The mother of seven had made a criminal complaint to police three days after she was pulled over in her car in Woodbine, southwest Sydney, for a random breath test on June 7, 2010.

Judge Clive Jeffreys yesterday overturned Ms Matthews' conviction at an appeal hearing in the NSW District Court.
--------------------------------------------------
So should non Muslims be allowed to make complaints about police while wearing a face covering? What happened to equal rights for all?
Why is it Muslim people are allowed to cover their faces yet non Muslims are not?

Found a few stories going today on this

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/beating-the-law-by-virtue-of-a-...



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.

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. Both of those two suspensions for non payment of fines were later lifted.

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.

After being stopped by police last year for not displaying her P-plates, Ms Matthews was ordered to pay $276 in fines and court costs.

She claimed on Channel Seven and allegedly in a statutory declaration to Campbelltown police that the officer who stopped her had attempted to tear the burqa off her face, a claim that was proven untrue by the police patrol car video camera.

A magistrate last year found her guilty of making a deliberately false statement and sentenced her to jail for six months. Ms Matthews appealed, saying there was no proof she was the person in the burqa making the atatement and Judge Clive Jeffreys in the District Court yesterday upheld her appeal.

The news comes as women wearing a burqa may be ordered to remove it to identify themselves in the wake of the Carnita Matthews case.

Police Minister Mike Gallacher has revealed that police do not currently have the legal power to require women to show their face if the women refuse on religious or cultural grounds.

He said he wanted the law tightened up.

"Police powers in relation to face coverings are not clear," Mr Gallacher said.

"It’s time to address that."

He said he had spoken to rank and file police who wanted the situation clarified.

Any decision on whether to appeal the controversial judgment by Judge Clive Jeffreys would not be made until after the judge hands down the reason for his decision which is expected tomorrow.

The government is also considering passing new laws requiring people who make complaints against police, or in the case of witnesses giving evidence, to have to provide at least one fingerprint and their signature.

This follows the finding by the judge that he could not be certain that it was Ms Matthews who made the statutory declaration complaining about the officer who stopped her car because the person who handed the document in to the police station wore a burqa.

Mr Gallacher said he was waiting until Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione returned next week to discuss exactly what needed to be done.

He said he did not expect this to inflame community anger about women wearing full face coverings.

He said he had been told that there was nothing in Muslim culture or religion that stopped women from identifiying themselves in certain circumstances.

Yesterday, Ms Matthews avoided jail because her identity could not be proven.

Ms Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney's southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not 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 - what started the uproar in the first place.

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.

Quote:



Well they bloody well should have.

If I claim riding is part of my culture (whcih could be argued pretty easily) does this mean I can wear my helmet anywhere?  Doubtful...but it's just the decent thing to do.  

It's just not a good look, I care little for what others think about that view but thats how I see it.

The other month I went up to Sheffield to watch a football match with my dad.

We walked around Sheffiled town centre for a bit (Yorkshire has a lot of Muslims) and there was a lot of women in the full burqas.

As my dad said "Bloody terrible that. You wouldn't think this was England would you? Shouldn't be allowed..."

Now obviously this is a man born in 1945 and brought up in the 1950s but his point is still valid.
It doesn't create social cohesion. English people feel threatened by it, it excludes the Muslim women from society and they will always be outsiders when they dress like this.

It does nothing to break down barriers of English people and Muslims and if anything, builds more of them.

The same could be said of a Muslim area in Australia.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 11:36am:

I tend to agree with this.
If Muslim women want to wear the burqa let them, but dont let them drive as surly their vision is impaired.
Do Muslim women have to remove the Burqa for a passport photo?? and if they do, do they have to remove it when travelling to prove they are in fact the person on the passport photo?
The reason I ask this is, how did the police officer even know the women he pulled over was in fact the person who's photo appeared on the drivers license? it could have been anyone.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 11:45am:

That's fair enough, so they should have their full face showing for a passport photo.
But, surly the same applies to a drivers license, and surly a police officer is entitled to ask a women to remove her covering to confirm she is in fact the person in that photo.
The woman who has caused all of this controversy apparently refused to remove her burqa and accused the officer of trying to remove it, she said she did not have to remove it due to religious grounds.
There is only one way to make sure this can not happen again, the gov in all states should introduce a law that says you cannot drive a motor vehicle if you wear a face cover. When the Muslims complain about it they should be advised it is because of this woman's actions and they can blame no one but her for the need to introduce the law.

skippy - Quote:


one of the few times we agree on anythng.
it must be dangerous to drive with your vision impaired