Muslim Woman Miscarries After Encounter With Islamophobes

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hmmmm... they're gettin' to the point where they (the French) really friggin hate Muslims...

Perhaps because they've got so damned many of them nowadays... but, still...

Skinheads attack Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, black, white, whatever the Hate du Jour is all about.

Lawless punks who decided to take the law into their own hands. And it ended badly. As it oftentimes does.

Bad luck and a tragedy for the parents of that unborn child.

Another casualty of the 'Market Correction' now underway in Europe, after letting MultiCulturalism (the wearing of such secretive garb, among other things) go too far in allowing a Newcomer Group to ghetto-ize itself and to metaphorically fort-up against their host nation.

Oh, and I don't think the Skinheads were Islamophobes... they aren't afraid of Muslims... I think they were simply Islamo-Haters.

Good point on the semantics. If we need to make distinctions we'll need another word... misislamist? Broadly, I would submit, hatred is based on ignorance, which is the blank slate to which the imagination inscribes fear, which then manifests in the aggressive as hatred.

France does have a lot of Muslims but that's nothing new; when I lived there in the '70s I worked, traveled and sometimes lived within a vast subculture of Algerians, Tunisians, Moroccans, etc. (French citizens by virture of former French colonies) as well as many Egyptians and Sudanese. They were the underclass, no question, but there was nothing on this scale going on, so what's new is the popular sentiment, not the population.

That is, to the extent we get an accurate view of what the popular sentiment is from the media.

Correct.

The animus many conservatives exhibit toward Muslims is indeed predicated on ignorance and fear.

We see evidence of this fact on this very forum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

>> A young pregnant Muslim woman, who was allegedly attacked in the street for wearing a veil has lost her baby, her lawyer announced on Monday.

According to reports in the French media, the woman, who was four months pregnant, was assaulted in the Paris suburb of Argenteuil on June 13th.
On Monday, the 21-year-old’s lawyer Hosni Maati told AFP that the woman had since suffered a miscarriage.

... A contentious law banning the wearing in public of the full Muslim face veil, the niqab, was introduced in France in 2010. It did not however forbid the wearing of the hijab headscarf.

The alleged assault on the woman came just three weeks after another veiled Muslim woman in Argenteuil was targeted in a similar manner.
And last week, Muslims in the neighbourhood clashed with police after officers attempted to arrest a woman in the street who was wearing the full Islamic veil in public. <<

(The Local}


{edit: the site tells me I have to include some commentary here in the OP or it may get deleted. I don't believe OPs reporting a news story should take a stand on that story, so I'll just comment that "assault is bad". Discuss.)

You don't believe that you should be able to have an opinion on a news story? Tell me something, genius, if you had no opinion about the news story why did you use the word Islamaphobes in your thread title? Does the fact that you actually commented on the story, and then tried to pretend you didn't, make you better than people who actually have opinions about the story?

 

[Pogo]

>> A young pregnant Muslim woman, who was allegedly attacked in the street for wearing a veil has lost her baby, her lawyer announced on Monday.

According to reports in the French media, the woman, who was four months pregnant, was assaulted in the Paris suburb of Argenteuil on June 13th.
On Monday, the 21-year-old&#8217;s lawyer Hosni Maati told AFP that the woman had since suffered a miscarriage.

... A contentious law banning the wearing in public of the full Muslim face veil, the niqab, was introduced in France in 2010. It did not however forbid the wearing of the hijab headscarf.

The alleged assault on the woman came just three weeks after another veiled Muslim woman in Argenteuil was targeted in a similar manner.
And last week, Muslims in the neighbourhood clashed with police after officers attempted to arrest a woman in the street who was wearing the full Islamic veil in public. <<

(The Local}


{edit: the site tells me I have to include some commentary here in the OP or it may get deleted. I don't believe OPs reporting a news story should take a stand on that story, so I'll just comment that "assault is bad". Discuss.)

You don't believe that you should be able to have an opinion on a news story? Tell me something, genius, if you had no opinion about the news story why did you use the word Islamaphobes in your thread title? Does the fact that you actually commented on the story, and then tried to pretend you didn't, make you better than people who actually have opinions about the story?

I copied the title from the first link on the story I had (not this one). I like to see multiple sources and I thought this one more descriptive.

I didn't say I shouldn't have an opinion; I said the OP shouldn't. Thanks for noticing that comment. I think a story should be presented as an open question for debate. Otherwise you slant the debate before it starts -- if there is a debate. This is "current events" and I took that section title literally. To be required to take a slant on a story that may not even need one, seems kind of strange, but them's the rules.

Not sure what's with the inferiority complex about who has what opinions is all about; I just feel that's the fair way to present a news story. In this case I didn't think there was enough info to take a stand anyway -- what am I gonna say, "assault is good"?

Suppose the current event being reported is someone's death... what kind of slant do I have to take there? "I disagree with this person dying?" Makes no sense.

 

[Decus]

France isn't "importing" anybody. Muslims have been there in significant numbers for a hundred years.

Wrong. The growth of the Muslim population with France accelerated dramatically post 1950s.

Uh, that isn't a contradiction. I said "significant numbers"; you said "accelerated". Those are not opposites (duh).

I guess the Grande Mosquée de Paris was built (in 1922) as a way of planning for the future by prescient planners then. Even though annual immigration of Algerians was hitting 100,000 by '24.

France was a significant colonizer in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, which accounts for a lot of it but it's been a magnet for a great many nationalities, and therefore religions, for a long long time.

How does that former colonialism justify the importation of an largely incompatible ethnic group that is destroying the country both economically and culturally? Is this some sort of revenge via immigration or reverse colonialism? If France accepts national suicide via immigration, that's their business. It's quite another thing though for someone like yourself to deny what's actually happening.

Where do you get this cockamamie "importation" idea? More crapola from armchair wags who have never been within sniffing distance, I ween. The citizens of the former colonies have the right to be there by virtue of their being Algerian, etc. It's part of the French equivalent of the British Commonwealth. Nobody's "importing" anybody.

Look, I get the idea; the revisionist historians in this thread are going to take the position of "oh, the Muslims just showed up a couple of years ago and there goes the neighborhood" but that's bullshit. As already noted when I lived there in the '70s it was already an extensive population and it wasn't near new then. France was in Algeria in 1830. These roots are nearly two hundred years old.

Arab immigration to France increased significantly after DeGaulle decided to end the conflict in Algeria and make way for independence. Harki and others that had been sympathetic to the French feared reprisals, or were unwilling to face the uncertainty of a new government.

As greater levels of social assistance were provided by the French government in the 60s and 70s, new waves of immigrants from North Africa were spurred more by economic incentives than shared ideological concerns.

It would be silly to say that Arabs made up a significant portion of the population prior to the 1950s:

"After World War II, the French fertility rate rebounded considerably, as noted above, but economic growth in France was so high that new immigrants had to be brought into the country. This time the majority of immigrants were Portuguese as well as Arabs and Berbers from North Africa. The first wave arrived in the 1950s, but the major arrivals happened in the 1960s and 1970s. More than one million people from the Maghreb immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from North Africa, especially Algeria (following the end of French rule there)"

Demographics of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Decus]

According to Le Parisian, who along with AFP seem to be following this story, the victim's deposition did not mention her attackers making any anti-islamic statements nor were any statements made regarding her attire. She thought that her attackers were trying to steal her telephone. It was her family that claimed the attack had been carried out by skinheads. She made no such claim.

Argenteuil : la femme voilée agressée a porté plainte - 14/06/2013 - leParisien.fr

There is no mention of any anti-Islamic motivation in the womans deposition. SHE THOUGHT THEY WERE TRYING TO STEAL HER PHONE! Her family (who wasn't even there at the time) claimed that skinheads were involved.

 

[krych3k]

According to Le Parisian, who along with AFP seem to be following this story, the victim's deposition did not mention her attackers making any anti-islamic statements nor were any statements made regarding her attire. She thought that her attackers were trying to steal her telephone. It was her family that claimed the attack had been carried out by skinheads. She made no such claim.

Argenteuil : la femme voilée agressée a porté plainte - 14/06/2013 - leParisien.fr

There is no mention of any anti-Islamic motivation in the womans deposition. SHE THOUGHT THEY WERE TRYING TO STEAL HER PHONE! Her family (who wasn't even there at the time) claimed that skinheads were involved.

Doesn't look like that's stopping her from trying to cash in on what happened to her by leveraging a professional grievance peddler and chasing after non-existent "Islamophobic" phantoms. Sort of like how Trayvon Martin's despicable parents are profiteering off of the death of their thug son.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong. The growth of the Muslim population with France accelerated dramatically post 1950s.

Uh, that isn't a contradiction. I said "significant numbers"; you said "accelerated". Those are not opposites (duh).

I guess the Grande Mosquée de Paris was built (in 1922) as a way of planning for the future by prescient planners then. Even though annual immigration of Algerians was hitting 100,000 by '24.

How does that former colonialism justify the importation of an largely incompatible ethnic group that is destroying the country both economically and culturally? Is this some sort of revenge via immigration or reverse colonialism? If France accepts national suicide via immigration, that's their business. It's quite another thing though for someone like yourself to deny what's actually happening.

Where do you get this cockamamie "importation" idea? More crapola from armchair wags who have never been within sniffing distance, I ween. The citizens of the former colonies have the right to be there by virtue of their being Algerian, etc. It's part of the French equivalent of the British Commonwealth. Nobody's "importing" anybody.

Look, I get the idea; the revisionist historians in this thread are going to take the position of "oh, the Muslims just showed up a couple of years ago and there goes the neighborhood" but that's bullshit. As already noted when I lived there in the '70s it was already an extensive population and it wasn't near new then. France was in Algeria in 1830. These roots are nearly two hundred years old.

Arab immigration to France increased significantly after DeGaulle decided to end the conflict in Algeria and make way for independence. Harki and others that had been sympathetic to the French feared reprisals, or were unwilling to face the uncertainty of a new government.

As greater levels of social assistance were provided by the French government in the 60s and 70s, new waves of immigrants from North Africa were spurred more by economic incentives than shared ideological concerns.

It would be silly to say that Arabs made up a significant portion of the population prior to the 1950s:

"After World War II, the French fertility rate rebounded considerably, as noted above, but economic growth in France was so high that new immigrants had to be brought into the country. This time the majority of immigrants were Portuguese as well as Arabs and Berbers from North Africa. The first wave arrived in the 1950s, but the major arrivals happened in the 1960s and 1970s. More than one million people from the Maghreb immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from North Africa, especially Algeria (following the end of French rule there)"

Demographics of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, that's altering my post. I said that they were there "in significant numbers". I made no mention of a population proportion.
Don't put words in my mouth; deal with the ones that actually exist.

 

[Hyrcanus]

The attackers should be charged with murder.

 

[Pogo]

According to Le Parisian, who along with AFP seem to be following this story, the victim's deposition did not mention her attackers making any anti-islamic statements nor were any statements made regarding her attire. She thought that her attackers were trying to steal her telephone. It was her family that claimed the attack had been carried out by skinheads. She made no such claim.

Argenteuil : la femme voilée agressée a porté plainte - 14/06/2013 - leParisien.fr

There is no mention of any anti-Islamic motivation in the womans deposition. SHE THOUGHT THEY WERE TRYING TO STEAL HER PHONE! Her family (who wasn't even there at the time) claimed that skinheads were involved.

Do you read French? The pertinent part reads,
"Au départ, elle a pensé qu'ils voulaient lui voler son téléphone"

"Au depárt" means "at first", as in 'in the beginning".

The article notes they ripped her veil, and that her friends did indeed describe men with shaved heads (au crâne rasé). Her family (famille) is not even mentioned in the article.

Immediately under the article by the way is a note on a demonstration by several hundred people in protest of several attacks of Islamophobia in Argentuil including one from May 20, the story of which is linked in the sidebar.

 

[krych3k]

Uh, that isn't a contradiction. I said "significant numbers"; you said "accelerated". Those are not opposites (duh).

I guess the Grande Mosquée de Paris was built (in 1922) as a way of planning for the future by prescient planners then. Even though annual immigration of Algerians was hitting 100,000 by '24.



Where do you get this cockamamie "importation" idea? More crapola from armchair wags who have never been within sniffing distance, I ween. The citizens of the former colonies have the right to be there by virtue of their being Algerian, etc. It's part of the French equivalent of the British Commonwealth. Nobody's "importing" anybody.

Look, I get the idea; the revisionist historians in this thread are going to take the position of "oh, the Muslims just showed up a couple of years ago and there goes the neighborhood" but that's bullshit. As already noted when I lived there in the '70s it was already an extensive population and it wasn't near new then. France was in Algeria in 1830. These roots are nearly two hundred years old.

Arab immigration to France increased significantly after DeGaulle decided to end the conflict in Algeria and make way for independence. Harki and others that had been sympathetic to the French feared reprisals, or were unwilling to face the uncertainty of a new government.

As greater levels of social assistance were provided by the French government in the 60s and 70s, new waves of immigrants from North Africa were spurred more by economic incentives than shared ideological concerns.

It would be silly to say that Arabs made up a significant portion of the population prior to the 1950s:

"After World War II, the French fertility rate rebounded considerably, as noted above, but economic growth in France was so high that new immigrants had to be brought into the country. This time the majority of immigrants were Portuguese as well as Arabs and Berbers from North Africa. The first wave arrived in the 1950s, but the major arrivals happened in the 1960s and 1970s. More than one million people from the Maghreb immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from North Africa, especially Algeria (following the end of French rule there)"

Demographics of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, that's altering my post. I said that they were there "in significant numbers". I made no mention of a population proportion.
Don't put words in my mouth; deal with the ones that actually exist.

Oh please, the implication was obvious. Spare us your pathetic attempt at apologism for contemporary "multiculturalism" policies as delayed justice for the oppressed Mohamedans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

>> A young pregnant Muslim woman, who was allegedly attacked in the street for wearing a veil has lost her baby, her lawyer announced on Monday.

According to reports in the French media, the woman, who was four months pregnant, was assaulted in the Paris suburb of Argenteuil on June 13th.
On Monday, the 21-year-old’s lawyer Hosni Maati told AFP that the woman had since suffered a miscarriage.

... A contentious law banning the wearing in public of the full Muslim face veil, the niqab, was introduced in France in 2010. It did not however forbid the wearing of the hijab headscarf.

The alleged assault on the woman came just three weeks after another veiled Muslim woman in Argenteuil was targeted in a similar manner.
And last week, Muslims in the neighbourhood clashed with police after officers attempted to arrest a woman in the street who was wearing the full Islamic veil in public. <<

(The Local}


{edit: the site tells me I have to include some commentary here in the OP or it may get deleted. I don't believe OPs reporting a news story should take a stand on that story, so I'll just comment that "assault is bad". Discuss.)

You don't believe that you should be able to have an opinion on a news story? Tell me something, genius, if you had no opinion about the news story why did you use the word Islamaphobes in your thread title? Does the fact that you actually commented on the story, and then tried to pretend you didn't, make you better than people who actually have opinions about the story?

I copied the title from the first link on the story I had (not this one). I like to see multiple sources and I thought this one more descriptive.

I didn't say I shouldn't have an opinion; I said the OP shouldn't. Thanks for noticing that comment. I think a story should be presented as an open question for debate. Otherwise you slant the debate before it starts -- if there is a debate. This is "current events" and I took that section title literally. To be required to take a slant on a story that may not even need one, seems kind of strange, but them's the rules.

Not sure what's with the inferiority complex about who has what opinions is all about; I just feel that's the fair way to present a news story. In this case I didn't think there was enough info to take a stand anyway -- what am I gonna say, "assault is good"?

Suppose the current event being reported is someone's death... what kind of slant do I have to take there? "I disagree with this person dying?" Makes no sense.

The OP had an opinion in the title of the thread, then you wanted to pretend you didn't.

If you don't like the rules, stop posting.

 

[Pogo]

Arab immigration to France increased significantly after DeGaulle decided to end the conflict in Algeria and make way for independence. Harki and others that had been sympathetic to the French feared reprisals, or were unwilling to face the uncertainty of a new government.

As greater levels of social assistance were provided by the French government in the 60s and 70s, new waves of immigrants from North Africa were spurred more by economic incentives than shared ideological concerns.

It would be silly to say that Arabs made up a significant portion of the population prior to the 1950s:

"After World War II, the French fertility rate rebounded considerably, as noted above, but economic growth in France was so high that new immigrants had to be brought into the country. This time the majority of immigrants were Portuguese as well as Arabs and Berbers from North Africa. The first wave arrived in the 1950s, but the major arrivals happened in the 1960s and 1970s. More than one million people from the Maghreb immigrated in the 1960s and early 1970s from North Africa, especially Algeria (following the end of French rule there)"

Demographics of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, that's altering my post. I said that they were there "in significant numbers". I made no mention of a population proportion.
Don't put words in my mouth; deal with the ones that actually exist.

Oh please, the implication was obvious. Spare us your pathetic attempt at apologism for contemporary "multiculturalism" policies as delayed justice for the oppressed Mohamedans.

I see, so you prefer to live on fiction when the facts don't fit the agenda.

Dishonest hack.

 

[Pogo]

You don't believe that you should be able to have an opinion on a news story? Tell me something, genius, if you had no opinion about the news story why did you use the word Islamaphobes in your thread title? Does the fact that you actually commented on the story, and then tried to pretend you didn't, make you better than people who actually have opinions about the story?

I copied the title from the first link on the story I had (not this one). I like to see multiple sources and I thought this one more descriptive.

I didn't say I shouldn't have an opinion; I said the OP shouldn't. Thanks for noticing that comment. I think a story should be presented as an open question for debate. Otherwise you slant the debate before it starts -- if there is a debate. This is "current events" and I took that section title literally. To be required to take a slant on a story that may not even need one, seems kind of strange, but them's the rules.

Not sure what's with the inferiority complex about who has what opinions is all about; I just feel that's the fair way to present a news story. In this case I didn't think there was enough info to take a stand anyway -- what am I gonna say, "assault is good"?

Suppose the current event being reported is someone's death... what kind of slant do I have to take there? "I disagree with this person dying?" Makes no sense.

The OP had an opinion in the title of the thread, then you wanted to pretend you didn't.

If you don't like the rules, stop posting.

Bite me. Some of your ilk would love to shut me up so you can have a monologue, wouldn't ya.
Dream on, Homer.

 

[krych3k]

You don't believe that you should be able to have an opinion on a news story? Tell me something, genius, if you had no opinion about the news story why did you use the word Islamaphobes in your thread title? Does the fact that you actually commented on the story, and then tried to pretend you didn't, make you better than people who actually have opinions about the story?

I copied the title from the first link on the story I had (not this one). I like to see multiple sources and I thought this one more descriptive.

I didn't say I shouldn't have an opinion; I said the OP shouldn't. Thanks for noticing that comment. I think a story should be presented as an open question for debate. Otherwise you slant the debate before it starts -- if there is a debate. This is "current events" and I took that section title literally. To be required to take a slant on a story that may not even need one, seems kind of strange, but them's the rules.

Not sure what's with the inferiority complex about who has what opinions is all about; I just feel that's the fair way to present a news story. In this case I didn't think there was enough info to take a stand anyway -- what am I gonna say, "assault is good"?

Suppose the current event being reported is someone's death... what kind of slant do I have to take there? "I disagree with this person dying?" Makes no sense.

The OP had an opinion in the title of the thread, then you wanted to pretend you didn't.

If you don't like the rules, stop posting.

That's exactly it. Pogo wants to present this facade that he is providing objective facts ("significant numbers of Muslim in France pre-1950") rather than opinionated drivel to advance his leftist agenda. Ridiculous.

 

[krych3k]

I copied the title from the first link on the story I had (not this one). I like to see multiple sources and I thought this one more descriptive.

I didn't say I shouldn't have an opinion; I said the OP shouldn't. Thanks for noticing that comment. I think a story should be presented as an open question for debate. Otherwise you slant the debate before it starts -- if there is a debate. This is "current events" and I took that section title literally. To be required to take a slant on a story that may not even need one, seems kind of strange, but them's the rules.

Not sure what's with the inferiority complex about who has what opinions is all about; I just feel that's the fair way to present a news story. In this case I didn't think there was enough info to take a stand anyway -- what am I gonna say, "assault is good"?

Suppose the current event being reported is someone's death... what kind of slant do I have to take there? "I disagree with this person dying?" Makes no sense.

The OP had an opinion in the title of the thread, then you wanted to pretend you didn't.

If you don't like the rules, stop posting.

Bite me. Some of your ilk would love to shut me up so you can have a monologue, wouldn't ya.
Dream on, Homer.

Actually, I think your posts provide the valuable service of exposing the left for what it is. So for that, thank you.

 

[Decus]

According to Le Parisian, who along with AFP seem to be following this story, the victim's deposition did not mention her attackers making any anti-islamic statements nor were any statements made regarding her attire. She thought that her attackers were trying to steal her telephone. It was her family that claimed the attack had been carried out by skinheads. She made no such claim.

Argenteuil : la femme voilée agressée a porté plainte - 14/06/2013 - leParisien.fr

There is no mention of any anti-Islamic motivation in the womans deposition. SHE THOUGHT THEY WERE TRYING TO STEAL HER PHONE! Her family (who wasn't even there at the time) claimed that skinheads were involved.

Do you read French? The pertinent part reads,
"Au départ, elle a pensé qu'ils voulaient lui voler son téléphone"

"Au depárt" means "at first", as in 'in the beginning".

The article notes they ripped her veil, and that her friends did indeed describe men with shaved heads (au crâne rasé). Her family (famille) is not even mentioned in the article.

Do you understand the significance of a deposition? The crime for lying during an official deposition is called perjury. She would have clearly stated if there had been any racial insults or if her agressors displayed any signs of being racists. And "entourage" in the case of a veiled Muslim woman is rarely anyone other than the immediate family.

 

[Pogo]

There is no mention of any anti-Islamic motivation in the womans deposition. SHE THOUGHT THEY WERE TRYING TO STEAL HER PHONE! Her family (who wasn't even there at the time) claimed that skinheads were involved.

Do you read French? The pertinent part reads,
"Au départ, elle a pensé qu'ils voulaient lui voler son téléphone"

"Au depárt" means "at first", as in 'in the beginning".

The article notes they ripped her veil, and that her friends did indeed describe men with shaved heads (au crâne rasé). Her family (famille) is not even mentioned in the article.

Do you understand the significance of a deposition? The crime for lying during an official deposition is called perjury. She would have clearly stated if there had been any racial insults or if her agressors displayed any signs of being racists. And "entourage" in the case of a veiled Muslim woman is rarely anyone other than the immediate family.

I take it you don't read French then. The French word for "family" is "famille". See that anywhere in the article? Me neither.

I don't know where you're coming from with this perjury angle. Nobody mentioned perjury. I don't remember anyone mentioning racism either (in this case). But you did say something about "her family who wasn't even there" -- and that is just not part of the article. You also said "she thought they were trying to steal her phone" and left out the critical phrase "at first".

Nice try at shifting the subject.

 

[Decus]

Do you read French? The pertinent part reads,
"Au départ, elle a pensé qu'ils voulaient lui voler son téléphone"

"Au depárt" means "at first", as in 'in the beginning".

The article notes they ripped her veil, and that her friends did indeed describe men with shaved heads (au crâne rasé). Her family (famille) is not even mentioned in the article.

Do you understand the significance of a deposition? The crime for lying during an official deposition is called perjury. She would have clearly stated if there had been any racial insults or if her agressors displayed any signs of being racists. And "entourage" in the case of a veiled Muslim woman is rarely anyone other than the immediate family.

I take it you don't read French then. The French word for "family" is "famille". See that anywhere in the article? Me neither.

I don't know where you're coming from with this perjury angle. Nobody mentioned perjury. I don't remember anyone mentioning racism either (in this case). But you did say something about "her family who wasn't even there" -- and that is just not part of the article. You also said "she thought they were trying to steal her phone" and left out the critical phrase "at first".

Nice try at shifting the subject.

Deposition - her official statement of what transpired during the attack - no racists. Let me repeat that for you - she does not speak of a racially or religiously motivated attack in her deposition.

Proches, entourage, famille can all be used to denote family members depending on the context. Live in France for awhile and you pick up these things. You might want to stay away from the group tours the next time you visit.

 

[Pogo]

Do you understand the significance of a deposition? The crime for lying during an official deposition is called perjury. She would have clearly stated if there had been any racial insults or if her agressors displayed any signs of being racists. And "entourage" in the case of a veiled Muslim woman is rarely anyone other than the immediate family.

I take it you don't read French then. The French word for "family" is "famille". See that anywhere in the article? Me neither.

I don't know where you're coming from with this perjury angle. Nobody mentioned perjury. I don't remember anyone mentioning racism either (in this case). But you did say something about "her family who wasn't even there" -- and that is just not part of the article. You also said "she thought they were trying to steal her phone" and left out the critical phrase "at first".

Nice try at shifting the subject.

Deposition - her official statement of what transpired during the attack - no racists. Let me repeat that for you - she does not speak of a racially or religiously motivated attack in her deposition.

Proches, entourage, famille can all be used to denote family members depending on the context. Live in France for awhile and you pick up these things. You might want to stay away from the group tours the next time you visit.

"Group tours". Please. I'm the last guy in the world that would ever do that. I went on a one-way ticket for whatever time span the adventure might bring, and traveled and lived completely on my own.

"Group tours". Poster please.

Suffice to say that you're reading things in that aren't there, and leaving out stuff that is.