There is one thing I can take away with certainty from the G20 protests—face coverings should be banned. Burqas, niqabs, balaclavas, bandannas and other face coverings should be outlawed in public. Thank you, Black Bloc protesters, for crystallizing something for me that had previously been anything but clear.
I have been conflicted about the banning of the burqa and niqab, though I have never liked what those pieces of fabric imply. I have always laughed at attempts to mitigate those implications—naïve comments about how women should have the “choice” to cover themselves up in such a manner, as though that “choice” were not somehow mandatory. I cringe when feminists defend the burqa and niqab, as though wearing either were a noble anti-Western gesture or rebellion against “the Man”.
Still, the idea of the state telling people what they can wear when they are walking down the street always bothered me. It seems to me valid that a business or a school or courtroom can make such restrictions if they see fit—just as I, in my own home, can enforce a dress code of my own making. But in public space, I used to believe, one ought to be free to wear anything, including something deeply offensive like a Klan outfit or something eccentric like a Santa Claus suit in July.
But Santa shows his face, so he can stay. Not so, the Black Bloc. While thousands (perhaps more) of pictures of them were taken, they cannot be identified.
Several U.S. states and municipalities have decades-old bans on wearing face masks in public—measures aimed at reducing the anonymity of hate groups such as the KKK.
Italy banned face coverings in the 1970s, during the terror campaign of the Red Brigades. It was legislation largely forgotten until a woman in Italy was fined for wearing a burqa earlier this year. It is true that banning the burqa may bring about unintended consequences—some Muslim women could be prevented from leaving their homes uncovered—but the unintended consequences of allowing face coverings are potentially worse. This is not to mention that wearing such coverings while protesting in a free country makes a mockery of those who live in places where political dissent is routinely met with torture and execution.
The Black Bloc were protesters too, in spite of Toronto Mayor David Miller’s assertions to the contrary. They were violent protesters given cover by a sea of people who were complicit in that some apparently egged the Black Bloc on while most appear to have done very little to stop the violence or apprehend the perpetrators. This, in spite of the fact that the “peaceful protesters” outnumbered the Black Bloc overwhelmingly, as the CBC has reminded us ad nauseam.
With such unwillingness to ostracize an allegedly unwanted minority from their ranks, legislation against face coverings—however difficult it might prove to enforce—seems the logical step and a lesson learned from a bad weekend.
Vancouver passed a bylaw against face masking when the Klan was making trouble in the 1920s. One of these days I am going to check if it is still on the books. Then we can mount a well-organized campaign to enforce it.
Of course it should be a no-boner that when protesters/demonstrators seek to hide their identity their intent and goal is not a peaceful and legal protest. We seem to get the message rather quickly if someone hiding behind a mask enters a bank. As for the Muslim cultural practice of veiling women's faces the Quebec ruling seems balanced in that it forbids the practice for those serving the public or dealing with a government agency.