Masked Intentions
As of June 19, it is now illegal to wear a mask while attending an unlawful assembly. The penalty for doing so can be up to 10 years in prison. Needless to say, this is highly controversial.
The controversy is mainly due to the fact that this is a law that deals with and restricts civil liberties, while at the same time involves protests and activism. Furthermore, the Bill C-309 is a pile of excessive buffoonery that will serve no useful purpose except create a hassle and increase already-great police powers.
In the first place, there is already an existing law, against “Disguise with intent” while committing a criminal act. The more astute readers will have no doubt observed that it is unlawful to attend unlawful assemblies. Thus, there are plenty of laws just waiting to prosecute ill-intentioned rioters. The only possible purpose Bill C-309 serves is to increase the punishment that can be dealt to such people, few of whom do much damage. Very few indeed commit crimes that in the ordinary course of things would lead to ten years of imprisonment!
If this law is to be strictly enforced, it will lead to many perfectly harmless people being imprisoned, costing taxpayers money and wasting police resources. If it is not to be strictly enforced, what on earth is the point? There is, however, one further option: it could be used specifically against protest leaders and other individuals whom the police consider to be an unusual threat, while in the meantime less high-profile activists will be tacitly ignored. This is in fact plain discrimination, and the worst option of the three in terms of civil rights.
Meanwhile, there are other cans of worms that this bill might open: that of religious head coverings. While the bill does specify that those with a “lawful excuse” may continue to cover their faces, how long before such an issue arises? Perhaps bigoted police officers will cause trouble when confronting people who wear such coverings. Perhaps non-religious protesters will use such provisions as a flimsy excuse while committing crimes, causing legal hassle and baseless accusations of discrimination against honest police officers. The law could easily cause trouble for everyone.
What is more, how will this law actually be applied? Perhaps Anonymous masks stand in clear violation, but what about face paint? If face paints are overly blatant, what about heavy make-up? Many members of subcultures, such as goths and punks, wear a good deal of make-up every day: perhaps not coincidentally, these types are commonly seen at protests. Suppose the police were grasping for excuses, say, sunglasses make people difficult to recognise. Would sunglasses now be illegal to wear at protests? Suppose protesters took to growing a beard or moustache before protests, and shaving them off afterwards? Or vice versa? These situations could be considered as instances of identity concealment, and under the new law, could be prosecuted.
What many people do not realize is that a peaceful protest becomes an “unlawful assembly” the moment the police say it is. The potential here for abuse of police power is astronomical. Imagine a protest against police corruption, or some police brutality scandal. With such a harsh punishment available for people who commit the crime of concealing their face, which in itself is completely harmless, think how easily police with something to hide could silence those speaking against them.
In fact, the police admit that this law is intended to make it easier to break up “potential” riots, and to pre-emptively arrest suspicious characters. This overly vague nonsense merely emphasises the fact that this is a law explicitly designed to arrest those who have done nothing.
Bill C-309 is a pointless restriction on civil liberties and a dangerous weapon in the hands of an unscrupulous policeman or politician. It does not serve to protect the public from danger, and it expands police power to an alarming extent. There is no reasonable justification for its existence.
Leave a Reply