When Full-Face Veils Hinder Administration Of Justice
Last August a judge in Australia ordered that a Muslim witness in a court case remove her veil so that the jury could see her facial expressions to help weigh the veracity of her evidence. A couple of months later a judge in the UK made a similar order, and for the same reason. But a recent court case in Sydney, Australia, highlights how the wearing of a full-face veil could influence the course of justice because the veil masks not just the wearer’s expression, but in fact her identity.
The Case
In June 2010 Carnita Matthews was made to take a random breath test after being booked for not properly displaying P plates (plates on car indicating driver has provisional licence). When asked by the police officer to lift her veil so that he could verify her licence, she did so but also abused the police officer for 20 minutes, accusing him and all police of racism. The encounter was filmed by a police camera.
However, 3 days later a woman in a burka handed over an affidavit purportedly signed by Carnita Matthews alleging that the police officer had tried to rip off her veil.
The video did not show what the affidavit alleged, and Carnita Matthews was charged with making a false complaint against a police officer. Her defence was that the police could not prove that it was she who made the complaint, but she was convicted. However, she was acquitted on appeal, partly on the same argument (especially since the signature on the affidavit did not match that on the driving licence) and also because the appeal judge said that he could not be sure that Carnita Matthews knowingly made a false statement.
Review Of Methods For Identifying Burka-clad Women
This case has prompted a review of identification requirements for people wearing full-face coverings. Mike Gallagher, the Police Minister, has said that laws would be “tidied up” to allow for alternative identification methods, such as fingerprinting, for those who for social or religious reasons could not show their face.
Think About It
Are there circumstances under which a full-face should be prohibited? Should it be necessary to turn to other methods of identifying a person, when the full-face veil is not a religious requirement?
Previous posts
UK Court Orders Muslim Woman To Remove Veil While Giving Evidence
Australia – Judge Says Witness Cannot Wear Veil In Court
This is Australia. A christian country not a multicultural country
I believe that each person has a right to practice their beliefs providing that they are not infringing on the rights of others in the community. That also means being a law abiding citizen. Carnita Mathews was evidently in the wrong and should have paid the price for her indiscretions. The officer in question would have paid a heavy price if the complaint that she lodged against him had been upheld. His future employment prospects would have been tarnished and reputation ruined, branded a racist for life. Carnita then asked for clemency for filing this false report as her children needed their mother. Was she showing any compassion for the policeman accused, he is a father and husband, equally speaking his wife and children need him. The Burka woman in question was acquitted for filing a false report. This sends out a powerful message. “Wear a BURKA, break the law, and call everyone a racist and the Australian Government Judgement will call for an ACQUITTAL. Where is the justice that seems to have left Australian Society or is this the beginning of another way of life. The opening of Pandora’s Box; The beginning of SHARIA LAW. Do we live in a Democracy or an Islamic State. I am not a racist I simply did my homework and understand the fundamental principles at work in our community. Look at the rest of the world and in the future we will catch up to the trouble that will lie ahead if we don’t stomp out this behaviour now and put laws in place to stop injustice from occurring in any format. Protect our Future Democratic Society.
It should be noted that:
1. Carnita Matthews did lift her veil so she could be identified by the Police Officer
2. She was acquitted on appeal because the signature on the complaint did not match the signature on her licence
It would appear as though an effort was not made to identify the complainant properly as the signature was not verified at the time of the complaint. This would appear to be independent on whether the person making the complaint was wearing a burka or not