Bleeding Hearts for the Burqa, Anyone?

Self-inflicted suffering is supposed to make you feel guilty, infidel:

‘My wife suffers for her burqa’

Ibrahim Galiel said the mother of seven was put in hospital a few months ago with a nervous breakdown.  “She is not in a good way, she does not even want to leave the house, she is afraid to go outside,” he said.  (Clementine Cuneo and Amy Dale From: The Daily Telegraph)

Are you surprised?

Attention Seeker  Clementine Cuneo parades the burqa in Lakemba (to see how racist Australians are. Or something.  Her story offers nothing, I am struggling to find the point.)

Under cover as a Muslim woman

The fact was, I looked out of place. And I was out of place – until I put on the niqab.

In “Ban the Burqa” in the American Thinker today, Pamela Geller discusses the Carnita Matthews case — a claim of victim status that backfired on the lying Muslim accuser, at least initially. Pamela also explains why the burqa should be banned entirely.

Back in November, 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’ed civilizational jihadist appealed— and this past week, she 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 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.


Read it all.


6 thoughts on “Bleeding Hearts for the Burqa, Anyone?”

  1. Looks like the story is being pulled / rewritten to remove any mention of the “partner” (Ibrahim Galiel). Who is he, and why would he be airbrushed out of the articles?

    This version simply refers to Carnita’s partner, with no name:

    [THE partner of Muslim woman Carnita Matthews says she is not a liar and has suffered tremendously from her public ordeal.

    Carnita’s partner said the mother of seven was anxious about the situation.]

  2. Well, if that’s the case then we better post the whole text before its gone:

    THE husband of Muslim woman Carnita Matthews says she is not a liar and has suffered tremendously from her public ordeal.

    Ibrahim Galiel said the mother of seven was put in hospital a few months ago with a nervous breakdown.

    “She is not in a good way, she does not even want to leave the house, she is afraid to go outside,” he said.

    Mr Galiel said his Australian-born wife had been unfairly portrayed since she was charged with falsely claiming a racist police officer had tried to lift her burqa.

    “The judge in the court found her to not be a liar and he wasn’t Muslim … So that should be enough for people to leave her alone,” he said.

    Ms Matthews, 47, was sentenced to six months jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to lift her burqa.

    In June last year, she was pulled over for a random breath test but went on to accuse the police officer of racism when he booked her for failing to display her P-plates.

    She was charged with making a false complaint at Campbelltown police station but Judge Clive Jeffreys this week quashed her conviction, saying identity could not be proven.

    Mr Galiel said it was a great relief for Ms Matthews to be vindicated: “She is not a dishonest woman; she is a good mother of seven children and this has been a very distressing time for all of us.”

    “She even had to be treated in hospital a while back for a nervous breakdown.”

    As Judge Jeffreys yesterday delivered his reason for upholding Ms Matthews’ appeal, her legal team indicated that they would apply for costs.

    Judge Jeffreys said that the prosecution had failed to prove two aspects of the charge “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

    He said there wasn’t enough evidence it was Ms Matthews who handed in the written complaint to Campbelltown police station and, even if it were, there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that she “intentionally, deliberately and purposefully” made a false complaint.

    A factor that the prosecution had relied on was the fact the signature on the statutory declaration matched that on Ms Matthew’s licence, but Mr Jeffreys said he thought there were “a number of differences” between the two.

    Ms Matthews’ lawyer Stephen Hopper said a costs application would be filed.

    “We haven’t calculated all of that yet (but) our costs are fairly modest because both (Ms Matthews’s barrister Phillip Boulten SC) and I did it at a reduced fee because of Mrs Matthews’ circumstances,” Mr Hopper said.

    The Daily Telegraph’s online poll yesterday showed an overwhelming majority of people thought police should have the power to demand women lift their burqa for identity purposes. Of 12,600 votes, 96.5 per cent were in favour, while 3.4 per cent thought it was inappropriate.

    For more on the husband of Carnita Matthews, the Muslim woman who was accused of making a false police statement go to The Daily Telegraph.

    – By Clementine Cuneo and Amy Dale

  3. What’s the difference between a burqa and a niqab? Both cover what’s inside from top to toe

    The – black – niqab makes the eyes visible. Think Saudi-Arabia
    The – blue – burqa has a net covering the whole face. Afghan thing

  4. @ Charlie M

    The difference between a burqa and a niqab is that a burqa starts with the letter ‘b’ and a niqab starts with the letter ‘n’. But interestingly, both can be seen a pathetic patriarchal control mechanism forced onto women, and accepted by mentally ill women, according to some medieval doctrine where women are viewed as being less important than a camel.

Comments are closed.