My posts so far have all concerned US politics. I tend to be more aware of US politics than Canadian politics for a number of reasons: greater international significance, spent 25 years of my youth in the US, greater media coverage. Nevertheless, sometimes the Canadian government (or the provincial government here in Quebec) pulls a move so stupid, I can't let it go without comment (for what it's worth). Over the Summer I made a stink on Facebook about the way the premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, was dealing with student protesters--whether the protesters were right or wrong, Charest's response was clearly unconstitutional (as has since been recognized by lawyers and voting citizens alike). The news in the past days has been the interdiction of masks on protesters. The right to protest (that is, the right to free speech and assembly) is at the foundation of democracy (it is yet another way for the public to make its voice heard; unfortunately, simply voting does not accomplish this on its own, since a candidate need not fulfill the promises that got him or her elected); however, so is the right to private property (indeed, one might argue that it is more foundational, since, it seems to me, all rights are founded on this right as primary analogue). There are rules in place to keep protests safe and reasonable, and when property is destroyed, protesters should be held accountable. Nevertheless, to suggest that protesting with a mask is somehow more condemnable than protesting without one, is to suggest that wearing a mask is, in itself, condemnable. One might think of it in simple mathematical terms: Violent protesting=bad; violent protesting + mask=even worse. Hence, wearing a mask must have some quantifiable nefarious character. The argument is absolutely ridiculous (in the literal sense of laughable). It is parallel to the argument against the concept of a hate crime. Hate, as such, is not illegal (nor should it be). But if you add hate to murder, you may receive a much harsher sentence than murder without hate. Hence, hate is illegal in certain circumstances. Murder should be equally abhorred in all circumstances (or in none)--otherwise, the whole foundation of the notion of human rights (that all humans are equal) goes out the window.
READ MORE:
http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-309/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/31/pol-mask-ban-bill-offender-accountability-war-memorials-vote.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/lets-face-facts-ottawas-new-mask-ban-goes-too-far/article4898754/
Math does not quite justify the mask as nefarious, or not. Two elements on their own can be neutral (or at least one) but when added together create something altogether bad. Greek Fire on it's own merely has the potential for fire. Expose it to air and it becomes incendiary. It is tough to argue that air has a nefarious quality to it. Freedom to protest does not inherently include freedom to hide behind something while protesting. I'm not saying that it should not be allowed- the KKK remains free to march with hoods on - but there is an element of responsibility that most want in their protesting. Something akin to the right to facing your accuser, I would think. I am not arguing for what the Premier did as I have no idea what he did, but math is not enough to justify he was wrong.
ReplyDelete