Monday, January 19, 2009

Montreal to Ban Masks at Protests

Of all the foolish stupidness in the world, this may not rate that high, but it is pretty damn foolish and stupid. The Montreal Gazette is reporting that the City of Montreal plans to ban the wearing of masks or face coverings at public demonstrations (as a side note, why this is in the "Business" section of the Gazette is beyond me).

This bylaw is quite possibly unconstitutional on two grounds. First, and more questionably, this bylaw is potentially in violation of the constitutional division of powers. This law bans a behaviour and attaches a penalty, with no connection to any provincial head of power that I can think of under the Constitution. This risks a finding that the law is, in pith and substance, criminal law and therefore ultra vires the province (and therefore the city, which derives all of its powers from the province). This is more shaky, because a good constitutional lawyer can make arguments for connection to a provincial head of power surprisingly easily. Second, this bylaw clearly runs afoul of the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many people wear masks to protests to parody a politician or world figure with whom they disagree. That is clearly conveying meaning, and therefore it fits within the rubric of s. 2. There may also be an issue of denial of liberty without the principles of fundamental justice since a law like this is dramatically over-broad, and would catch far more people the occasional yahoo that starts trouble a rally. The real question is whether it would survive the s. 1 test of being demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I don't see any real or pressing need for this ban. Sure, at some protests a few masked idiots decide to start violence, but many people who wear masks or face coverings do so only to convey a political meaning, without any sinister intent. This is a massive and unnecessary intrusion into the civil liberties of protesters in Montreal.

A tightly focused law is the only way this would be acceptable, and to write such a law would be almost impossible. Any such law gives enormous discretion in enforcement to police officers. Frankly given the behaviour of police officers in Quebec, most damningly the agents provocateur placed by the Surete du Quebec at the Security and Prosperity Partnership summit in Montebello a while ago, I don't see any reason to trust Quebec police with such discretion.

A law like this is also unnecessary. If the masked individuals are causing property damage or assaulting people, then arrest them and charge them with that. Arrest for wearing a mask is simply a form of guilt by association and preventative arrest. Our legal mechanisms have always been sufficient to deal with idiot anarcho-vandalists in the past, and they remain so now. This law is offensive, excessive and redundant, serving only to provide prosecutors with a means of loading the bill against defendants. The City of Montreal should see sense, and drop this law.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 1 (oh dear gawd, I can't wait for it to be over)

8 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:48 a.m.

    I agree with you completely on this one. Masks can be a form of political, cultural, or religious expression and is clearly protected by s. 2, IMO. The only question (aside from the division of powers argument) is on proportionality. But there is no need to establish such a law as any safety concerns can be addressed by arresting those who break the criminal code (ex. by committing assault).

    Of course, safety is not the bylaw's real purpose. The real purpose is to identify people at political rallies as a form of intelligence gathering, as has been the proud tradition in Canada since the days of the RCMP spying on Tommy Douglas as well as countless trade unionists, peace activists, socialists, and environmentalists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's an excellent point about the real purpose of the law. I remember when I marched in the protests in Toronto on Feb. 15, 2003 ahead of the invasion of Iraq, the route went by the US Consulate, and as we walked down University Avenue, we had to walk by a video camera that the police had set up on the boulevard. I found that rather disturbing.

    This law is another element in the security state.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4:18 p.m.

    I oppose this "anti-mask" law for the same
    reasons that you do plus I like to wear
    masks in public 4 fun! I live in Haledon, NJ
    USA. This is Masked Bob.

    My e-mail is maskedbob@yahoo.com

    My homepage is http://360.yahoo.com/maskedbob

    Check out http://www.crazyskimask.com
    by Kevin Lambert who would agree that
    this anti mask law is unfair!

    And finally, check out:

    http://www.crazyskimask.com/bob.asp

    Masked Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:50 p.m.

    If Muslim women can wear veils, costumed
    characters can wear masks, and undercover
    police can wear masks, then why not
    protestors? The time and money spent on
    passing this law could have been spent more
    wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:21 p.m.

    Where's my comment?

    maskedbob@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry to maskedbob. I went on an unplanned hiatus from posting for about ten days, and didn't check on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:34 p.m.

    That's OKeh.
    maskedbob.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5:00 p.m.

    I, for one, am offended by this anti-masking law! In New York, they have an anti-masking law. That's not fair! Not all criminals wear masks! Such a shame that I can't wear a mask outside to protect my face from frostbite. And they're colorful too!

    ReplyDelete