tune it to ensure a Carnita Matthews case never happens again.
Nice talkin to ya aussie_antipodian. Be well.