Tag Archives: muslim women

The footage that saved a policeman’s career


Australian News Headline: The Muslim woman accused of lying about police trying to tear her burqa off has avoided jail – because her identity could not be proven.


The 47 year-old woman from Woodbine Sydney, Carnita Matthews, had previously been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement:  A policeman had tried to forcibly remove her burqa at a police roadblock, because he was a racist.  After hearing her Appeal, Judge Clive Jeffreys told the Court he could not  be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation, because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.  The absurdity of the law is, that to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station.  The very idea that set the whole saga in motion initially!

As much as Mrs Matthews’ Muslim supporters might summon their god in thanksgiving after the hearing, she is nothing less than a liar and what’s worse, she falsely accused a policeman of trying to rip off her burqa.  This very serious  offence of assault could have ended his career, when he was only doing his job.  Even though this has been proven to be untrue, she then accused him of racism, also a serious offence in Australia. If there had been no video running at the time, her word would probably have been taken over his.  I find it ludicrous that Mrs Matthews could even accuse someone of racism when she was covered from head to foot anyway.  How could anyone ascertain what was under all that cloth?

I have absolutely no problem with Islam itself or any other religion.  What I don’t appreciate is when religious beliefs are used as an excuse to behave with criminal intent.  Mrs Matthews  obviously knew Australian law well, she used it to satiate her hatred of the police, behaviour which common criminals are regularly guilty of.

I believe that the Australian government will eventually have to follow the example of France and other modern Western countries and ban the burqa, if for no other reason than to prevent this type of blatant disregard for Australian law which the rest of us have to abide by.  I can see in the future that criminals will use the disguise of the burqa to carry out crime.

Other animals and birds use recognition of their own species and others,  to prepare them for action in whatever way is beneficial to their socialisation, and survival.  We need to be able to recognise other humans; that is also part of our socialisation process. As far as I can see, women who insist on wearing the burqa are interrupting that process.  This is the very thing that causes rifts in societies; you only have to read world histories to see how suspicion and mistrust can grow out of different social rules and laws for different groups.  All Australians have to stop for police drug and alcohol screening; we may protest but we do abide by this law, and often have to show our driving licences and other ID.

I have read many biographies about what it means to be a woman living under Islamic Law, and it seems to me that the wearing of the burqa was a male construct to ensure that women were oppressed, would become invisible, and that no other male would recognise them.  Is that the culture  that women who flee from Muslim countries, really want to inflict on themselves, their daughters, and grand daughters?

Antidiscrimination lawyers warn against discussing banning the burqa, but we have to talk about our grievances.  Believe me, plenty of talk about this issue goes on privately and in pubs.  Most people I speak to have no objection to muslim women wearing the headscarf, because you can see their eyes and faces clearly.  Someone needs to listen to those voices as well!  In some well publicised cases, I think we sometimes forget who the real ‘victim’ is; in the case of Carnita Matthews, it certainly wasn’t her.


More… Burqa or Crash Helmet-it’s all the same...

Separatist Muslim Women…Highlight the Differences!


Karima will leave France if she can’t wear her veil

For Muslim women who cover their faces with veils, it is time for liberation.  Starting April 11, a new law in France banning garments that hide the face takes effect. Women or men who disobey it risk a fine, special classes and a police record.  The fines are greater if a minor is forced to wear the veil against her will.

Interior Minister Claude Gueant put it bluntly Monday:   “This growth in the number of (Muslims) and a certain number of behaviors cause problems,” he commented on French radio. “There is no reason why the nation should accord to one particular religion more rights than religions that were formerly anchored in our country.”   Debate is needed to address evolutions in French society,  such as a growing demand for mosque building and Islamic butchers  since the country’s 1905 law formally separated the state from the Catholic Church.

This is another one of those cases that most of us just don’t get.  Why did Karima (wont give her surname)  go to France if she didn’t want to live as the French do?  I mean, there are many Muslim countries around the world she could have emigrated to, where she could cover her whole body in black sheets, where she would be just another faceless, nameless, woman, with no rights.

Apparently, women are supporting their men in the current riots in Arab countries; riots for more freedoms and less oppression for women and men.  And yet, here we have some 2,000 women in France who wish to cover themselves from head to foot, despite the new law.   The increasing focus on France’s Muslims, who number at least 5 million, comes with presidential elections a year away and support for a far-right party growing. A recent palpable rise in tensions has also been boosted by fears of a mass migration of Muslims due to disarray in the Arab world.

In unusual terms for a secular leader, Sarkozy extolled the virtues of his country’s “Christian heritage” during a recent visit to Puy-en-Velay, the starting point of a famed medieval Christian pilgrimage route.  “Without identity there is no diversity,” the president said. “The (French) republic is secular. It belongs to each citizen without any distinction.”

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Perhaps it is not the fact of wearing a burqa, per se, that is disconcerting to some people.  It just may be about muslims wanting to be superior, to stand out from the rest,  to have their own butchers, mosques,  schools, etc, making European countries seem more like Muslim countries.  We in the West are called ‘infidels’ after all.  I believe that most tolerant people don’t mind headscarfs, at least you can see facial expressions.  The burqa can be very intimidating, especially in black.  And all those mosques popping up everywhere!  It would be just as bad if there were huge Catholic cathedrals and royal palaces everywhere.  History teaches us that to be too different, can be very dangerous, especially in times of food and job shortages.

More …

Burqa or Crash Helmet

Go Back to the Hell Hole…

Some Muslim women come to Australia for a better way of life.  Yet these same women insist on separate facilities at local public swimming pools which cost the tax payer thousands of dollars. They want screens and curtains to hide them from other Australians at women-only sessions.  This trend is growing in Australia, with more and more Muslim women insisting on this type of self-imposed segregation in other states.  Why do State and Federal governments ignore what has happened historically in other countries.

History teaches us that ethnic groups who choose to flaunt their cultural differences and insist on ‘special treatment’, cause resentment and hatred in the community they live in.  I don’t see any problem in different ethnic groups keeping their cultural heritage alive in their private residences and meeting places, but it is a completely different story in public places shared by all Australians.  I believe that the Australian government will find this trend escalating, and when times get tough, the resentments will intensify toward those immigrants who display a rejection of the Aussies’ liberal lifestyle. See Post Burqa or Crash Helmet

Taxpayers already help fund separatist Muslim schools and mosques.  We have a Judea/Christian heritage on which New Zealand and Australian culture has been established over hundreds of years and to my knowledge, there have been no factional wars here, religious or otherwise .  But this could change for future generations.  You only have to read  books about global history to see that resentment builds up over generations and when jobs become hard to get and food is in short supply, those resentments surface.  We have seen this happening on news items from all over the world; Iraq, Russia, the former Yugoslavia, and now other Arab countries.  The blood shed will only get worse in those places because the mostly religious factions have  segregated themselves rather than to live as one Nation.  Lebanon is a good example of this. See Post Lebanon=Factions

Swim wear OK for nuns

Melbourne News Items:

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has banned people exposing their shoulders and thighs at an event at a public swimming pool in Dandenong, in Melbourne’s south-east.  The Dandenong City Council and the YMCA applied for the ban to be implemented during swimming lessons for Muslim women scheduled for next August. It will apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims attending the event. The vice-president of the Victorian Islamic Council, Sherene Hassan, says she does not support the restrictions.

Quote: Aussie burqini  sparks religious storm in France

The Islamic beachwear known as the burqini – the head-to-toe swimsuit designed by a Lebanese Australian [Muslim? my emphasis & question] and seen commonly in swimming pools and beaches in Sydney and Melbourne – has caused a stir in Europe and has been banned in French pools.

Australia should take on the example of France: France sparked acrid debate in 2004 when it introduced legislation banning the hijab headscarf and all other religious dress from state primary and secondary schools. However, the public has strongly backed the move and it was not strongly opposed by France’s 5 -million strong Muslim population. They obviously read their history books!

Saif Reports: A Paris swimming pool has refused entry to a young Muslim woman wearing a burqini, a swimsuit that covers most of the body.
The pool ban came as French lawmakers conduct hearings on whether to ban the burqa after President Nicolas Sarkozy said the head-to-toe veil was “not welcome” in secular France. Officials in the Paris suburb of Emerainville said they let the woman swim in the pool in July wearing the burqini, designed for Muslim women who want to swim without revealing their bodies. But when she returned in August they decided to apply hygiene rules and told her she could not swim if she insisted on wearing the garment, which resembles a wetsuit with built-in hood. Pool staff “reminded her of the rules that apply in all (public) swimming pools which forbid swimming while clothed”, said Daniel Guillaume, an official with the organisation that manages pools in the area.

Le Parisien newspaper said the woman, identified only by her first name Carole, was a French convert to Islam and that she was determined to go to the courts to challenge the decision. “Quite simply, this is segregation,” the paper quoted her as saying. “I will fight to try to change things. And if I see that the battle is lost, I cannot rule out leaving France.”  Local mayor Alain Kelyor said “all this has nothing to do with Islam”, adding that the burqini was “not an Islamic swimsuit, that type of suit does not exist in the Koran”, the Muslim holy book. France, home to Europe’s biggest Muslim minority, has set up a special panel of 32 lawmakers to consider whether a law should be enacted to bar Muslim women from wearing the full veil, known as a burqa or niqab. The country has had a long-running debate on how far it is willing to go to accommodate Islam without undermining the tradition of separating church and state, enshrined in a flagship 1905 law. My emphasis.

Updated 1 October 2014


Women who dress in black like this give me the creeps and they look so intimidating.  Even on very hot days I have seen them walk around like this on Melbourne streets.  Maybe it’s just a hangover on my part from the days of my childhood when I was locked up in a convent with Catholic nuns all wearing black from head to toe, but at least the nuns in Catholic schools and convents showed their faces.  We children could ascertain immediately whether a particular nun was ‘friend or foe’.

In all my travels to overseas countries, I’ve followed the axiom ‘when in Rome do [dress] as the Romans do’. It’s a mark of respect.

Having said that, I would never dream of showing disrespect to anyone in Australia dressing up in a burqa, but I certainly wouldn’t want to do business with a person in a burqa; sans ID, sans gender, sans eye contact.

Full Face Burqa (even the poor little baby’s face is covered in black)

Banks don’t allow men to wear full crash helmets when entering their establishments because it conceals a person’s identity so why should women be allowed to hide their faces behind a burqa?  I think it is rude when people talk to you and keep their sun glasses on.  In our culture we like to make eye contact so we can see emotional expression through the other person’s eyes.  For example, would you sit across a table and sign a contract for a property with a real estate agent who is wearing sun glasses or a burqa? I certainly wouldn’t!  And what about passport photos?    Thank goodness a Perth court decision prevented a muslim woman from giving evidence in a fraud case while wearing a burqa.

Full Face Helmet


Even though the law is generally taken to refer to burqas worn by Muslim women, the wording of the rule is carefully constructed so as not to single out Muslims. The ban has been called the “anti-burqa law”, but the official name for it is “the bill to forbid concealing one’s face in public.” It refers neither to Islam, nor to veils in any way. Officials say the law is not discriminatory because it applies to everyone, not just to Muslims. Exceptions to the ban include motorcycle helmets, masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing, or carnivals. Violators of the law will be fined 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment. The law also targets anyone who forces a woman to wear a veil–these people risk a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine. Although the law was passed last month, it won’t be enforced for another 6 months, which will give authorities time to persuade women who veil themselves voluntarily to stop.


A PERTH judge has ruled that  a Muslim woman must remove a full burqa while giving evidence before a jury in a fraud case.

A lawyer argued that the Muslim woman should remove her burqa to give evidence in the fraud trial, just as she would have to appear without the covering in an Islamic court.

The judge heard lawyers’ submissions on whether a 36-year-old Muslim woman should be allowed to wear a full burqa, also called a niqab, while giving evidence in a  serious fraud trial.

The woman, an Islamic studies teacher, is due to give evidence for the prosecution in the fraud trial of a Muslim college director.

In court, defence lawyer Mark Trowell said the woman’s wish to wear the burqa was a “preference she has”.

“It’s not an essential part of the Islamic faith. If she was in an Islamic court she would be required to remove it,” he said. Oh, so it’s not ok in her own country?

Judge Deane replied: “This isn’t an Islamic court.”

Defence lawyers raised concerns about how the jury could be expected to read the woman’s facial expressions if they could not see her face.

Prosecutor Mark Ritter told the court the woman wanted to give evidence but would feel uncomfortable without the burqa and that could affect her evidence.   What a pathetic excuse.

The school is run by Muslim Link Australia, and Sayed is the director.   He is accused of fraudulently obtaining up to $752,000 from a total of $1.125 million in state and federal grants for the school by falsifying enrolment numbers.   We tax payers foot the bills.


See:  Carnita Matthews & The Unfortunate Policeman


BRITISH academic and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins has angered Muslim groups by comparing the burqa to a trash bag.

The 69-year-old author referred to the burqa as a “full bin-liner thing” in a magazine interview while discussing his forthcoming documentary about the dangers of faith schools.

Muslim organisations reacted angrily to the throwaway comment.

“I think it is ignorant and Islamaphobic,” said Seyyed Ferjani, of the Muslim Association of Britain.

“Britain is a diverse and free society. It is a woman’s choice if she wishes to wear a burqa, a niqab or not. Why does it matter to this man what a woman is wearing? We should be encouraging respect and understanding for each other.”

Professor Dawkins, who is the author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, stood by his remark, made in the Radio Times, in a subsequent interview with the Daily Mail. “I do feel visceral revulsion at the burqa because for me it is a symbol of the oppression of women.”

But he said he was not keen to endorse a full ban on the burqa in Britain – as the French Government voted to do last month.

“As a liberal I would hesitate to propose a blanket ban on any style of dress because of the implications for individual liberty and freedom of choice,” he said.

The Oxford University evolutionary biologist said that religious schools encouraged social segregation.  This is so true, I have experienced it!

In one Muslim school he investigated for his documentary none of the pupils believed in evolution.

He said: “Their first recourse was not ‘What’s the evidence?’ but ‘What does the Koran say?'”

Professor Dawkins usually attracts criticism for his views on Christianity, but he has upset Muslims before.

In 2008 he said: “It’s almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.”

%d bloggers like this: