Now, far be it from to stir the pot here at the Libertas Post, but a recent article by Rondi Adamson (’Naked Face – Unmasking 620 Protesters’) got me to thinking, which is never good.
By now we're all pretty familiar with what happened at the G20, right? Big meeting, lots of protesters, more arrests than at any other point in Canadian history—more than during the October Crisis back in 1970. And at least during the October Crisis we had the benefit of the War Measures Act being put into effect, whereas there seemed to be little discernible logic, reason, or order behind the police behaviour that occurred in Toronto just a few weekends ago.
By now I think we're all pretty much in agreement, too: some of the protesters involved went way too far in their actions. I know, because I've been told, that there is some sort of driving logic behind what organized anarchists (isn't that an oxymoron?) do when let loose on urban centers to protest ... whatever it is that they protest. And indeed, their pattern of damage seemed largely restrained to the larger chain stores, as if that justifies the damage to public property.
Which brings us to Rondi Adamson's article:
“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 ...
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.”
I don't want to pick a fight, mainly because I actually happen to like Rondi Adamson as a fellow right-winger. So instead consider this a respectful counter-argument:
I've resisted the argument that the niqab and the burqa should be banned for much the same reason as Rondi lays out in her article: it gives me the creeps that the state could outlaw some form—any form—of garb. That this garb is being used in some quarters as an expression of religious misogyny is rather beside the point—indeed, wouldn't it be easier to simply ban misogyny?
Because, and this is my first point, the clothing and the person wearing it, are very distinct things. Whether or not the clothing being worn is used for ill intent doesn't matter. The clothing is not the culprit; it has no intentions, for good or evil.
Indeed, haven't we been having this argument for years in the form of combating gun-related legislation? It's not the gun; it's the person that uses it, yadda, yadda, yadda. Same argument—different subject. Let's not blame the clothing.
And let's not make everybody suffer for the actions of a few.
Not to mention the problems that arise when we get in the habit of banning possessions and activities in order to make the job of the police easier.
After all, don't forget the other side of the equation in the G20 mess: there were thugs in the police ranks too. Horror stories of beaten journalists, unreasonable detainment, police intimidation, it goes on and on. Why should I, or a Muslim, or a protester, suffer because the police were not able to keep a few downtown storefronts safe and a handful of cop cars un-torched?
It's not that I don't sympathize—Black Bloc tactics give protesters a bad name, to be sure. Maybe it's just that I wasn't all that surprised that there were—shocker—angry youths running around making trouble. Isn't that what angry youths do? But this brings me to my second point: namely, just because authorities can't do their job, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that we have to sacrifice our civil liberties for their benefit.
Ultimately I think it comes down to the question of which we would rather have: safety or liberty.
That's always the balance, isn't it? We give up a reasonable amount of liberty for a reasonable amount of safety. The only problem is, while lost liberty is a reality, safety isn't, which leads me to the belief that the former should be guarded much more carefully. Does banning facial coverings constitute a reasonable restriction of our liberty for public safety and the public good? Maybe it does—but as Rondi pointed out, violent protesters were a small minority in a crowd of many. What good would it do to allow them to blend in further by outlawing a distinctive form of garb? I agree that violence must be quelled, and violent people must be brought to justice, but when faced with the question of how illusory the resulting safety will be versus the certain reality of one more freedom lost, I must admit to some grave misgivings.
There. I've done my due diligence. Never let it be said that Libertas Post doesn't offer up different perspectives on the same issue.
Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zenimagery/4737303583/
