Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 30, 2011 16:20:43 GMT 1
The problem here is that you are inferring, for EVERYONE, that covering your face means something by and of itself. Hence that alone should be grounds for saying that you CAN'T do it.
Whereas I would say that what is quite rightly actually illegal is smashing windows. Wearing a balaclava in a built-up area MIGHT indicate you are thinking of doing the former, but that DOESN'T mean that the latter should be made illegal as well. It's the difference between an actual crime, and acting suspiciously, or doing something that makes it harder to identify you IF you then commit a crime.
So, grounds for police to stop you and ask you to show your face, fair enough, IF they can demonstrate they have reasonable grounds for wanting to know my identity.
It is (principle aside, because that was just personal prejudice and personal assumptions), the essential difference between the state imposing police and the law on you BECAUSE you have actually committed a crime, and the state interferring because you MIGHT do so, or it would make life hard for police IF you did. Note the IF.
I consider that would be unwarranted intereference in my right to wander about in the street as I see fit (even naked, it isn't actually ILLEGAL to be naked in public, but in that case, would seem to be a pretty strong case for me wearing a very LARGE paper bag...........) unless I actually do something I shouldn't, OR the police have reasonable grounds to stop me and enquire as to what I'm doing, because they have strong grounds for suspecting I'm just about to go and do something illegal.
Everyone doesn't think the same as you, or have the same supposed set of principles, AND WHY SHOULD WE, as long as we don't harm anyone, commit a crime etc.
Whereas I would say that what is quite rightly actually illegal is smashing windows. Wearing a balaclava in a built-up area MIGHT indicate you are thinking of doing the former, but that DOESN'T mean that the latter should be made illegal as well. It's the difference between an actual crime, and acting suspiciously, or doing something that makes it harder to identify you IF you then commit a crime.
So, grounds for police to stop you and ask you to show your face, fair enough, IF they can demonstrate they have reasonable grounds for wanting to know my identity.
It is (principle aside, because that was just personal prejudice and personal assumptions), the essential difference between the state imposing police and the law on you BECAUSE you have actually committed a crime, and the state interferring because you MIGHT do so, or it would make life hard for police IF you did. Note the IF.
I consider that would be unwarranted intereference in my right to wander about in the street as I see fit (even naked, it isn't actually ILLEGAL to be naked in public, but in that case, would seem to be a pretty strong case for me wearing a very LARGE paper bag...........) unless I actually do something I shouldn't, OR the police have reasonable grounds to stop me and enquire as to what I'm doing, because they have strong grounds for suspecting I'm just about to go and do something illegal.
Everyone doesn't think the same as you, or have the same supposed set of principles, AND WHY SHOULD WE, as long as we don't harm anyone, commit a crime etc.