Australian Women Face Jail Time for Refusing to Remove Veils: Appropriate or Too Extreme?
SodaHead News
2011/07/11 00:09:08
|
|
|||||
|
421 votes
|
|
61% | |||
|
200 votes
|
|
29% | |||
|
68 votes
|
|
10% | |||
New South Wales, Australia is debating a law that would require Muslim women to remove veils and show their faces to police on request, or risk a prison sentence.
The Daily Telegraph newspaper called the proposal "the world's toughest burqa laws."
In France, wearing a burqa in public is punishable by a €150 (Dh800) fine, but no jail time.
However, proponents of the law say that it is reasonable as public security requires that people be identifiable.
What do you think? Does jail time for refusing to remove a face veil seem appropriate or too extreme?
Under the law proposed by the government of New South Wales, a woman who defies police by refusing to remove her face veil could be sentenced to a year in prison and fined 5,500 Australian dollars (Dh21,670).
Critics say the bill smacks of anti-Muslim bias given how few women in Australia wear burqas.
The Daily Telegraph newspaper called the proposal "the world's toughest burqa laws."
In France, wearing a burqa in public is punishable by a €150 (Dh800) fine, but no jail time.
However, proponents of the law say that it is reasonable as public security requires that people be identifiable.
The state premier, Barry O'Farrell, said in a statement: "I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else - the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear."
What do you think? Does jail time for refusing to remove a face veil seem appropriate or too extreme?
Read More: http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/asia-paci...






















I wonder if you'd disagree if, you were being mugged by a masked man and got your arse saved when he was dragged off you by police, but then he had the right not to to reveal his ID to police throughout the arrest. Then when he stood in court, claimed it was a different person they'd caught and charged. And got off. Great. Good idea huh? Let everyone keep their faces hidden from police. Real smart. Now that's what I'd call absurd.
It's pretty much what happened in the case that brought this about. Sure, it wasn't a violent crime the disguised woman committed, but the law must be applied equally for all. Always. No "joke". Not even sometimes. Is that "ludicrous"?
She lied about an incident, plain and simple. She accused a police officer of ripping off her veil and brought a complaint against him. Stupid woman, didn't figure on the video being shot from the police car. The officer was incredibly patient and fair, and at no time impolite. She on the other hand was gibbering loud abuse at him, and got away with storming off without ever revealing her identity, as any other citizen would be required to do. Every detail recorded. No bones about it.
Now, the real irony is, that would have been the end of it, but she then brought the false complaint presumably as payback for the traffic ticket he issued, and was charged after the video was reviewed for evidence. They brought in the strict enforcement amendment to the law because she then had the utter hide to claim in court that she could not be sentenced for filing false complaint againt the police officer - even though the video showed she was lying - because nobody could prove it was her that made the complaint !!! EXACTLY! THAT was the problem.
So, after being abusive, disobeying a...
She lied about an incident, plain and simple. She accused a police officer of ripping off her veil and brought a complaint against him. Stupid woman, didn't figure on the video being shot from the police car. The officer was incredibly patient and fair, and at no time impolite. She on the other hand was gibbering loud abuse at him, and got away with storming off without ever revealing her identity, as any other citizen would be required to do. Every detail recorded. No bones about it.
Now, the real irony is, that would have been the end of it, but she then brought the false complaint presumably as payback for the traffic ticket he issued, and was charged after the video was reviewed for evidence. They brought in the strict enforcement amendment to the law because she then had the utter hide to claim in court that she could not be sentenced for filing false complaint againt the police officer - even though the video showed she was lying - because nobody could prove it was her that made the complaint !!! EXACTLY! THAT was the problem.
So, after being abusive, disobeying an officer, lying and bringing false allegations - she walked away scott free. Even the judge who had to drop the sentence called her actions malicious and ruthless. No wonder everyone screamed for stronger terms in the law. It's what the people demanded, not some arbitary government decision, and certainly not based on intolerance or anti-Muslim sentiment. It's only fair. NO exceptions - religious or not. Equal is equal. For all.
Even Muslim women I know, although none wear full burqa or niqab, and only a couple hijab, now are in favour of pushing the law, whereas before they were defending the right to complete coverage, understanding the sensitivity of it. They say it's not worth the extra mistrust and alienation that a case like this can bring against them, with or without a veil. Gotta agree.
This woman in this one incident has managed to bring the whole issue into sharp focus for the country and brought her own religion, that she was so hysterically intent on protecting, into disrepute. Pity she didn't also have strong beliefs about lying, disrespecting the law and going off like a spoilt selfish twat. I hope she's pleased with herself. Loser.
.
LEXI METHERELL: Jamila Hussain teaches a course in Sharia law at the University of Technology Sydney. She says under Islamic law a woman is required to remove her niqab to be identified if asked by a police officer.
JAMILA HUSSAIN: If you live outside an Islamic country, then you have to obey the law of the land. And if the law of the land says that you need to remove your face veil for identification, then you should do so. And you really have no excuse for not doing so.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/cont...
Study the crusades, learn what they REALLY were about!!!
Do you know what the crusades were, they were corrupt clergymen, bishops, and the pope using the honest soldiers faith against them. They tricked people into believing that if they joined the Crusade they would be given amnesty for all the terrible things they have done. The corrupt
hierarchy of the Catholic church at the time used the people by twisting the word of the bible to achieve their own agenda.
PLEASE LEARN ISLAM 1ST THEN COMMENT...
THE BURQA / VEIL IS NOT ISLAMIC - IT IS CULTURAL... NEITHER IS CONVERT OR KILL - SHARIA IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE KORAN NEITHER IS 70 VIRGINS ETC... THEN AGAIN IF YOU HAD READ IT, YOU WOULD KNOW...
YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW LITTLE ABOUT ISLAM & IT SHOWS...
UNFORTUNATELY YOU ADD TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT MOST OZZIES ARE BIGOTED IGNORANT REDNECKS...
YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW LITTLE ABOUT ISLAM & IT SHOWS...
UNFORTUNATELY YOU ADD TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT MOST OZZIES ARE BIGOTED IGNORANT REDNECKS...