“Denmark to force 'ghetto' children to learn about democracy, Christmas”

[Speaker to Animals]

WTF I love Denmark now!

[Speaker to Animals]

Human rights group Amnesty International called the ban "a discriminatory violation of women's rights."

"All women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs," it said.

According to Amnesty International any nation that won’t let women freely walk through public butt-naked, save for a pair of earrings, has violated their human rights.

As I said, the left is blind to when it over-reaches and transparently co-opts phrases like “human rights violation” to mean “stuff we disagree with”. You guys can’t even tell when your condescending proclamations are easily disproved by the most cursory logical exercise, as I just demonstrated.
/shrug

Monty pontificating on human rights is fucking bizarre.

[Montegriffo]

According to Amnesty International any nation that won’t let women freely walk through public butt-naked, save for a pair of earrings, has violated their human rights.

You know that's not true.
It may be a clever argument but I bet you can't find an example of Amnesty International supporting a right for women to walk around in public naked.

Nothing on their website about a right to public nudity.

Meanwhile, not allowing women to wear a veil anywhere in public when not a security issue is not only a violation but counter productive if integration is your aim.
What next? Ban beards or long hair which covers the face?

Hopefully as they adapt to western culture they will abandon the veil of their own accord.

[DBTrek]

I didn’t say nude, I said butt-naked save for a pair or earrings. So your “defense” doesn’t address what I said at all.

If women want to walk around wearing nothing but earrings, Amnesty International has already declared they should be “free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs.”

Anything else is a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION, right?
Except that it’s clearly NOT right, and the left is stupid.

[Speaker to Animals]

But is the jewelry strategically-placed? I could sign off on this. Needs more fleshing out.

[BjornP]

I didn’t say nude, I said butt-naked save for a pair or earrings. So your “defense” doesn’t address what I said at all.

If women want to walk around wearing nothing but earrings, Amnesty International has already declared they should be “free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs.”

Anything else is a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION, right?
Except that it’s clearly NOT right, and the left is stupid.

Before you expand on that line of argumentation, it is actually legal to walk around wearing nothing but earrings in Denmark. Has nothing to do with Amnesty Int. or "leftists", though, and it's not considered a "human right", just a right. There's a law against "indecent exposure", but it's pretty much up to the disgression of the police to determine if a nude person is indecently exposing themselves or just being nude.

Anyway, while I'm generally a fan of that whole "make them as unwelcome as possible" strategy our government + the main opposition party's got going on regarding integration, I'm not a fan of this law. Fan of revoking their citizenship and forcefully deporting them for it, but not denying their right to treat themselves as their husbands' property and to refuse to greet members of the opposite sex. They should have that freedom... somewhere else.

[DBTrek]

Seems like you’re twisting yourself to to a mental pretzel to avoid simply admitting that I’m right. If a woman wearing only earrings can be arrested by police for “indecent exposure” then they can’t also be “free to dress as they please” - as some dress may result in arrest.

As for “I’m opposed to it being illegal here, I think these folks should simply be free to do it ELSEWHERE but deported for doing it here” - you may want to rethink that, because it’s contradictory.

[BjornP]

Seems like you’re twisting yourself to to a mental pretzel to avoid simply admitting that I’m right. If a woman wearing only earrings can be arrested by police for “indecent exposure” then they can’t also be “free to dress as they please” - as some dress may result in arrest.

As for “I’m opposed to it being illegal here, I think these folks should simply be free to do it ELSEWHERE but deported for doing it here” - you may want to rethink that, because it’s contradictory.

You're right about the criticism of Amnesty Int. Comment wasn't aimed at that. A woman wearing nothing at all in Denmark can't be arrested at the beach - not just "nude beach", just beaches in general - for simply wearing nothing at all. Anywhere else, it's - again - not illegal to be nude in public. She can be arrested for public disturbance, and depending on what she does while nude (something sexual, for example) she may arrested for that. Lots of Danish laws are vague by design, though, so some citizen may feel that someone's nudity by themselves is indecent and police will have to investigate. They are free to dismiss the complaint, though.

Feel free to look up Danish laws and correct me if I'm wrong, though.

That said, we aren't Germany. Nudity and partial nudity on the beach is still fairly common, but everywhere else it's considered weird.

As for deportations and contradictions... huh? Maybe. Sure. Not a contradiction I have a problem with, then, I guess.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you have naked women everywhere, then I am immigrating.

[DBTrek]

If you have naked women everywhere, then I am immigrating.

Even after Monte and Amnesty International warned you of the profound “human rights violations” occurring there?
Tsk, tsk, tsk.