Hows this drivers complaint? So how do you see whos driving?

[digger]

Hijab woman accuses policeman of racism

Thursday, November 18, 2010 » 10:12pm


A policeman accused of trying to pull off a Muslim woman's headdress has told a Sydney court he isn't a racist.

Senior Constable Paul Fogarty pulled over Carnita Matthews, 45, on June 8 this year at Woodbine in Sydney's southwest.

She later filed a police complaint claiming he tried to pull off her hijab, which concealed her entire face except for her eyes.

Matthews was subsequently charged with one count of knowingly making a false complaint.

She pleaded not guilty to the charge in August, and at Campbelltown Local Court on Thursday her lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said police had failed to verify the identity of the person making the complaint.

This means they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was his client who made it, Mr Hopper said.

Const Fogarty, of Macquarie Fields Highway Patrol, told the court he twice asked Matthews to remove her veil because he couldn't fully see her face.

'I gestured for her to lift her hijab,' he said.

'I said I just wanted to verify. I then gestured to her to lift her hijab.'

A police video of the incident, which was played to the court, showed Const Fogarty approaching Matthews' black Honda Odyssey and checking her identity.

He then issued her with an infringement notice for not displaying her green P plates properly.

At this point Matthews becomes irate, accusing Const Fogarty of being 'racist', according to the police video.

'All cops are racist,' she is heard saying.

'You know you are giving me a ticket for crap.'

Police prosecutor Lisa McEvoy asked Const Fogarty if he objected to being called racist. He agreed, saying: 'Because I'm not.'

'Did it have any bearing on you that she had a face veil?' Ms McEvoy asked.

'It (issuing the fine) was because she did not have her P plates showing,' he replied.

The hearing will continue on Friday.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

So, she is wearing a hijab, fair enough her choice
BUT driving is a priviledge (<-sp?)NOT a right...

If asked to prove her identity and she refuses, (no matter if an offence or not as long as legally required to prove ID) by not removing her hijab for the ID then she shouldve been arrested "to ensure appearance" for the matter.

This would then be a hugely reported item and the copper a massive racist etc etc....

BUT try this scenario, its a cold night and someone drives up wearing a beanie/balaclava, theyre asked to lift it so the Police officer can confirm theyre ID and they refuse....now when they are pinched is the copper racist??

Who would support this case?

Now the lawyer is saying the Police officer is racist because he wanted her to lift her hijab to confirm the lic photo, AND he's saying that Police "had failed to verify the identity of the person" so the matter should be thrown out of court.

KE? so how do we do this from now on?
If someone wishes to wear a hijab, veil etc etc thats OK with me, BUT
the requirements of the road are that your ID can be proven upon request by authorised officers (eg Police or road transport) - If not then Im afraid buses, trams and taxis are available in most metro areas.

Dont think this is a racist bit from me either, as lots of muslims are wearing covers etc and comply with requests to show faces with no problems at all when requested to do so, usually they are very cheerful and confident people, and if they have commited some offence cannot seems to cooperate or apologise enough.

And unlike other comments I've seen on the net, don't cry "send them home" her last name is Matthews, HOME is somewhere in Sydney!

How do we sort out what started as a basic traffic stop (no P plate)and somehow becomes a attack accusing the officer of being racist?

(How is it that "racist" people were able to get somesort of mental powers to force people they dont like to remove or not place P plates or do stupid stuff and I cant get my dog to fetch???)

[spudboy]

She's been nicked. Not happy about it. Puts in an allegedly bogus claim to give the copper grief.

Seems the likely storey to me. Using the 'racism' card to get back at someone....

[disco2hse]

Racism has nothing to do with it, it is a red herring. The veil is a cultural thing and even where it is the norm an official can ask to have it removed to prove identity, or at the least have a female officer do it.

The key point in this case is the part "She pleaded not guilty to the charge in August, and at Campbelltown Local Court on Thursday her lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said police had failed to verify the identity of the person making the complaint." In this case she is trying to get off the charge through a technical point of law, that the enforcing officer could not determine it was she who was behind the wheel and therefore could not be charged.

The questions is, in Australia is it a part of the legal process for the enforcing officer to visually identify the offender when issuing an enforcement notice? She has obviously provided a driver's license or something else to show that she was supposed to be showing P plates. At the time of the offense this person has claimed that she is the person who should be showing them and was not, so that person received the infringement notice.

Now this person who is in court is claiming that she is not the one who was there at the time of the offense and no one can prove it was her because of the veil. However it is no longer the responsibility of the court to prove it was her because some evidence saying it was had been provided at the point. Now it is her responsibility to prove it was not her and that it was someone else.

Alan

[digger]

It is a legal option that if an officer is satisfied that he cannot prove someones identity or be satisfied they wil appear before court for the matter at hand that the officer can arrest the person, without proof satisfying the ID of the person, no bail...

simple... BUT as I said imagine the hue and cry if that was the action he took!

[PhilipA]

And how did the second alleged person know about the offence?

Who told him or her, and will the poor misidentified person reveal who she told about the offence.
A red herring and one unlikely to be believed, but shows a cunning lawyer.

My wife was a visa officer in the British Embassy in Riyadh, and they used to try to get visas with a photo of a woman in a Burka. The women or male relatives were outraged when told to submit a photo with face showing and then to show their face to the visa officer.
Regards Philip A

[disco2hse]

It is a legal option that if an officer is satisfied that he cannot prove someones identity or be satisfied they wil appear before court for the matter at hand that the officer can arrest the person, without proof satisfying the ID of the person, no bail..

That may be so, but in this case he was obviously satisfied from the evidence provided that the person was who she claimed to be and the offense notice was issued. Having been satisfied with what he had it is now in the hands of the court to determine whether it was her or not.

[disco2hse]

And how did the second alleged person know about the offence?

Second person?? Oh you mean the actual person who was named on the offense notice? Probably from the summons that follows these things when they aren't attended to, if it were the case that indeed there was a second person, which is in this case there is some doubt.

Who told him or her, and will the poor misidentified person reveal who she told about the offence.
A red herring and one unlikely to be believed, but shows a cunning lawyer.

He may be a cunning linguist but not a very cunning lawyer. That is an old trick that has been tried and failed many times in the past. I am certain even a half sober judge would see through it.

My wife was a visa officer in the British Embassy in Riyadh, and they used to try to get visas with a photo of a woman in a Burka. The women or male relatives were outraged when told to submit a photo with face showing and then to show their face to the visa officer.

Interesting. Of course they were outraged. My experience with some of these people is that they exist in a constant state of outrage.

When in Rome and all that, however.

[spudboy]

At least she has the freedom to wear what she wants in Australia.

Mrs Spud & I were travelling in Morocco, and she HAD to wear "modest" clothing, which is quite fair enough (when in Rome etc). She was wearing a shirt buttoned to her wrists, with a high collar, a hat on her head, and long trousers. She got spat on by some men because they could see her ankles between the end of her trousers and her shoes. BTW - it was about 40 degrees in the shade, and she was obviously a tourist.

Tolerance is a fine thing hey?

[disco2hse]

Mrs Spud & I were travelling in Morocco, and she HAD to wear "modest" clothing, which is quite fair enough (when in Rome etc). She was wearing a shirt buttoned to her wrists, with a high collar, a hat on her head, and long trousers. She got spat on by some men because they could see her ankles between the end of her trousers and her shoes. BTW - it was about 40 degrees in the shade, and she was obviously a tourist.

Tolerance is a fine thing hey?

That is disgusting. But it is something that is becoming more widespread, unfortunately.

It angers me when I encounter those male attitudes here. I am afraid I am not very tolerant of that kind of thing. Where I work I have told mainly north african males to pull their heads in before when they have acted offensively towards females. I will tolerate burkas in my job, I have to. But I ignore women who think they have to hide from me in public. They want to be invisible? Fine, to me they can be.

[richard4u2]

wonder why she didnt want the police officer to see her face as it would have been on her license ?? so who was really driveing the car , a male ? a wanted person ? a drug runner ? someone who was here illegally ?