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?

Watch the interview. He said he was gender fluid to the police. So by their own standards nobody should be referring to him as a man as he self ID'd as GF.

IANAL but two legal issues. One. The minutae

"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they wore or otherwise used the item for—

(a)a purpose relating to the health of the person or others,

(b)the purposes of religious observance, or

(c)a purpose relating to the person’s work."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/20/section/157

Two. Constitutionally the police is supposed to be operationally independent of the Home Office. The Home Office is not supposed to be directly or trying to direct how they act in particular circumstances. Police have a vast number of discretionary powers. Rhr Home Office said that they should be "using all powers necessary". Then they put this ban in.

Personally I think they'd be on stronger grounds to wear medical masks as it's easier to say they don't want to catch anything in a crowded place.

Given the risk and doxxing of TERFs we need to be opposing this.

We don’t accept self ID in lots of circumstances. There are many self IDing sex offenders who will remain in men’s prisons. There were some shocking but thankfully rare examples of self IDing men who were transferred.

I can’t self ID into a prostate exam, can I?

No more wheelchair ramps or sounds on pedestrian crossings, no more assistance dogs only… All people or no people eh?

Why people with disabilities always whipped out as some kind of gotcha?

Voluntary face covering is not interchangeable with disability.

The existence of wheelchair ramps, sounds on pedestrian crossings or assistance dogs don't generally prevent anyone else from safely, peacefully using the same spaces.

Horrible attempt at equivalence.

edited

Instead of judging the people trying to highlight the issue, it’s the biggest scam going, 1000’s of young men who can afford £2000 in their countries for the crossing for a jolly, to be out up in a hotel, food, spending money, not running from a war torn country.
There is 1000’s more on the way.
Why not take your classism and use your position as an educated citizen to help them, lobbying political parties, right wing parties are being elected all the time because people prefer to sneer at the divide and wc, they refuse to speak out for fear of being associated with the thugs.
I bet there’ll be more than a handful of middle class people who secretly vote for reform rather than speak up for the country.

What on earth does that mean? Anyone can use a ramp that needs it, the sounds the same - it's not a problem if I hear them, or if I feel the knobs on the path guiding me to the crossing button.

How is an assistance dog so that someone can participate in normal life in anyway comparable to allowing some people to carry knives?

Actually painful how dense most folks on here are.

99% likely have zero clue about what they're talking about and just want to be "morally better" than everyone else rather than forming an actual opinion.

Noone will win in this situation, war is coming, and we will see exactly where people's morals truly lie when your life isn't so comfortable anymore.

He’s since been charged: https://www.gbnews.com/news/portsmouth-news-man-charged-wearing-burqa-anti-migrant-demonstration

Apologies for being so dense but the visionary 1% like Musk have been promising (civil) war in the UK for nearly as many years as he has promised driverless cars; I'm still waiting for the enlightenment of either coming true, one with great disappointment...

Well clearly you can have different rules for different people because their already is . And that’s not going to change , regardless of your own personal opinion.

But that is not the law and your personal opinion is not going to change that. People have religious rights .

We've got driverless taxis in London, although they're not yet completely autonomous, so maybe all the protests and counter protests are not yet a war, but like taxis they're on their way to it.

We have different rules to accommodate different people’s needs. You can disagree with religious exemption on knives, sure, but to pretend that religion is the only reason exemption is just silly.

I think the difference that irks people is objective vs subjective. Being blind is objective. Having a religious view is subjective.

In general, people are very accommodating when it comes to obvious, objective challenges that others are dealing with. They are much less likely to be sympathetic to other people’s subjective desires.

There us accommodation fir different religious beliefs, but I think it is qualified sympathy that can only be pushed so far.

No gotcha, just when people say ‘treat everyone the same’ it seems like they’ve never needed adaptation or consideration and therefore think no-one else does. Disability is an obvious example of where most people do agree with different treatment according to need.

Anyone looked into this guys background online? I’d love to know whether he’s a salt of the earth type or it transpires he’s been in and out of jail.

Courts have previously not required men to prove their claim.

Over the last number of years, I've seen multiple newspaper reports (UK, Ireland, Canada, USA) of men who commit sexual assaults and/or are in possession of child sexual abuse material turning up at their court hearing and claiming to be trans. Some of these cases are detailed/discussed on MN threads as women have been shocked at the behaviour of both the men and the courts system.

These men have often successfully avoided prison, as well as getting reduced sentences, owing to their claims to be trans - it seems to evoke sympathy in quite a few judges and is often accepted as mitigation for their sexual crimes. The court reports from these cases show that judges do not ask the men to prove their trans identity claim in any way, their self-declaration is fully accepted.

So, if courts are happy to accept the word of sexual predators, I can't see why they would require corroborating evidence from this man. And if I was this man's barrister I would be heavily emphasising that fact with reference to previous 'sudden onset trans' cases.

Having a religious exemption to allow someone to cover their face at a protest is (a) silly and (b) wrong.

What you are effectively doing is giving Muslims a specific right to cover their faces at protests that you would not grant to everyone else.

And, in any case, covering the face is not a mainstream religious requirement for Muslim women. There is no broad Islamic requirement for women to wear the niqab.

So despite not being a requirement, we are still allowing them to do so if they wish at a protest.

As far as I can tell he’s a long time political activist, can’t see any criminal history but probably someone you’d hope not to lie next door to! https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11685662.ukip-supporter-hangs-huge-union-flag-outside-home-in-hedge-end-with-message-to-santa/

😂😂😂

Disabilities are based in reality. They are not based on a belief system that is purely personal, open to interpretation and based on teachings from thousands of years ago when disabled people were left to die in the streets

You go to a Dr and you get diagnosed. You ARE disabled and there should be protections based on the fact you are unable to do things an able bodied person might be able to.

It is in no way, comparable to religion, which is optional and based in nothing more than faith.

It is OFFENSIVE to suggest disabled people, like myself, could some how opt out of our conditions like people can opt of out of religion.

Religion is a choice. Disability is not.

Or that allowing someone to carry a knife in the name of religion is that same as installing a ramp for someone who is paralysed.

The inference is sickening and I am SICK of disabled people being roled alout as metaphorical scapegoats for all kinds of issues! (No transwomen shouldnt use our toilets! - for example)

I remember being struck by this on a day out with DC at Legoland.
Very hot day, guy sauntering along in shorts and teeshirt, wife in full garb (don’t know or care what the terminology is -
all in heavy looking shaplesss black /only small opening for the eyes) 😡