Burqa bungle

  • Thread starter Thread starter latin_rite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

latin_rite

Guest
A muslim woman was jailed last week for 6 months, for making false claims about a police officers actions during a traffic stop. She claimed he was racist and had tried to rip off her burqa. Luckily for the police officer, he had a the police cars video and audio recordings to back himself up. Or other wise his whole reputation may have been brought into disrepute. If anything the police officer should receive a medal for patience.

aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8144154

Sorry. The link is a segment tv news program. Not a news paper article. And there is a 5 second ad before the actual story begins.
 
Her conviction will be overturned on religious freedom grounds - taquiya.

Someone call the ACLU, they’ll have 20 lawyers filing briefs in ten minutes.
 
Im not backing the Muslim woman or anything.

But as a Australian, the tv programme ‘‘A Current Affair’’, is NOT a news programme. It is a very baised, ‘‘investigation’’ program, who strive on situations like this, as well as speeding fines (which they ‘‘investigate’’ on very week).
 
This piece of so-called ‘‘news’’, happened in Australia. So no Martha Stewart or who ever the other lady is.
 
From the reporting, it sounds like she got what she deserved, but I cannot really trust this story.

The reporter repeatedly says the woman was wearing a burqa and that the woman claimed the officer tried to remove her burqa. But the woman is not wearing a burqa. She is wearing a niqab. During the traffic stop, she refers to her garment as a niqab.

The reporter and producers either did not fact check or chose to lie. Either is unacceptable. I would need to see better reported coverage to judge this situation.

religionnews.com/index.php?/rnsblog/whats_the_difference_between_hijab_burqa_etc/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashion/13veil.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=muslim_veiling&adxnnlx=1290826846-EPrHmjU/3PXQP81K6w3Ezg&pagewanted=all
 
Ashurie said:
Im not backing the Muslim woman or anything.

But as a Australian, the tv programme ‘‘A Current Affair’’, is NOT a news programme. It is a very baised, ‘‘investigation’’ program, who strive on situations like this, as well as speeding fines (which they ‘‘investigate’’ on very week).
Click to expand...
It’s a news program. It was the news wasn’t it? I’m not normaly a big fan of the show. But this segment was a news segment. Can you tell me what was baised about it? You can’t.
 
Listen_to_This said:
From the reporting, it sounds like she got what she deserved, but I cannot really trust this story.

The reporter repeatedly says the woman was wearing a burqa and that the woman claimed the officer tried to remove her burqa. But the woman is not wearing a burqa. She is wearing a niqab. During the traffic stop, she refers to her garment as a niqab.

The reporter and producers either did not fact check or chose to lie. Either is unacceptable. I would need to see better reported coverage to judge this situation.
Click to expand...
I once called a tomato a tomatoe. Luckily the person at the shop knew what i was talking about and didn’t call me a liar. I guess you proved, why the police officer was lucky he had video and audio of the incident.
 
latin_rite said:
I once called a tomato a tomatoe. Luckily the person at the shop knew what i was talking about and didn’t call me a liar. I guess you proved, why the police officer was lucky he had video and audio of the incident.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they were liars. I said they either did not fact check or lied. They have responsibility to fact check.
 
latin_rite said:
It’s a news program. It was the news wasn’t it? I’m not normaly a big fan of the show. But this segment was a news segment. Can you tell me what was baised about it? You can’t.
Click to expand...
If you read my first sentence, I am NOT backing the lady up…I saw it the progamme on TV.

And you seem to believe any ‘‘news’’ show that constantly does ‘‘speeding fines’’ and ‘‘what meat is best’’ segments and then only interview one half of the the story?
 
Ashurie said:
If you read my first sentence, I am NOT backing the lady up…I saw it the progamme on TV.

And you seem to believe any ‘‘news’’ show that constantly does ‘‘speeding fines’’ and ‘‘what meat is best’’ segments and then only interview one half of the the story?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. If the show regularly did segments about people from mars. The fact is. There is not one bit of bias or untrue reporting in that segment. And if you listened. You would have heard how she went to the press, with her story. Supposedly got a bit of news coverage. And they did try to interview her. But i guess after being caught out lying. She wasn’t all that interested in telling her story to the press any more. So what are they suppose to do? not run the story, because one side had been caught out lying and making false reports and are too ashamed to talk on camera?
And to be honest and a little bit ashamed of the msm in our country. The show is the least bias , when it comes to serious news pieces such as these or reporting on cases such as these or on political matters, than say dateline or the 7.30 report.
 
Listen_to_This said:
I didn’t say they were liars. I said they either did not fact check or lied. They have responsibility to fact check.
Click to expand...
You implied it.Or at the very least questioned their honesty. Mistakenly calling something like a niqab a burqa. When the only real difference is a burqa has gauze across the eyes. Does not a lie make. Is it sloppy journalism or just people being anal?
 
latin_rite said:
I once called , a brown snake a tiger snake. Didn’t mean i was lying, it just meant i was mistaken…
OOOO. You’re being pedantic.
Click to expand...
It is not being pedantic to expect news organizations to get things correct. Considering that woman called her niqab a niqab in the video they showed, it would not have been hard to determine it was niqab. **News organizations have a duty to fact check. **Either they did not fact check or they lied. Either way, their coverage was unacceptable and false.
 
Listen_to_This said:
It is not being pedantic to expect news organizations to get things correct. Considering that woman called her niqab a niqab in the video they showed, it would not have been hard to determine it was niqab. **News organizations have a duty to fact check. **Either they did not fact check or they lied. Either way, their coverage was unacceptable and false.
Click to expand...
They called a niqab and burqa. Big deal. The fact remains. She lied about the actions of a police officer. Went all the way to court. The fact that they referred to a niqab as a burqa. makes little difference. Facts were checked. And one tiny issues was over looked.Every thing else measured up as correct. Which doesn’t mean the report was false about what happened. And how can you say they lied when there was video evidence proving the muslim a liar. And court testimonies proving what had happened? Wheres the lie? Again. A mistake does not a lie make. Even a very tiny one. I guess some people don;t want to accept facts, and will use any minor mistake, to take attention away from the main issue.
 
Listen_to_This said:
From the reporting, it sounds like she got what she deserved, but I cannot really trust this story.

The reporter repeatedly says the woman was wearing a burqa and that the woman claimed the officer tried to remove her burqa. But the woman is not wearing a burqa. She is wearing a niqab. During the traffic stop, she refers to her garment as a niqab.

The reporter and producers either did not fact check or chose to lie. Either is unacceptable. I would need to see better reported coverage to judge this situation.
Click to expand...
Seeing that your first two linked articles both say that the two words are frequently interchanged, I can not trust you at all due to lack of fact-checking.
religionnews.com/index.php?/rnsblog/whats_the_difference_between_hijab_burqa_etc/
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashion/13veil.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=muslim_veiling&adxnnlx=1290826846-EPrHmjU/3PXQP81K6w3Ezg&pagewanted=all
Click to expand...
 
latin_rite said:
And how can you say they lied when there was video evidence proving the muslim a liar. And court testimonies proving what had happened? Wheres the lie? Again. A mistake does not a lie make. Even a very tiny one. I guess some people don;t want to accept facts, and will use any minor mistake, to take attention away from the main issue.
Click to expand...
I did not say they lied. I said they either lied or did not fact check. You should withdraw your comment and apologize.
 
St_Francis said:
Seeing that your first two linked articles both say that the two words are frequently interchanged, I can not trust you at all due to lack of fact-checking.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are interchanged, but incorrectly–like “effect” and “affect.” Just because a lot people say thing like, " My parents really effected my attitudes" does not make that interchanging correct. The woman was wearing a niqab, not a burqa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top