Man arrested for self identifying as a converted muslim woman.

[AwfulButTrue]

I think this throws the door open for all kinds of questions about fairness.

Men have been banned from covering their faces at protests so one man identified as a muslim woman and wore a burka, he was arrested.

I've seen 2 media outlets so far with headlines reporting that 'a man' has been arrested.

If we break it down...

If a 'real' muslim woman attends a protest (a Pro Palestine one for example) would she be arrested?

Has he been arrested for wearing the burka or identifying as a woman falsly?

Why is he not believed when he says he is a woman?

After all, it is fluid day to day and just a feeling! And any man can decide to become a woman at any point?

And who says he cannot decide to convert to Islam??

And why is he being reported as 'a man in a burka' when transwomen are NEVER reported this way when they self identify, even after committing rape?!

We all know why he is doing this.

But he is simply playing the establishment at their own game.

Why have so many Palestine protests occoured with men covering their faces with Kaffirs and balaclavas but it only becomes a problem now?

Why is it a problem to self identify now?

Why is it not a problem for a muslim woman to cover her face in a bank or school or park but this 'muslim woman' cannot?

Of course its ridiculous

But the point is that ALL self identification and complete covering of the face in public is ridiculous

But its only this man be arresed and called out for seemingly both things?

Exactly this in the summer I saw many young Muslim men wearing shorts with their partners in full Islamic dress including face covering.

Its is of no consequence to me as a Kafir . But do not try and tell me is about modesty when the “rules” are only being applied to one set of humans.

Unless Muslim women are immune from summer sun horniness!!

I thought the same! Are those fake or real? 🤣

Common sense says no one should be allowed to carry a knife as a matter of course including Sikh people.

If people are not allowed to cover their face then that should include Muslim.people. All people or no people.

300 women are not inherently intimidating.

The balaclava has been adopted by criminals for years and is now a fashion amongst the roadman set. It's also becoming fashionable with the cycling delivery drivers. All of which are predominantly male. These are all a heavily male culture.

I suspect we'll follow France shortly around their laws on face coverings. This allows women to wear hijab to cover their hair if they wish, Sikh men and women to wear a turban as well, nuns to wear the wimple etc.

The law needs to be seperate from religion or beliefs. Everyone should be subject to the same laws and exceptions with no exceptions.

If he has been arrested for concealing his identity which I suspect is what has happened then this shpuld apply to all protests equally regardless of what the protest is supporting/ opposing.

I think it will be interesting to hear why religous and belief exceptions haven't been applied. I don't believe the bloke really identifies as a fluid muslim woman but how exactly have the police come to this conclusion officially? Does he need to have identified as a woman for a certain length of time? Does he need to attend a mosque regularly if so how regularly? Etc.

300 people coming towards you …. They may be women but youve got no clue if they are. They could be men, women, hiding guns and knives etc. I’d feel safer with 300 motorbike helmet wearing people coming towards me.

Agreed!

How do you know the people under the burkas are women?

"we can always tell (except all the times when we can't)"

So you can’t tell? Ok, then maybe burkas should be banned don’t you think? If we’re banning face coverings, they would also need to be banned right?

You have no way of knowing they are women in that situation.

I saw a video recently of a man being followed through a park because he had gone into some bushes and was changing into a burka.

To do what? In a childrens park.

Well they should. If sikh people can do it, then anyone should be allowed to.

We cannot have different rules for groups of people in our country based on religion.

Of course the real solution isn't everyone carrying a knife so sikhs can, it's not allowing anyone to carry a knife. No exceptions.

We have universal laws and they should be followed by everyone.

Religious exemptions need to end.

One law. For everyone here.

I’m not sure that’s true when it comes to political protests.

It's not ok at all to wear face coverings now during marches/protests. No matter what they're pro or against. Presumably that's why this fella was nicked. I guess also it could be considered inciting racial hatred/mocking of both women and Islam?

Noone gives a shit about mocking women. Woman face is a characture people pay to see.

But how could it be considered mocking women? If so, then every male who claims to be a woman is mocking women aren’t they?

It's outrageous hypocrisy of course. Boatloads of illegal immigrants cover their faces, great numbers of Muslim women cover their faces, other protestors ar other demonstrations do the same, but apparently all that is ok? Absolutely fucking disgraceful. Either everyone can do it or no-one can do it, for whatever reason. The religious excuse is bollocks too, as the Koran does not command women to do this, it's men who command it.

He’s described as a man because he isn’t insisting he’s a woman. He’s not a trans woman, he’s a man disguised in a woman’s outfit. So he’s a man, and he admits he’s a man. So obviously the media will describe him as such.

Not so - the law allows the police force covering the area of the protest to designate it as a prohibition for 24hrs at a time (can be extended to 48hrs).

The Met haven't bothered their arses to do this yet, however it did only go into effect on 29 June this year so it's only been available for about 9 or 10 weeks as an option they can implement.

So what is the difference between a man disguised in a women’s outfit and a TIM?

Ah ok thank you. I thought it was a law or something now.

That is interesting and I did not know that, thanks. I can think of a few men I’d be tempted to be unveiled and try to send to an eternity of torture.

I used to wear a balaclava to school in winter back in the 70s/80s.. my mum knitted it. Plenty of us wore them. They're to keep your face warm, and as a side-effect they conceal identity. Burkas are to stop men looking at women and getting lustful, as a side-effect they conceal identity. Scarfs, medical masks, halloween masks etc. all have purposes, and also conceal identity.

Inferring the intention behind wearing them to a protest is therefore going to be an issue. Perhaps a person has a cold, or a compromised immune system. Perhaps they are part of a misogynistic religion. Perhaps it's a chilly day, or perhaps it's to conceal their identity - I'd suggest that last is for the prosecution to prove though, beyond all reasonable doubt, and I think that could be difficult given all the above reasons for wearing a face covering are completely legitimate.

The difference in how they would be reported in the media is down to how they identify obviously. I think most people know that these days? So if he’s busted in a burka and says, but I’m a “woman” he’d probably be described as a trans woman in the media. Most media outlets cannot be arsed with the backlash from TRAs that a headline that read “man in burka” would generate, if he had specifically stated that he identifies as a woman

But this person did say he was a woman. And you said he was a man in disguise. How is one not valid and the other valid?