Tag Archives: LAWS

British Woman Jailed In Dubai “I Was Told To Keep Quiet Or They’d Stone Me To Death’

Every week thousands of Brits jet off to the gulf state of Dubai under the mis-guided impression that it is some kind of Middle Eastern Ibiza, where they can party carefree 24/7. The truth is Dubai is nothing like the Balearic Island in terms of what’s acceptable and what’s not. Dubai is a strict Islamic state where the backwards and barbaric sharia law is enforced to the letter. 

As non Muslims visiting there you are instantly seen as second class in the eyes of the locals and in the law. Even worse should you also happen to be a female as Muslim women are regarded as little above a servant so imagine the opinion they think of infidel women. Un married couples even risk being locked up for sharing a bed. Any kind of affection in public such as kissing or holding hands is putting yourself at risk of arrest. Away from the safety of the hotel women need to dress ‘Islamic’ and cover up(even if it is 100 degrees plus). Not only do you risk being sexually assaulted by perverse Muslims but you also risk jail.

Unlike the western non Islamic world where we allow Muslims to dress and act how they please. The intolerant Muslims do not allow that same luxury back. If your thinking of going to Dubai or any Islamic nation. Do yourself a favour and look into what their out dated sharia law demands of you. Failure to do so and you risk a spell in a cockroach infested prison cell with the real dregs of their Muslim society.

‘I was told to keep quiet or they’d stone me to death’: British woman wrongly jailed in Dubai for having sex outside marriage lied about husband to avoid adultery charge

  • Rebecca Blake was thrown in jail in the Arab state
  • 30-year-old sentenced to 41 days in prison for having sex outside marriage
  • Ended up serving 95 days because ‘they forgot’ about her

By EMMA THOMAS

PUBLISHED: 02:13, 20 October 2013 | UPDATED: 09:42, 20 October 2013

A woman has told of her ordeal in a Dubai prison after being imprisoned for having sex outside marriage.

Rebecca Blake, from Surrey, was jailed for a crime she did not commit and ended up serving 95 days in a ‘filthy’ cell.

Speaking to the Sunday Express, the 30-year-old said she was forced to lie about being married or she would face a more severe punishment for adultery and could have been stoned to death.

Rebecca Blake outside the Dubai Court Embarrassing: Rebecca Blake has said how difficult it was to tell her parents of the charges  The recruitment consultant was accused of having sex in the back of a taxi with her friend Conor McRedmond 28, from Tullamore, Co. Offaly and they spent a year fighting the allegations. Rebecca Blake outside the Dubai Court
Embarrassing: Rebecca Blake has said how difficult it was to tell her parents of the charges  The recruitment consultant was accused of having sex in the back of a taxi with her friend Conor McRedmond 28, from Tullamore, Co. Offaly and they spent a year fighting the allegations. Embarrassing: Rebecca Blake has said how difficult it was to tell her parents of the charges

The recruitment consultant was accused of having sex in the back of a taxi with her friend Conor McRedmond 28, from Tullamore, Co. Offaly and they spent a year fighting the allegations.

Ms Blake said her lawyer told her to keep the fact she was already technically married, from six years ago, a secret as if the authorities knew she was married she could be charged with the more serious crime of adultery.

Now back in Britain, Ms Blake said: ‘It feels like a surreal nightmare. I still wake up in the night panicking, thinking I’m back in that cell.’

Blake and McRedmond  were arrested on May 4 last year after meeting at a brunch then going on a drinking binge – getting a taxi together at 10pm.

Taxi driver Qaiser Khan, 30, claimed within minutes of getting in, Blake had taken her top off and was writhing on top of McRedmond while ‘making the sounds of a woman having sex’.

He told prosecutors earlier this year: ‘They kept having sex for four minutes. The man’s shirt was open, his trousers were down to his knees and the woman was not wearing any underwear.’

The taxi driver alleged Blake offered him ‘a lot of money’ to tell prosecutors they had been kissing rather than having sex, but he refused.

They said the allegations had been made up after they rowed with the taxi driver about taking a longer route home.

Their lawyer Shaker al Shammary yesterday said the statements of the two witnesses were inconsistent, adding: ‘They threatened to complain about the taxi driver and he beat them to it – yet there is no mention of their dispute in the Supreme Court judgment.

‘The medical records show what the witnesses said was not true but this was not taken into account in the ruling.’

Rebecca Blake (left) and Conor McRedmond (centre) walk with their lawyer Shaker al-Shammary outside the Dubai CourtRebecca Blake (left) and Conor McRedmond (centre) walk with their lawyer Shaker al-Shammary outside the Dubai CourtRebecca Blake outside the Dubai Court Embarrassing: Rebecca Blake has said how difficult it was to tell her parents of the charges  The recruitment consultant was accused of having sex in the back of a taxi with her friend Conor McRedmond 28, from Tullamore, Co. Offaly and they spent a year fighting the allegations.  Fired: A tearful Miss Blake emerges from the building, carrying a box under her arm

Blake was sacked from her £100,000-a-year job as a recruitment consultant for Manpower in Dubai following the scandal

McRedmond had said earlier this year: ‘We find ourselves in exactly the same position we were in after the original verdict but thousands of pounds poorer.

‘Any court in the world would accept the medical evidence above all else. I love Dubai and wanted to carry on living here but I am left without a choice.’

There were fears their failure to clear their names was part of a crackdown from Dubai authorities on expats flouting their strict rules.

Vince Acors and Michelle Palmer, a British couple caught having sex on a beach, were treated more leniently in 2008 when they were convicted on the same charge of indecency and ordered to serve three months in prison, but received a suspended sentence on appeal.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468324/Imprisoned-having-sex-outside-marriage-British-woman-tells-ordeal-Dubai.html#ixzz2iGcTxI00

Muslim woman plays the victim and starts legal proceedings against interrogation at airport

A Muslim woman who was stopped and questioned at the airport under anti terrorism law has started legal proceedings claiming that her human rights were violated. The Muslim woman was prosecuted after she refused to cooperate with the police and wouldn’t  answer their questions regarding the reasons for her visit to France. Now she is playing the victim in the whole thing like Muslims so often do despite pleading guilty to the charge of wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.  

Sylvie Beghal claims that being asked questions without a lawyer present under Schedule 7 violated the right to liberty (Article 5), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and Ms Beghal’s right to protection for her private and family life (Article 8). Under Schedule 7 anti terrorism laws a lawyer would not of been able to advise his client during questioning anyway and she had a legal duty to answer. Ultimately it was the woman’s stubbornness being awkward refusing to answer that resulted in her arrest .Now she is acting hard done to and putting  the whole schedule 7 laws at risk challenging the legality of an essential weapon in fighting terrorism.

If a person had nothing to hide then why would they object to a few questions if it helped keep our nation safe from terrorist attack. The only people who have anything to gain from those laws getting scrapped would be the Muslim terrorists who hate this country so much they want to slay as many innocent men, women and children as possible.

MUSLIMS TERROR RISK AT AIRPORT

Muslim woman in legal challenge to interrogation at airport

2:27pm Thursday 21st March 2013 in News

A Muslim woman is seeking a legal declaration that her human rights were violated when she was prosecuted after refusing to submit to an interrogation under anti-terrorism laws at an airport.

Mother-of-three Sylvie Beghal was stopped and questioned, even though she was not “suspected” of being a terrorist.

Police officers said they needed to speak to her regarding her “possible involvement” in acts of terrorism.

In what is believed to be the first legal challenge of its kind, Mrs Beghal’s lawyers argued this week at London’s High Court heard.that the entire process of stopping and questioning people “without reasonable suspicion” breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

They said it was significant that Mrs Beghal had no right of access to a lawyer while being questioned and was being put under direct compulsion to provide information.

The court heard she indicated she would answer questions after the arrival of her lawyer, but the police chose not to wait.

When her lawyer arrived after her questioning had finished, the officers did not seek to ask her any more questions in the lawyer’s presence, three judges were told.

Mrs Beghal, a French national living in the UK, arrived back at East Midlands Airport with her children on January 4, 2011 following a visit to Paris but was not formally detained or arrested.

She was stopped at the UK Border Agency desk but refused to co-operate with questioning by Leicestershire police officers acting under powers given by schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT).

Mrs Beghal asked to consult with a lawyer and for an opportunity to pray.

After being given time to pray, police officers told her she could telephone her lawyer after she was searched. The prosecution initially accused her of physically resisting the search.

At 9.30pm she was taken to a room for an examination under Schedule 7 and asked to provide reasons for her journey, where she stayed in Paris, whom she had met or visited and how her travel was funded.

She was also asked whether she had a criminal record and about her knowledge of the French-Algerian community in Leicestershire, her use of vehicles, the languages she spoke and her current and past employment.

She failed to provide answers to most of the questions, indicating she would only answer questions after her lawyer arrived.

She was subsequently charged with wilfully obstructing a search, assaulting a constable and wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.

The first two charges were eventually dismissed in December 2011 after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and Mrs Beghal pleaded guilty to the third charge.

She did so after District Judge Temperley, sitting at Leicester Magistrates’ Court, refused her request to stay the charge as an abuse of process, and the case was referred to the High Court.

Ms Beghal’s counsel Matthew Ryder asked three senior judges – Lord Justice Gross, Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Foskett – to rule Schedule 7 “incompatible” with the human rights convention.

Mr Ryder argued Schedule 7 violated the right to liberty (Article 5), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and Ms Beghal’s right to protection for her private and family life (Article 8).

Mr Ryder also argued the prosecution was an unjustifiable interference with Ms Beghal’s “right to free movement” within an EU country as an EU national.

Louis Malby, appearing for the Crown Prosecution Service, told the judges that Schedule 7 empowered officers to question a person entering or leaving the country if they “appear to be a person who is, or has been, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

Any person being questioned was under a legal duty to give the officer any information in his or her possession that was requested.

Arguing that Mrs Beghal’s rights had not been breached, Mr Malby said: “The ability to stop and examine passengers at ports is an essential tool in the protection of the public from terrorism.”

Mr Malby said Mrs Beghal was given an opportunity to consult with a solicitor in advance of questioning, and it was agreed that a telephone consultation took place.

But a solicitor would have had no purpose at the actual questioning, other than as an observer to ensure proper procedure, as Mrs Beghal was under a legal obligation to answer the questions put to her.

Reserving judgment, the judges said they would give their ruling at a future date.

Scumbag Terrorist May Be Re Housed After His Address Became Known

Muslim extremist Abu Qatada, who has been a regular on Kafir Crusaders this year is once again back in the news. The Muslim hate cleric who should be beginning 2013 rotting in a Jordanian prison cell,yet unfortunately is still here having evaded deportation thanks to stupid leftist human rights laws. Having already cost the British taxpayer millions in legal aid,court costs,police surveillance and benefits whilst he lives the life of luxury in a nice detached house complete with big sat dish.

There have been various reports in the press this week that the enemy of the state could be on the move once again. The Daily Mails article below suggests that he has demanded a move again after details of his address were leaked on the internet. Naturally his address becoming common knowledge resulted in some patriots going wishing the terrorist Merry Christmas. By all accounts Qatada’s neighbours who also don’t like his presence in their area also joined the protesters in making their feelings known. Yesterday’s Daily Star ran an article that the Qatada family wanted a move because the half million pound house was to small and unclean for them. Hard luck, think how all the families who work for a living and have to pay rent to live in a cramped high rise flat feel then. Neither should be a valid reason for wasting more money moving again.

No matter where they move him, eventually the good people of Britain will find out his address and continue to protest. The Home Office need to get it in their heads we do not want Abu Qatada or anyone like him in our country. British people will no longer sit here in silence and let Muslim extremists who hate this country and its people, continue to take the piss living in luxury off the back of the taxpayer.

The solution to the Qatada problem is quite simple. Put the scumbag on a plane to face justice in Jordan.  Pay the £50,000 EU fine out of the benifits saved. Problem solved.

 

Hate preacher Abu Qatada may be re-homed AGAIN at taxpayers’ expense after details of his latest address are leaked on internet

By ANNA EDWARDS

PUBLISHED: 11:59, 29 December 2012 | UPDATED: 12:13, 29 December 2012

Hate preacher Abu Qatada could be rehomed at the expense of tax-payers after details of his latest address was leaked online.

The 52-year-old’s current £450,000 home in North London was publicised on a Facebook page and discussed on Twitter.

The Home Office may move Qatada and his family again as they fear the information leak could lead to him and his relatives being attacked, the Daily Star reported.

ENEMY OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC.The cleric has been freed on bail after a British court ruled he might not get a fair trial if deported to Jordan to face terrorism chargesThe cleric has been freed on bail after a British court ruled he might not get a fair trial if deported to Jordan to face terrorism charges

One Twitter user wrote: ‘Let’s show him he’s not welcome’, the newspaper said.

Qatada was recently moved into the expensive home which is being rented out by the British taxpayer for £1,400 a month.

Hate preacher Abu Qatada's new home in north London which he wants to move from as he is an ungrateful scumbagHate preacher Abu Qatada’s new home in north London

He and his family moved into the detached house at the start of December after complaining that his previous house in north-west London was not big enough.

The Home Office declined to comment on the reports.

He is being kept under close watch as his decade-long legal battle to avoid deportation to Jordan on terror charges continues.

His removal is being blocked under human rights law amid concerns some of the evidence which may be used against him could have been obtained by torture.

The cost of the terror suspect’s legal aid has already reached more than £500,000.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission last month upheld Qatada’s latest appeal because of concerns about human rights in the country.

The Government is appealing against the decision but Qatada remains in the UK on bail conditions including a 16-hour curfew, wearing an electronic tag, not using the internet and not contacting certain people.

CCTV cameras have been installed outside the home of hate preacher Abu Qatada to monitor him around the clock, it was reported in November

britains most hated man muslim terrorist abu qatada.The Home Office may move Qatada and his family again as they fear the information leak could lead to him and his relatives being attackedThe Home Office may move Qatada and his family again as they fear the information leak could lead to him and his relatives being attacked

They were used to keep track of the Al-Qaeda sympathiser, 52, when he went on a rare journey out last week.

It was said he braved the cold on a walk to Sainsbury’s as the government continues its fight to remove him from Britain.

Earlier this week, it emerged the Government could use frozen bank accounts and seized assets belonging to hate preacher Abu Qatada worth £217,000 to help cover the cost of keeping him in the country.

Home Secretary Theresa May told the Home Affairs Select Committee that officials will look at raiding Qatada’s cash and assets to pay for his huge legal bills.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254515/Hate-preacher-Abu-Qatada-homed-AGAIN-taxpayers-expense-details-latest-address-leaked-internet.html#ixzz2GUBOnRvf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Peers clash over Sharia law tribunals

SHOCKED ….they actually debated Sharia Law in the House of Lords. Hats off to Baroness Cook for saying what many of us who oppose Islam have been saying for a while, that there is no place for Sharia Law which promotes discrimination and violence. Even if she did have to defend herself and deny being anti Muslim after the only Muslim peer described her comments as “another assault on Muslims”. Its a sad state of affairs when someone cant bring up issues in parliament about Muslims without having to justify saying it thats to years of political correctness and tip toeing round Muslims for fear of upsetting them

 

Peers clash over Sharia law tribunals

3:41pm Friday 19th October 2012 in News

Peers clashed today over the role of Sharia law tribunals as they backed measures aimed at toughening rules on sex discrimination and domestic violence.

Independent crossbencher Baroness Cox warned about the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously sanctioned gender discrimination in this country”.

And she hit out at a “rapidly developing quasi-legal system, which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all”.

Lady Cox said her move to tackle this in the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill was backed by many Muslims and could apply to discrimination by other faiths.

She denied being “anti-Muslim” insisting she wanted Muslim women to enjoy their full legal rights under British law.

But the first female Muslim peer, Baroness Uddin, said the bid to change the law would be seen, outside the House, as “another assault on Muslims”.

Lady Uddin said the way forward was for the Government to look at the issue in partnership with the affected communities and womens’ groups.

“No laws should supersede the laws of the land where citizens reside and coercion to religious law is unacceptable,” she said.

Lady Cox said problems often arose because many women believed Sharia courts were “real courts” and they did not have other rights under English law or were “pressured” not to seek those rights.

She said many such women lived in fear and dare not speak out about problems of domestic violence and gender discrimination.

Her Bill did not interfere with the theological affairs of religious groups and if people wanted to submit voluntarily to the rulings of any body they were free to do so.

But it would make it a criminal offence “falsely to claim legal jurisdiction” and make it easier to have discriminatory rulings overturned, as well as strengthening protections against domestic violence.

“I don’t believe we can continue with the present situation where so many women are suffering from gender discrimination in our country today, in ways that would make the suffragette movement turn in their graves.”

via Peers clash over Sharia law tribunals (From Asian Image).