Perth Islamic School Trial

Anwar Sayed has been charged with fraudulently obtaining $1.125 million from the state and federal governments by falsifying the number of students at the Muslim Ladies College of Australia in Perth’s south.

Now he plays games with the judiciary. The Telegraph


Julia Gillard, perhaps with a close election to consider, says a court’s witness box is no place for a burqa:

BURQAS should be removed when the public interest overrides personal choice, Prime Minister Julia Gillard says

Defendant in ‘Burqa Witness’ Case “Brutally Stabbed”…

Anwar Sayed ‘brutally stabbed’- really? Not just a gimmick to confuse the kafirs and to deflect attention away from the money he stole?

WA News reports:

Anwar Sayed, who a court yesterday heard had received written and verbal death threats for supposedly agitating to abolish the wearing of a niqab, also known as a burqa, was allegedly attacked this morning.

Anwar Sayed (right), with lawyer Andrew Skerritt at a previous trial appearance.

But the case has been overshadowed by the niqab issue, which has raised legal questions on whether the witness should be entitled to obscure her face from the judge and jury.

While a date was being set today for Mr Sayed’s retrial, his lawyer Mark Trowell said the school director had been “brutally stabbed to the chest and face, his car having been stopped”.

Mr Trowell told the court Mr Sayed had taken himself to his office after being stabbed, before being rushed to hospital.

Nah. Turns out he barely received a scratch:

Police spokesman Samuel Dinnison would not confirm the identity of the victim of the attack, but played it down saying the victim had only suffered “minor injuries or a scratch”.

Burqa trial man ‘stabbed’ (Read the rest here) Smells like BS to me. I ain’t buying any…

9 thoughts on “Perth Islamic School Trial”

  1. Who is telling porkies about the extent of the “injuries” – the lawyer or WAPOL?

  2. I’m still wondering how we are going to allow a witness to keep a mask (niqab) when giving testimony…

    Will such cases not encourage impersonators who are expert at giving evidence?

    How certain can one be of who the real witness is if their face is being covered? it simply allows for justice to be outmaneuvered. Who is to say that those verifying who the witness is have not been threatened or paid into allowing a fake witness?

    An accused has the right to not only see the witness but see the witness testify against him/her during the whole trial.

    I fear that the dhimmis in our society are going to allow this to slip by and consequently undermine an already challenged justice system.

  3. This guy is slimy, and cunning. He would do Mohammed proud.

    The court did not initiate the motion to force the woman to ditch the face covering in court. This guy — a Muslim — did. He is attempting to manipulate the court into ordering the woman — a prosecuation witness — to appear ‘topless’ so she will be uncomfortable in the witness box and hence come across as untrustworthy.

    He is just like any Muslim lobby group but on a small scale – manipulate Western institutions to their advantage.

  4. I don’t know if jurors have any rights, but if they do they might consider refusing to hear evidence from persons unseen. The Prosecution might consider the long term effects of pushing for the court to allow a talking tent to act as a witness, even if it serves their immediate purposes.

    The judge, wisely, has rejected islamic / sharia views as her court is not based on sharia. I trust she will reject the talking tent, regardless of whether it sets a precedent or not.

  5. OK, Tasneem the tented witness was a teacher at the islamic school.
    Did she appear tented or untented while in the classrooom?

  6. The guy may be slimy, but it was wrong for the court not to order her to remove her tent. She best remove her tent, or if she likes it so much, she can take it with her and move to Saudi Arabia. The slimy fellow should be sent there as well…

Comments are closed.