The Clash Of Civilizations: Awaiting The Coming Crusade: MUSLIM LIES COME BACK TO BITE: BURQA WEARERS NEED FACE-TO-FACE WITNESS

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

MUSLIM LIES COME BACK TO BITE: BURQA WEARERS NEED FACE-TO-FACE WITNESS

From Atlas Shrugs:

Sunday, March 04, 2012

MUSLIM LIES COME BACK TO BITE: BURQA WEARERS NEED FACE-TO-FACE WITNESS

That wretched woman who perjured herself in accusing a policeman of racism after she broke the law and then got off becuase she claimed it wasn't her has been avenged in Australia. Following the public outcry over the case of Carnita Matthews, lawyers will have to ask women wearing burqas to show their faces before witnessing their signatures under tough new state laws.

The case compelled me to write this for The American Thinker: Ban the Burqa. Also, I blogged about it here: Burqa'ed Muslima Accused of Lying about Police Trying to Tear her Burqa off Avoids Jail -- Because Her Identity Could Not Be Proven

Back in November 2010, 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’edcivilizational jihadist appealed -- and 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.

Now her crime and her lies against the infidel have been avenged:

Burqa wearers need face-to-face witness Telegraph, March 5, 2012 (hat tip David W)

LAWYERS and JPs will have to ask women wearing burqas to show their faces before witnessing their signatures under tough new state laws.
The move to "burqa-proof" identity checks follows a public outcry following last year's controversial Carnita Matthews case.
Ms Matthews, a Muslim, had her conviction overturned for knowingly making a false statement accusing a police officer of racism because the prosecution could not prove that she had signed the statement.
The 23-year-old JP who witnessed the signature of a woman wearing a full black niqab had assumed it was Ms Matthews but had not asked her to show her face.
Attorney-General Greg Smith said the case highlighted the need for change and the new laws, to begin on April 30, would minimise the risk of fraud.
"They will require authorised witnesses, such as JPs and lawyers, to see a person's face and confirm their identity before signing their statutory declaration or affidavit," Mr Smith said.
The new laws cover the witnessing of legally binding documents including statutory declarations and affidavits and include all face coverings including motorcycle helmets, masks, veils, scarves, niqabs and balaclavas.
The JP or lawyer will also have to certify in writing on the documents that they have seen the person's face and have confirmed their identity through documents including a driver's licence. They face a fine of $220 for lying. "If a person is wearing a face covering, an authorised witness should politely and respectfully ask them to show their face," Mr Smith said.
"The person would only be required to show their face for as long as it is necessary to establish identity and in some cases this will not require the full removal of a head covering."
If the person refuses to show their face without a legitimate medical reason, the JP or lawyer must refuse to witness their signature.
[....]
It is the latest fallout from the case involving Ms Matthews. It has already led to changes to traffic laws, under which a driver who refuses to show their face can be jailed for up to a year or fined $5500.
After Ms Matthews, 48, was pulled over last year, a complaint purportedly signed by her was handed in to Campbelltown Police Station accusing the traffic officer of racism and of trying to rip away her full-face niqab, similar to a burqa.
The officer on duty had not asked to see the person's face and the JP who had witnessed the signature "C. Matthews" on the complaint had "assumed" it was Ms Matthews.
When charged with knowingly making a false complaint, Ms Matthews pleaded not guilty. She said it wasn't her signature on the document. She was convicted in the local court but that conviction was later quashed.