Should protesters be allowed to cover their faces?

Well, I say, if you've got something to say, say it. And put your identity right up there with it!

I think it's still a long way from a police state, but I do think some of the police, most noticeably the Met, have got far too big for their boots. People have also been detained and had photographs deleted for taking photographs in a public place or for taking photographs of the police themselves. We've also had people refused entry to or ejected from places because of a slogan (not obscene or racist) on their tee shirts.

If you really lived in a police state (Apartheid South Africa, Pinochet's Chile, for example), you wouldn't put Britain in the same sentence. I think it's true that police imported into Yorkshire during the miners' strike used to take off their numbers to protect them and their families.

It might be praiseworthy to stand up and be counted, but there is no law that says you may not wear a mask.

The Anti-terrorism laws have been used in totally inappropriate situations. I don't think that because things are worse in other countries we should relax our vigilance about oppressive practices - why should the police be taking photographs of people exercising their legal right to protest? Why should they be able to stop people photographing them, unless they are exceeding their powers?
I hope the revelations about the Met's connections to Murdoch et al have given people food for thought.
I am cynical because 40 years ago my brother-in-law got weekly visits to his scrap yard from the local CID. He paid them a regular sum to stop them 'turning over' his yard - he swore he did not buy stolen metals (well, he would, wouldn't he?) but said the disruption to business, and the threat of being 'set up' was so great it was easier to pay up.

I am of the opinion that if you cover your face you mean me harm. Historically the hangman/executioner would cover his face, highwaymen and the like covered their faces etc. I feel uncomfortable in the presence of anyone covering their face - you cannot "read" their intent.

However, if only people wearing masks in the street are being arrested, there appears to be some discrimination otherwise everyone covering their face would be arrested.

The face covering by protesters seems to have come about since the widespread use of CCTV cameras. Makes me wonder how many are genuine protesters and how many are rentamob.

I don't remember the women at Greenham Common covering their faces. They were proud to 'Stand up and be Counted'.

What about women wearing burquas that show only their eyes?
Perhaps protesters who cover their faces fear that they will be subjected to harassment - i.e being stopped frequently when driving.
The saying 'If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear' brings a hollow laugh to all those people who have been wrongly convincted of various crimes.

I find even people wearing dark sunglasses are intimidating to try to talk to. You can't read their expressions.

Re the wearing of sunglasses, I just ask people to remove them when talking to them - friends aside of course. I just think it's rude to talk to people you don't know wearing them - especially the mirrored ones.

Annobel...who protected the miners from these imported, unnumbered police.

In the past I have demonstrated with my face exposed but now it would depend on the issue.

Special Branch always kept records of protesters but they had to expose themselves.....I was once on a picket line where the real news reporters pointed out a couple of men with cameras who where not reporters. Now with the advent of cctv, email tracking etc they can monitor any of us and arrest us under the draconion terrorist laws. Recently a lady in Bridlington was arrested under the terrorist laws because, in a conversation on facebook about the fact that no person from Bridlington actually carried the torch in that town, she jokingly suggested that she would take a water pistol and squirt it at the flame.

Times have changed. We may not be an open police state yet but the system is in place should the government decide we should be.

Not to do with masks but to do with police powers. Did you know that the police can enter a home and destroy a protest poster in the window during the Olympic Games?

home

POGS ?? what does that mean?

I have never covered my face when protesting but my protests have not been likely to end in violence. It depends on the protest I think. In the 60s I don't remember seeing faces covered whereas today it seems quite the thing to do, especially for young people. This could be because they wouldn't want their parents / employers finding out or because they are looking to be violent if the opportunity arises and don't want to get caught.

More likely that they are aware that Special Branch or MI5 are recording the protest on video and they don't want to be on record as subversive - even if they are.

Having a Special Branch file doesn't just affect your life but other people you're in contact with. In the seventies/eighties my dad was deemed to be a security risk even though he did a perfectly legitimate job and never broke the law. Although I was only a teenager I was a security risk too based solely on what they thought of my dad.

I doubt things have changed. In fact I can't help feeling it's got worse.

Like a lot of questions asked on G.N. your reply will probably depend on your politics.

For me face masks belong on ski slopes, diving and to keep the cold out.

If you are a demonstrator you will only feel the need to wear a mask or face covering if you do not want to be recognised or you probably know you might do something anti-social or unlawful.Some wear a mask or face covering purely to intimidate and it makes them feel empowered.

Some people say 'good on them', others will see them as weak and cowardly. I only hope nobody on G.N. ever finds someone in their home wearing a mask but if they did then maybe they will understand it is not just a trivial anti-establishment act but a calculated act of intimidation.

As for Britain being a police state I agree with Annobel. If you can't differentiate between Britain and a country like North Korea or China then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I agree about masks, pogs. I don't like them at all except for the kind of face-protection you mention. I wonder if more people are wearing them nowadays when protesting because it's so much more difficult to be an invisible member of a crowd – surrounded by cameras as we are nowadays, and not just CTV; I'm thinking of mobile phones.

I think your first sentence is a bit simplistic, though I understand what you're saying. I think people are often too ready to make assumptions about other people's political inclinations and I'm not sure that's a good idea. Mind you, I do sometimes try and guess the tone of poster's messages on here before I read them, just for fun, so I'm guilty too!

In Queensland Australia in the 1980s you got photographed by a form of state secret police when you joined protests against the then very right wing and extremely nasty government. I had my own file, which I eventually saw under freedom of Information" .It contained copies of my letters to the editor, among other things.

Luckily, when i eventually went back to work after my youngest started school, it was in a private firm: I'm pretty sure I would not have got a government job.

So you do take a risk letting your face be seen, but it is a risk that you have to take when you are fighting for a just cause.

That government stayed in power through a blatant gerrymander, but even with this, they lost power after the Fitzgerald Enquiry, which resulted in the Police Commissioner and some MPs doing serious jail time. The incoming Labour government instigated electoral reform, ensuring that boundaries were set by an independent electoral commission. This system remains to this day.

I'm proud that I did my bit to fight the fascists.

Good for you, Joan. Cheers!

Yes, well done
I don't think that because the UK is less oppressive than other regimes you can afford to allow the police/government/security services to continue the insidious creep against freedom of belief and expression. Why should the police be allowed to photograph citizens who are doing nothing illegal and why should the police object to being photographed themselves?
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
The loss of liberty does not happen in one fell swoop, but piece by piece.

I don't think the UK is less oppressive it's just more subtle. Under the terrorist laws you can be jailed without trial for years whilst they 'find' the information against you. But the security services get away with it because the prisoners are 'the enemy' even though there is no proof of that.

Remember during the miner's strike when they weren't so subtle and we found out what the police were allowed to do. Suddenly villages were sealed off and no one was allowed to leave. Coaches were stopped on the motorway and not allowed to travel any further. Horses were ridden full pelt into crowds of men.

Those of you who think this is a free country with freedom of speech try this. Stand outside the Houses of Parliament...just you so no form of threat...with a sign saying 'Troops out of Iraq'. See how long you're there before they attempt to move you on and if you don't move see how long it is before they arrest you.

I have worked with one judge who asked a young man ' do you have a medical reason for wearing sunglasses indoors? If not! Please remove them'
Also with the hats young men wear!' do you have a religious or medical reason? '

My pet dislike is appellants or theit accompanying friends, relatives, reps, etc: who sit there chewing gum in the hearing. Or, in spite of the instruction leave their mobile phones on!

I am sitting in what is a court of law. We try to be fairly informal. But!