Yes won overwhelmingly, but the argument that dominated both sides was not about masks at all. It was about who gets arrested. The most-respected Yes case opens with a caveat: “I voted yes but this means everyone, not just those on the right being arrested”.
Other Yes voters made the case for a ban more directly. One pointed to men in masks at women's rights marches who “use masks to avoid accountability”, while another said anyone who feels strongly “at least have the balls to show your face”. Many attached conditions, though: no exemptions, and enforcement that is even-handed between left and right.
The most-respected No case barely argued against a ban either. It said the voter “could have voted either way” and that the rule must be policed fairly and applied equally. Others went further. One denounced “a state obsessed with controlling lawful dissent”, and one said “freedom of the expression includes no expression at all”. Another noted that police already have mask-free zones and Section 60AA powers.
That makes the real disagreement narrow. Yes voters trusted a new law to be applied evenly if it were written without exemptions; No voters, citing existing powers, doubted the police would apply it evenly at all. Neither side defended selective enforcement, and the live argument is about trust in policing and its impartiality.
The kicker, in voters' own terms: whatever the rule, it has to bind everyone.
63 Opinions
I voted yes but this means everyone, not just those on the right being arrested
Could have voted either way. The main essence is that whatever the rule it effects everyone. Regardless of faith etc. And just as importantly it is policed fairly and applied equally.
This must apply to everyone equally
Absolutely. Everyone has the right to protest, but the only reason there is to cover you face is if you want to cause trouble or behave illegally. If you feel strongly enough to protest at least have the balls to show your face.
Google women's rights marches and witness the vile men who show up in masks screaming in the faces of women, attempting to silence them (whilst the police stand by). They use masks to avoid accountability of their awful behaviour.
No one should be allowed to cover their face in public.
Only on the condition that it is equal and includes all religions, minorities and left extremist groups as well as targeting right leaning.
If we ban masks so should the burqa be banned! No one can walk into a shop/bank with a motor helmet bc we can't see their face....BAN THE BURQA
No. More draconian policing from a state obsessed with controlling lawful dissent. Sir Robert Peel must be spinning in his grave so fast we could harness him for unlimited clean energy! Police already have powers to tackle intimidation, violence and disorder. Use them! Stop treating peaceful protesters as criminals for covering their faces. Whatever happened to policing by consent? Protect the public, uphold liberty and stop criminalising ordinary citizens.
No. There are already laws to ban it if required, but recently when they had done so they arrested patriots but ignored the masked stand up to racism rent a mob. We can no longer trust the police to act without fear or favour. People peacefully attending anti-migration marches are having police turn up at their doors. It either must apply to everyone, or no one!