"Tough New Laws in New South Wales"

Hilarious.

The lame stream media has really lost the plot. Tell me what’s “tough” about this:

  • Burqa wearers to show faces before signing papers
  • April 30 laws would minimise the risk of fraud
  • Covers statutory declarations, affidavits, licences

LAWYERS and JPs will have to ask women wearing burqas to show their faces before witnessing their signatures under tough new laws in New South Wales.

Sergio Redegalli, a sculptor and artist in Sydney, Australia, is the originator of the famous “Say No to Burqas” mural, which one would think that women’s rights activists in the West would love, but as it turns out, the Leftist alliance with Islamic supremacists has proved stronger than faminists’ concern for Muslim women. Leftist and Muslim vandals have defaced Sergio’s mural 63 times and counting.

Back to the story: Women in face veils will have to remove them to have their signatures officially witnessed in gov’t offices

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 yesterday 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.

Muslim community spokesman Keysar Trad said it was important to verify identity and most women would be happy to temporarily remove their face covering.

“As long as it is not abused, nobody should have a problem,” he said.

“If a lady is worried they can go to a female JP.”

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.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/move-on-to-burqa-proof-identity-checks/story-e6frfkvr-1226288773968#ixzz1oCKMWykf

16 thoughts on “"Tough New Laws in New South Wales"”

  1. It may not be “tough” or what we want but at least it is a step in the right direction!

  2. “If the person refuses to show their face without a legitimate medical reason, the JP or lawyer must refuse to witness their signature.”

    What medical reason on earth could possibly prevent someone from showing their face..?

  3. What medical reason on earth could possibly prevent someone from showing their face..?

    When muzzie hubby has treated his number 1wife, or 2, or 3, or4, to a pair of badly bruised eyes, a broken nose, a smashed jaw…??

  4. You ask “What medical reason on earth could possibly prevent someone from showing their face..?” for example Islamophilitis is known to be very infectious disease and – if untreated – has a high mortality rate amongst stage two and three sufferers.

    So as primary intervention I think it makes good sense to cover mouth and nose of a patient whenever infection with Islamophilitis is suspected. If no antidote is available, or the patient responds only temporarily, and the virus has already progressed to liquify the cerebrum, full isolation in remote facilities like Guantanamo Bay/Cuba remains a treatment of last resort.

  5. You are 100% right on this sheik. These lefty moron journalists call these measures tough? i’d call the measures completely piss weak & go no where near enough to toughening up on these freaky letterbox ghouls, #$@$$%% ‘ em no nice guy.

  6. I would like to see a law that states that if a male police officer requests to see a Muslim woman’s face for id verification if she is wearing a burqa or niqab then she is compelled to reveal her face. If she refuses, the first charge she should face is refusing the lawful direction of a police officer. This current shit where if she refuses they need to get a female officer to attend is a compoets waste of police time and resources and more proof of creeping sharia.

  7. Oh My God, sooo sorry, make that Oh My Allah.

    Where will this all end. Next thing we know and the law will forbid those poooooor Muslim victims to call for the genocide of all Jews and other non-muslims, and the Kaffir’s law might even start to frown on child-brides, genital mutilation of little girls, polygamy!

    They might even tell the truth about the so-called Cronulla Riots, and find the real baddies!

    The Horror The Horror!

    Quick, Lee Rhiannon and assorted Green Party Islamophiles: DO SOMTHING ABOUT THIS !

  8. “which one would think that women’s rights activists in the West would love, ”

    WE DO!! Really.
    Those nasty socialist, ignorant women who claim to speak for independent, proud and autonomous women are lying.
    They are selling out their sisters, just as the MSM is selling you lot out.
    We feminists do not approve of fascism in any form.

    Personal belief: Any man claiming that a creator of universes wants him to enslave women is either a liar or completely insane.

  9. Yes Jim, as if “undercover mosque” wasn’t a lesson to be learned. Instead of investigating what goes on in the mosques the UK police went after channel 4 and the guys who made the documentary.

    What I’m saying is that new laws are entirely unnecessary and only assure Muslims in their supremacism. A Muselmanic female should have to show a copper (male or female) her face on demand and not hide behind special laws designed especially for them.

    We don’t need Muzztards like Keysar Trad to approve how our law is applied.

    Equal rights means the (same) law applies to all. For that reason face masks should be banned, regardless of their ‘religious’ sensitivities, which are nothing but a smokescreen for subversion, separatism and jihadism.

  10. Tasneem Chopra and the “feelings” (grievance theatre) of persecuted (terrorist) muslims:

    No ‘reticence’ to see here, move on:

    “Inferring that legislation be imposed specifically on women in burqa implies a reticence on the part of Muslim women to comply with such a law.”

    Muslim women should not be allowed to hide behind their veils, says Victoria Law Institute
    Monday, March 5, 2012

    Why we don’t need burqa identity laws

    I agree with this Muslim “yuman rites” activist that we don’t need new laws. Muslims should be required not wear face coverings, period. In case they do, any policeman or woman should be able to stop them and require them for proof of their identity.

    “a respect and following of Australian law is an obligation for all Muslims living here, according to Islamic beliefs.”

    Only as long as they don’t have the upper hand.

    Laws forcing women wearing burqas to show their face when asking JPs and lawyers to witness their signature should be imposed in Victoria, the Law Institute says.

    Law Institute of Victoria president Michael Holcroft said there were many situations where JPs and lawyers needed to certify a person’s identity by seeing their face. “I can understand the practical issues why identification is important, and I think as long as we remain culturally and religiously sensitive then there’s probably some support for it,” Mr Holcroft said.

    Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Nazeem Hussain said existing laws empowering police to demand anyone to remove a facial covering were sufficient. “What is clear, is that Muslims in Australia have no problem with the underlying principle to identify for the purpose of ensuring security, public safety and complying with the law,” he said.

    Herald Sun, 5 March 2012

    See also Tasneem Chopra, “Why we don’t need burqa identity laws”, Herald Sun 6 March 2012

    The proposed legislation on burqas and identification adds little substance to existing laws, argues Tasneem Chopra. HWT Image Library

    WHEN Muslim women and their headgear make the headlines, again, it’s always a fine line between ignoring the hype, or deflating it.

    The Law Institute’s proclamation that Victoria should impose laws forcing women wearing burqas to show their face when asking JPs and lawyers to witness their signatures, presents as simultaneously innocuous and problematic.

    The comments appear innocuous considering current Victorian legislation already provides precisely this power to police.

    Surely the Law Institute, as a peak authority on legal matters, would be aware of this.

    And in relation to extending these powers to JPs and lawyers, while certainly remaining a matter for the courts to decide in tandem with community consultation, this presents no cause for alarm or angst within Victoria’s Muslim community.

    The community has been and continues to be supportive of measures protecting public safety and integrity.

    According to the Islamic Council of Victoria, there have been meetings between Muslim faith leaders and the NSW policy makers in recent months where Muslims expressed their willingness to comply with such laws.

    This further indicates both a support for legislation and a willingness to enter dialogue on this issue.

    In the 20-year history of the Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights (AMWCHR), there have been no incidents involving burqa-clad women aggrieved on account of “face revelation violations”.

    And it is for this reason that the Law Institute’s comments present as problematic.

    Inferring that legislation be imposed specifically on women in burqa implies a reticence on the part of Muslim women to comply with such a law.

    Conversations AMWCHR has shared with the few women clients we have had in burqa, suggest they have no problem at all in complying with requests made by authorities to verify their identity.

    The reality is, this proposed legislation adds nothing of substance to the existing legislation.

    So, how is this still an issue?

    Spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria, Nazeem Hussain, last year commented that “Muslims in Australia have no problem with the underlying principle to identify for the purpose of ensuring security, public safety and complying with the law of the land.

    If there is a just cause behind the need to identify, and this request is made respectfully, by and large the community would not object”.

    That said, it is noteworthy to point out that over a third of this country’s Muslim population are born here and, insofar as their identity is concerned, they consider themselves Australian Muslims.

    Their connection with this Australian identity is solid and yet frequently rendered questionable by pundits who insist upon fear mongering and inciting the “Muslim factor, for all its ethnically diverse background, as perennially incompatible with Australia”.

    This myopia then naturally gravitates towards the burqa, which remains a hotly contested topic with “integration”.

    This is despite the fact that women who wear it number at less than 1 per cent of the Australian Muslim population.

    Suffice it to say a respect and following of Australian law is an obligation for all Muslims living here, according to Islamic beliefs.

    Let’s keep our hype in check.

    Tasneem Chopra is Chairperson of the Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for (Muslim) Human Rights

  11. Congratulations for standing up to Shariah Law! If “We” don’t stop this “Politically Correct” crap, the only ones with privileges will be the Muslims who are working really hard to take away your and our way of life. We’re having some successes and failures when it comes to stopping Shariah Law here in the U.S. Hopefully people will wake up before it we’re all living in a shit-hole world. Bob

  12. they shouldn’t be driving wearing that shyte anyway..etc..OFF TOPIC the 11 NZ graves damaged by ”vandals”…How many Aussie graves damaged by ”vandals” in Benghazi?
    When does the retaliation start? Imagine the mayhem if our ”vandals” had done this to their graves?????…..Vandals eh..What re we to do with them???

Comments are closed.