[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

I have my reservations about this law, but I definitely think people are being reactionary here.

To add to your points, when convicted of a criminal offence like this, there has to be a mens rea. Basically, you have to know what you are doing. If you were marching with a group of people and people in that crowd, unknowlingly to you, began smashing stuff, you should not be found guilty.

Basically, the law is set up in a way that you have to be actively part of the crowd somehow. If you were looking for a place to leave, then obviously you should not be convicted. So the argument about being unable to leave really fails.

This law is really to target those who threaten and attack other people and their property. It adds an extra penalty for wearing a mask. I'm not sure that's really necessary. It seems as though this should be an issue addressed in sentencing, as oppossed to a seperate offence.

I'm not seeing a mens rea component. This strict liability, if you're wearing a mask you are violating the law. Maybe we're talking about different things.