Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
It does.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand it's another tool to go after people who attend these protests in disguise simply because they are there to incite a riot, but there's already a criminal code provision dealing with wearing a disguise while committing a criminal act so this may be unnecessary. On the other hand, I get why even peaceful protestors may want to hide their faces (unpopular with your employer for instance) and those people could easily find themselves in an unexpected riot due to the actions of others.
The whole "wearing masks at protests are worse offences than raping kids" reasoning is pretty ridiculous. The maximum penalty for "raping kids" is much longer than 10 years, and I doubt anyone convicted under this will get the maximum sentence.
|
I was going to green text that last part but I just removed it instead. I realize it's a max vs. min thing.
Quote:
|
On the other hand, I get why even peaceful protestors may want to hide their faces (unpopular with your employer for instance) and those people could easily find themselves in an unexpected riot due to the actions of others.
|
This is where I have an issue with it. Several of the comments I've seen have also asked why it's then okay for riot police to remove their identification and cover their faces.
EDIT: I'd also have to ask what qualifies as an illegal protest and if police can just subjectively determine one as such, arrest people, and ask questions later.