An entitled Muslim woman, who is one of two wives to a convicted terrorist, recently brought a discrimination and assault case against a police officer. However, when she refused to remove her burka for the female judge, she ended up getting a dose of reality that she was never expecting.
Mad World News reported that Moutia Elzahedone of the wives of the now-convicted terrorist Hamdi Alqudsi, decided to sue the police claiming that they punched her in the face and cursed at her during Operation Appleby on September 18, 2014. She demanded compensation from police for “assault and battery, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and intimidation” in a clear attempt to get revenge on them for arresting her husband.
Here’s how that went for her:
Willing to hear Elzahed’s case, Australian Judge Audrey Balla told the woman to remove her burqa so that she could identify her and read her facial expressions during the hearing. As expected, Elzahed refused, citing religious purposes. Agreeing to give her special privilege, Balla agreed to close the court while she gave her testimony. This time, Elzahed not only turned down the generous deal but wouldn’t stand when the judge entered and exited the court. In what is considered to be a first in Australia, Judge Balla ultimately announced that since Elzahed refused to remove her veil, she would refuse to hear her evidence against the arresting officers.
Upholding Sharia over Australian law and probably realizing that she won’t win anyway, Elzahed not only refused to take off the niqab the third time, she didn’t even show up on the fourth day of her hearing. Of course, the Muslim supremacist is now whining that “it is not fair” that she couldn’t present her evidence against the officers.
When participating in a jury trial, jury members are instructed by court officials to read the facial expressions and body language of the accused when determining their judgment. This is impossible if they can’t even see the defendant.
“I must take into account whether I would be impeded in my ability to fully assess the reliability and credibility of the evidence of the first plaintiff if I am not afforded the opportunity of being able to see her face when she gives evidence,” Judge Balla explained. “However, neither of those considerations can, in my view, mean that I should be completely deprived of having the assistance of seeing her face to assess her credibility.”
Proving leftists are willing to forego logic to appease the world’s most intolerant religion, Elzahed’s male lawyer says that he respects her decision to never show him her face. In short, he admits that even he doesn’t know the person he’s representing.
“I’m instructed that she’s of the Muslim religion and it’s against her religion to reveal her face to men, although not to women,” said Clive Evatt, Elzahed’s attorney. “Therefore, I’m instructed she will not remove her veil, if that’s the correct expression, or whatever it is.”
According to Express, New South Wales police agreed with Balla, stating that Elzahed’s facial expressions are a “very important part of giving evidence.” Understandably, the accused officers don’t want Elzahed to have an unfair advantage of lying by hiding any tell-tale expressions that might tip off the judge.
Still, Elzahed and her polygamist husband’s sons are playing the victim card, claiming that the police actually “wanted to see her naked,” which in this case might just be a referral to her face.
“She was holding the blanket above her body because she was – like, she wasn’t really clothed. Once she refused to take the blanket off for the man that came in at the beginning of the raid, he punched her,” said Abdullah George, Elzahed’s 17-year-old son. “My mum said that they wanted to see her naked, and that she was holding the blanket so that they wouldn’t remove it and she also said that they broke the door, and that she asked why. She says, ‘why did they break the door?’”
What do you think about this? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.