Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote:^Seems like a sensible law to me.

Herve - try running through future articles via Google Translate, it works very well. You'll then understand why people will laugh at your error of comprehension. A law which requires a woman to lift her veil when confirming ID for security/official reasons is not the same as a ban.

Cheers,
Shafique

herve wrote:

shafique wrote:^Seems like a sensible law to me.

Herve - try running through future articles via Google Translate, it works very well. You'll then understand why people will laugh at your error of comprehension. A law which requires a woman to lift her veil when confirming ID for security/official reasons is not the same as a ban.

Cheers,
Shafique

I understand what you mean , I know it is not the same, now you are being naive, they had to word that way to pass the law but it is a ban in effect, let s see how many muslim women will continue to wear the veil when they are constantly being pulled over "for security reasons".

Critics say the bill smacks of anti-Muslim bias given how few women in Australia wear burqas. In a population of 23 million, only about 400,000 Australians are Muslim. Community advocates estimate that fewer than 2,000 women wear face veils, and it is likely that even a smaller percentage drives.

"It does seem to be very heavy handed, and there doesn't seem to be a need," said Australian Council for Civil Liberties spokesman David Bernie. "It shows some cultural insensitivity."

...

"It is a religious issue here," said Mouna Unnjinal, a mother of five who has been driving in Sydney in a niqab for 18 years and has never been booked for a traffic offense.
"We're going to feel very intimidated and our privacy is being invaded," she added.

The laws were motivated by the bungled prosecution of Carnita Matthews, a 47-year-old Muslim mother of seven who was booked by a highway patrolman for a minor traffic violation in Sydney in June last year.

An official complaint was made in Matthews' name against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, the policeman who gave her the ticket. The complaint accused Fogarty of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter.

Unknown to Matthews, the encounter was recorded by a camera inside Fogarty's squad car. The video footage showed her aggressively berating a restrained Fogarty and did not support her claim that he tried to grab her veil before she reluctantly and angrily lifted it to show her face.

Matthews was sentenced in November to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement to police.

But that conviction and sentence were quashed on appeal last month without her serving any time in jail because a judge was not convinced that it was Matthews who signed the false statutory declaration. The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity.

Bora Bora wrote:
Clearly you don't understand the article, me or Shaf. It is not a ban!!! ..

This is you twisting something to suit your purpose (hatred?), as you did on several occasions in your book.

event horizon wrote:Two things I've learned in this thread

1) Bora expects people to read articles (I agree, starting with her)

Bethsmum wrote:Who could ever understand Sir Shafique's twisted logic?

I liked Herve's book. It was written by him and his view of what happened. I think if I'd been through what he had I'd be a bit biased too. He's allowed to be biased, he's human.

And I'd make allowances for someone with that accent