Anti-mask law

Last updated

Anti-mask or anti-masking laws are legislative or penal initiatives prohibiting the concealment of one's face in public. Anti-mask laws vary widely between jurisdictions in their intent, scope, and penalties.

Contents

North America

United States

There are anti-mask laws in many U.S. states and the District of Columbia. [1]

These laws have been challenged on the grounds that they violate the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to free speech and free association. Some courts have weighed freedom of speech against the public safety interest, and upheld such laws. For example, the Georgia Supreme Court found the law constitutional on the grounds that the wearing of the mask was an act of intimidation and a threat of violence, which is not protected speech. [9] That law has exceptions for holiday celebrations, theatre performances, and occupational safety; the ruling makes it unclear if someone is violating the law if they wear a mask without the intent to threaten violence. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood and robe. [2] Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example, Tennessee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally broad. [9] An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups like the KKK. [2]

Canada

Europe

The present table provides a non-exhaustive overview comparing legal restrictions of face coverings in European states. The 2010 French ban on face covering is widely regarded as the most strict, prohibiting face coverings in almost all situations in public places, as opposed to limited restrictions in countries such as Denmark that only outlaws such practices in the context of public assemblies such as demonstrations.

Legal restrictions on face covering in Europe
StateSinceLimitations (examples)SituationsExceptionsNotes
Austria 2002, 2017Burqas, niqabs, motorcycle full face helmets or face-covering scarves [13] [14] Demonstrations, universities, public transportation or courthouses [13] Face covering for doing one's job [14]
Belgium 2011Burqas, niqabs and other masks [15] In public (unspecified) [15] Upheld by the ECtHR in 2017 [15]
Bulgaria 2016Burqas, niqabs or other face-covering veils [16] Government offices, schools, cultural institutions and places of public recreation [16] Exceptions are allowed for health or professional reasons [16] National ban was preceded by local bans in Bulgarian towns [16]
Denmark 2000Hoods, masks, painting or objects that cover one's face and are worn in a way where it prevents identification [17] Public assemblies [18] Masking to protect one's face against the weather or worn for another worthy purpose [17] Does not apply in Greenland or the Faroe Islands [17]
France 2010 Burqas, niqābs, motorcycle full face helmets, balaclavas, hoods and other face-covering veils [19] Public places [19] Full face helmets worn on motorcycles [19] Upheld by the ECtHR in 2014 [19]
Germany 1985Items suitable and intended to prevent identification [20] Open-air public assemblies or other open-air public events or on the way there [20] Competent authorities may provide exemptions if there is no threat to public safety or public order [20]
Italy 1975Any mask or clothing that obstructs identification [21] In public (unspecified) [21] Exceptions are allowed for a "justified cause" [21] There are disagreements whether one's religion is a "justified cause" [21]
Netherlands 2019Burqas, niqabs, motorcycle full face helmets, balaclavas [22] [23] Public transport, in buildings and associated yards of educational, governmental and healthcare institutions [22] Face covering for doing one's job or sport, for health or security, in healthcare residences [22] In force since 1 August 2019 [24]
Latvia 2016Hoods, masks, burqas, niqabs or objects to cover one's facePublic places [25] [ needs update ]Islamic face veil to be banned in Latvia[ needs update ]
Norway 1995Masks (unspecified) [26] Public events such as demonstrations, marches, meetings, stands or similar [26]
Spain 2013Face-coverings (unspecified) [27] Public demonstrations [27]
Sweden 2005Face-coverings (unspecified) that complicate identification [28] Public demonstrations where public order is or may be disturbed [28] Does not apply to religion-motivated face-coverings, or when demonstrators are authorised to cover their faces [28]
Anti-mask laws in Europe as of 2022 .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} National ban - country bans wearing full-face veils in public Local ban - cities or regions ban full-face veils Partial ban - government bans full-face veils in some locations Full-face veils ban in Europe.svg
Anti-mask laws in Europe as of 2022
  National ban – country bans wearing full-face veils in public
  Local ban – cities or regions ban full-face veils
  Partial ban – government bans full-face veils in some locations

Austria

In Austria since 2002, masking ban on demonstrations under § 9 of the Assembly Law (Versammlungsgesetz). Violation of the ban need not be prosecuted if the mask does not threaten public order and security. Violation of the ban entails, according to § 19a.b of the Law, imprisonment up to six months, repeated offenses one year or a fine.

Parliament approved new legislation on 16 May 2017, which stipulates that people who wear clothing that covers their faces, such as burqas, niqabs, full face helmets or scarves (motorcyclists) etc. in places like universities, public transportation or courthouses will face fines of 150 euros (about $167). The measure took effect in October 2017. [13] [14] Shortly after the enactment on 1 October 2017, there were some incidents in which people were incorrectly fined by the police, leading some commentators to point out flaws in the law, or incorrect understanding of it amongst the police. [14]

Belgium

A Belgian law adopted in June 2011 prohibits appearing in public "with a face masked or hidden, in whole or in part, in such a way as to be unidentifiable". Violations can result in fines and up to seven days in jail. On 11 July 2017 the ban in Belgium was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) after having been challenged by two Muslim women who claimed their rights had been infringed. [15]

Denmark

Wearing masks or other objects that cover the face in a way where identification is prevented during assemblies in a public place is illegal in Denmark. [17] [18] The Danish Penal Code § 134 b, effective from 3 June 2000, makes the violation punishable by a fine or up to six months imprisonment. Part 2 of § 134 b further criminalizes the possession of effects which must be viewed as intended to be used for masking in an assembly. The §134 b, part 3, exempts from penalty masking which is done to protect one's face against the weather or worn for another worthy purpose. [17] The ban does not apply in the autonomous territories of Greenland or the Faroe Islands. [17]

France

The French ban on face covering is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.

Germany

Since 1985, according to § 17a Abs. 2 Versammlungsgesetz it is prohibited to disguise one's identity in public meetings such as demonstrations so as to prevent identification by police. This violation can be fined with imprisonment up to one year. [20]

Italy

In Italy, a law issued in 1975 strictly forbids wearing of any attire that could hide the face of a person. Penalties (fines and imprisonment) are provided for such behaviour. The original purpose of the anti-mask law was to prevent crime or terrorism. The law allows for exemptions for a "justified cause", which has sometimes been interpreted by courts as including religious reasons for wearing a veil, but others –including local governments– disagree and claim religion is not a "justified cause" in this context. [21]

Latvia

In Latvia, a law issued in 2016 to ban niqab and burqa in entire country was passed by Latvian parliament. [29]

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, a first attempt towards a partial prohibition on face covering was made from 2012 to 2015, but the bill was struck down. A new attempt was made in the years after when a new bill was submitted on 27 November 2015. Eventually a limited anti-mask law was passed on 26 June 2018. The law is called Instelling van een gedeeltelijk verbod op het dragen van gezichtsbedekkende kleding in het onderwijs, het openbaar vervoer, overheidsgebouwen en de zorg (Wet gedeeltelijk verbod gezichtsbedekkende kleding) ("Introduction of a partial ban on the wearing of face-covering clothing in education, public transport, governmental buildings and healthcare (Partial Face-Covering Clothing Ban Act)"). It is illegal to wear clothing which covers the entire face, or covered up to the point where only the eyes are uncovered, or renders the face unrecognisable, on public transport and in buildings and associated yards of educational institutions, governmental institutions and healthcare institutions. Frequently cited examples are a full face helmet, a balaclava, a burqa or a niqāb. Clothes exempt from the Act are:

On 26 June 2018, the bill was passed in the Dutch Senate. [23] [30] [22]

Norway

Concealment of faces in public is legal in Norway, except when taking part in a public event.

Exempted from the prohibition of concealment in public events are participants in theatre, masquerade or similar. In accordance with the Norwegian police law, violation is punishable by a fine or up to three months imprisonment. [26]

Russia

According to a Russian federal law "On assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing", Article 6 as of June 2012: [31] [32] [33]

The punishment for the violation of the given law was introduced in July 2014 and is provided by the federal code on administrative offences. [34] [35]

Spain

According to the November 2013 Citizens' Security Law ( Ley mordaza  [ es ]), demonstration protesters who cover their faces may be fined up to €30,000. [27]

Sweden

According to the 2005 'Law on the Prohibition of masking in some cases', it is prohibited for participants in the demonstration to fully or partially cover the face in a way that complicates identification. This prohibition applies only if there are disturbances of public order at demonstrations, or if there is an immediate danger of such disturbances. The ban does not apply to the covering of the face for religious reasons. It also does not apply to the extent participants are authorized (under 2 Ch. 7 a § Order Act) to fully or partially cover the face. [28]

Switzerland

In the cantons of Basel-Stadt (1990), Zurich (1995), Bern (1999), Lucerne (2004), Thurgau (2004), Solothurn (2006) and St. Gallen (2009), there are laws banning use of masks .[ citation needed ]

Ukraine

Several days after Berkut riot police clashed with Euromaidan protesters, Verkhovna Rada enacted law 721-VII banning wearing masks, helmets or camouflage clothing by people taking part in a gathering, assembly, demonstration, protest, rally or other mass event. Fines for violating are monetary up to about $400 or administrative arrest up to 15 days. [36] The law was repealed in January 2014. [37] [38] [39]

United Kingdom

For a century, covering or blacking one's face was a criminal act that could lead to the death penalty; the 1723 Black Act was repealed in 1823.

Asia-Pacific

Australia

It is legal to wear a mask in public in Australia. Motorcycle riders wearing full face helmets are generally required to remove them when entering a bank. A judge in New South Wales has ruled that a woman cannot give evidence in a niqāb. [40] A Victorian judge extended the ban to wearing a niqāb in the public gallery. [41]

Hong Kong

On 4 October 2019, the HKSAR Government invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to implement an anti-mask law in response to the ongoing protest. 2019-09-29 Quan Qiu Fan Ji Quan Da You Xing Anti-totalitarianism rally (Hong Kong) 020.jpg
On 4 October 2019, the HKSAR Government invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to implement an anti-mask law in response to the ongoing protest.

On 4 October 2019, the Government of Hong Kong invoked the rarely used colonial-era Emergency Regulations Ordinance to implement the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (PFCR), an anti-mask law [44] in response to the ongoing protest that year. The law bans protesters from covering their faces whether in full or partially during protests, including at rallies given a "Letter of No Objection" under the Public Order Ordinance. [45] Anyone who wears a mask at a lawful rally or march, unlawful or unauthorised assembly, or during a riot could be sentenced to up to a year in jail and a fine of HK$25,000. Exemptions include those at protests wearing masks for professional or paid work, or for religious or medical reasons.

In addition, the law states that anyone who disobeys a police order to remove a mask could be sentenced to six months in jail and a HK$10,000 fine. Paint is also included in the definition of "face-covering". The legislation went into effect from midnight on 5 October until further notice, and the Hong Kong High Court refused to rule out an interim injunction order but the court will later decide whether to allow a judicial review into the invocation of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance. [46] [47]

In response to the government's implementation of the law, netizens widely shared a speech by Edward Leung in a televised debate during the 2016 Legco election, "A few years ago, Ukraine passed an anti-mask law. Do you know what happened in Ukraine? A revolution started in Ukraine. You want to do it? Do it, we will fight till the end." [48]

Judicial review

On 18 November 2019, the High Court ruled s3(1)(b), (c), (d) and s5 of the PFCR failed the proportionality test as they placed restrictions on fundamental rights beyond intended goals. The judgement levelled criticism at various aspects including: the lack of a declared state of emergency to justify invoking the ERO, the law applies to both unlawful and lawful gatherings, the lack of a mechanism to distinguish the two, and the unwarranted breadth of the 'stop and unmask' power granted to police.

The court also ruled that the ERO sections empowering the Chief-Executive-in Council to make laws "on any occasion of public danger" is incompatible with multiple articles of the Hong Kong Basic Law, however, constitutional status is open to question. The court also held the ordinance meets the "prescribed by law" requirement. [49]

In response, the government said that it would stop enforcing the ban for the time being. [50] [51] [52] A spokesman from the Chinese legislative affairs commission, however, stated that "Whether the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region comply with the Basic Law of Hong Kong can only be judged and decided by the standing committee of the National People's Congress". [53]

On 22 November 2019, the High Court made the following remark:

"Nevertheless, we recognise that our Judgment is only a judgment at first instance, and will soon be subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal. In view of the great public importance of the issues raised in this case, and the highly exceptional circumstances that Hong Kong is currently facing, we consider it right that we should grant a short interim suspension order so that the respondents may have an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeal, if so advised, for such interim relief as may be appropriate. Accordingly, we shall grant an interim temporary suspension order to postpone the coming into operation of the declarations of invalidity for a period of 7 days up to the end of 29 November 2019, with liberty to apply." [54] [55]

On 26 November 2019, the High Court announced hearing for the government appeal against the judgement is on 9 January 2020. [56]

On 27 November 2019, the Court of Appeal extended the interim suspension of the judgment until 10 December 2019. [57] [58]

On 10 December 2019, the Court of Appeal refused to suspend the "unconstitutional" ruling by the Court of First Instance on the anti-mask regulation. As scheduled, a full hearing will commence on 9 January 2020. [59] [60] [61]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hijab</span> Islamic head covering for women

In modern usage, hijab generally refers to variety of head coverings conventionally worn by many religious Muslim women as an expression of faith. Such women may be called "hijabi". Similar to the mitpaḥat/tichel or snood worn by religious married Jewish women, certain headcoverings worn by some Christian women, such as the hanging veil, apostolnik and kapp, and the dupatta favored by many Hindu and Sikh women, the hijab comes in various forms. Often, it specifically describes a scarf that is wrapped around the head, covering the hair, neck, and ears while leaving the face visible. The use of the hijab has grown globally since the 1970s, with many Muslims viewing it as a symbol of modesty and faith; it is also worn as a form of adornment. There is consensus among Islamic religious scholars that covering the head is either required or preferred. In practice, most Muslim women choose to wear it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burqa</span> Garment worn by some Muslim women

As a chadaree or chaadar in Afghanistan, or a paranja in Central Asia, the Arab version of the burqa is called the boshiya and is usually black. The term burqa is sometimes conflated with the niqāb even though, in more precise usage, the niqab is a face veil that leaves the eyes uncovered, while a burqa covers the entire body from the top of the head to the ground, with a mesh screen which only allows the wearer to see in front of her.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Islamic clothing</span> Customs of clothing associated with Islam

Islamic clothing is clothing that is interpreted as being in accordance with the teachings of Islam. Muslims wear a wide variety of clothing, which is influenced not only by religious considerations, but also by practical, cultural, social, and political factors. In modern times, some Muslims have adopted clothing based on Western traditions, while others wear modern forms of traditional Muslim dress, which over the centuries has typically included long, flowing garments. Besides its practical advantages in the climate of the Middle East, loose-fitting clothing is also generally regarded as conforming to Islamic teachings, which stipulate that body areas which are sexual in nature must be hidden from public view. Traditional dress for Muslim men has typically covered at least the head and the area between the waist and the knees, while women's islamic dress is to conceal the hair and the body from the ankles to the neck. Some Muslim women also cover their face. However, other Muslims believe that the Quran strictly mandate that women need to wear a hijab or a burqa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Niqāb</span> Face-covering womens garment in Muslim societies

A niqāb or niqaab, also known as a ruband, is a long garment worn by some Muslim women in order to cover their entire body and face, excluding their eyes. It is an interpretation in Islam of the concept of hijab, and is worn in public and in all other places where a woman may encounter non-mahram men. Most prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula, the niqab is a controversial clothing item in many parts of the world, including in some Muslim-majority countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ronny Tong</span> Hong Kong politician

Ronny Tong Ka-wah, SC KC is a Hong Kong Senior Counsel and politician. He is a current non-official member of the Executive Council of Hong Kong. He co-founded the Civic Party and was a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, representing the New Territories East constituency from 2004 until he quit the party and resigned from the legislature on 22 June 2015, following the historic vote on Hong Kong electoral reform a few days earlier, having switched his political alignment from pro-democracy to pro-Beijing Hong Kong political group Path of Democracy, of which he is currently the convener.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British debate over veils</span>

The British debate over veils began in October 2006 when the MP and government minister Jack Straw wrote in his local newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, that, while he did not want to be "prescriptive", he preferred talking to women who did not wear a niqab as he could see their face, and asked women who were wearing such items to remove them when they spoke to him, making clear that they could decline his request and that a female member of staff was in the room.

Hijab and burka controversies in Europe revolve around the variety of headdresses worn by Muslim women, which have become prominent symbols of the presence of Islam in especially Western Europe. In several countries, the adherence to hijab has led to political controversies and proposals for a legal partial or full ban in some or all circumstances. Some countries already have laws banning the wearing of masks in public, which can be applied to veils that conceal the face. Other countries are debating similar legislation, or have more limited prohibitions. Some of them apply only to face-covering clothing such as the burqa, boushiya, or niqab; some apply to any clothing with an Islamic religious symbolism such as the khimar, a type of headscarf. The issue has different names in different countries, and "the veil" or hijab may be used as general terms for the debate, representing more than just the veil itself, or the concept of modesty embodied in Hijab.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Islamic veiling practices by country</span>

Various styles of head coverings, most notably the khimar, hijab, chador, niqab, paranja, yashmak, tudong, shayla, safseri, carşaf, haik, dupatta, boshiya and burqa, are worn by Muslim women around the world, where the practice varies from mandatory to optional or restricted in different majority Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

The French ban on face covering is the result of an act of parliament passed in 2010 banning the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclavas, niqābs and other veils covering the face, and full body costumes and zentais in public places, except under specified circumstances. This ban does not apply to the hijab, as it does not cover the face. The ban does apply to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. In April 2011, France became the first European country to impose a ban on full-face veils in public areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Niqāb in Egypt</span> Face-covering veil in Egyptian society

In a predominantly Muslim society, as many as 90% of women in Egypt have adopted a form of veiling. A majority of Egyptian women cover at least their hair with the hijab. A hijab refers to a head covering that is worn by Muslim women. Although the phenomenon of wearing the niqāb, a veil which covers the face is not as common, the niqab in Egypt has become more prevalent. While a few women in Egypt wear a black niqab along with a billowing black abaya as seen in countries such as Saudi Arabia, many choose to wear different colors of the niqab or manipulate the hijab to cover their face. Regardless, the growing trend of munaqqabat, or women who wear the niqab, has alarmed the authorities. They have begun to see this dress as a security threat, because it hides the face, and because it is perceived as a political statement, a rejection of the state in favor of a strict Islamic system.

S.A.S. v. France was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights which ruled by a vote of fifteen to two that the French ban on face covering did not violate European Convention on Human Rights's (ECHR) provisions on right to privacy or freedom of religion. The two judges in the minority expressed their partly dissenting opinion. The Court was unanimous in dismissing other related claims of the plaintiff, S.A.S.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burqa ban in Australia</span>

In Australia, there is an ongoing debate over the possibility of a ban on the wearing of burqa and niqab, conservative forms of dress for Islamic women. There are currently 14 nations that have banned the burqa and niqab, including Austria, France, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, Latvia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Gabon, China and Morocco.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teresa Cheng (politician)</span> Hong Kong barrister and politician

Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah is a Hong Kong Senior Counsel, arbitrator and politician. She served as Secretary for Justice of Hong Kong from 2018 to 2022. She was also the chairperson of the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and vice-president of the International Council of Commercial Arbitration (ICCA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emergency Regulations Ordinance</span>

The Emergency Regulations Ordinance is a law of Hong Kong that confers on the Chief Executive in Council the power to make regulations on occasions that the Chief Executive believes to be an emergency or public danger. It was first introduced in Colonial Hong Kong in 1922 to combat the seamen's strikes which had immobilised the city's ports, and was invoked on several occasions during the colonial rule.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (October 2019)</span> October events of the 2019–2020 pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong

In October 2019, the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests saw a further escalation of violence. It became evident that the protests were unlikely to end soon, and that they posed the biggest popular challenge to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping since his ascension to CCP general secretary in 2012. To bring the situation under control, Chief Executive Carrie Lam invoked colonial-era powers to impose an anti-mask law, aimed at preventing protesters from hiding their identity. Observers considered the law, which came into force on 4 October, as a precedent for possible wider use of emergency powers at the expense of citizens' freedoms and in addition democratic rights, as they even saw the possibility of the upcoming District Council elections being cancelled based on the emergency law. The mask ban did, however, not achieve the desired effect, but rather proved a further focal point of protests. In November, the High Court ruled the mask ban to be unconstitutional, although in April 2020, an Appeal Court ruled that it was constitutional in the case of unlawful assemblies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation</span> Anti-mask law of Hong Kong

The Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation ("PFCR") is a regulation prohibiting the wearing of face coverings in certain circumstances made by Chief Executive in Council under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance due to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. The Court of First Instance heard applications for judicial review from 24 members of the Legislative Council (LegCo) and Leung Kwok-hung, a former LegCo member, submitted in early October. On 18 November, it ruled that both the prohibition on the wearing of masks and related powers granted to the police to enforce it are inconsistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, whilst leaving the question of relief to a future hearing. On 22 November, the court declared the PFCR invalid and of no effect, but suspended the application of that declaration till 29 November 2019. The government appealed the decision on 25 November to the Court of Appeal, which partially allowed the government's appeal. The prohibition of masks at unauthorised assemblies was ruled to be constitutional, but the power to remove masks and the prohibition on wearing masks at authorised assemblies was ruled unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court of Final Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the PFCR in its entirety, including the prohibition on face coverings at authorised assemblies and processions. However, since the government did not appeal against Article 5, power to require removal in public place of facial covering, this part remains void.

Events in the year 2020 in Hong Kong.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (April 2020)</span> April events of the 2019–2020 pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong

This is a timeline of events in April 2020 surrounding the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. The COVID-19 pandemic had caused a decline in the number and scale of the protests, although the Hong Kong government, police and protesters expected that with signs of the pandemic beginning to ease in Hong Kong, major protests of the kind the city had seen before the pandemic would again erupt in summer. Most protest-related activities happened online, especially on games like Animal Crossing. This resulted in a ban on the sale of Animal Crossing in China. Hong Kong police arrested 15 Democrats on the morning of 18 April, citing their alleged participation in "unlawful" gatherings that had taken place in August and October 2019 in the context of the protests. This drew international condemnation, with accusations being made that the crackdown had been carried out at the behest of the Chinese central government, and taken advantage of many Western democracies being severely hit by the pandemic, hampering their response.

<i>Kwok Wing Hang and others v Chief Executive in Council and another</i> Hong Kong case law concerning wearing of masks

Kwok Wing Hang and others v Chief Executive in Council and another is a Hong Kong constitutional case concerning the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (PFCR) and Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burqa by country</span> Legal situation of wearing a burqa in different countries

The burqa is worn by women in various countries. Some countries have banned it in government offices, schools, or in public places and streets.

References

  1. ↑ "CND: State Codes Related To Wearing Masks". www.anapsid.org.
  2. 1 2 3 Drew, Kevin (Jan 23, 2004). "Justice not so clear-cut over laws directed at Klan". Archived from the original on 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2018-07-13.
  3. ↑ "UNMASKING THE KLAN". Southern Poverty Law Center. 1999-09-15.
  4. ↑ "New York Penal Law – PEN § 240.35 | FindLaw". Findlaw. Retrieved 2017-01-30.
  5. ↑ "Occupy's Halloween Party Might Break D.C.'s Anti-Mask Law". Archived from the original on October 18, 2014.
  6. ↑ Coscarelli, Joe (September 20, 2011). "Old Anti-Mask Law Foils Wall Street Protestors". Daily Intelligencer. Retrieved 2018-07-13.
  7. ↑ "With a 'Hi-Oh, Silver!' ACLU Challenges Michigan Anti-Mask Law on Behalf of "Lone Ranger" Protesters". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2023-01-18.
  8. ↑ Simoni, Stephen J. (1992). ""Who Goes There?" -- Proposing a Model Anti-Mask Act". Fordham Law Review. 61 (1).
  9. 1 2 Applebome, Peter (1990-12-06). "Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates Ban on Wearing of Klan Masks". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-07-13.
  10. ↑ "Canadian Anti-Masking Bill Imminent | Vancouver Media Co-op".
  11. ↑ Police chiefs back anti-mask bill
  12. ↑ Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News Wearing a mask at a riot is now a crime https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wearing-a-mask-at-a-riot-is-now-a-crime-1.1306458
  13. 1 2 3 Dan Bilefsky and Victor Homola (17 May 2017). "Austrian Parliament Bans Full Facial Veils in Public". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  14. 1 2 3 4 Rick Noack (9 October 2017). "Austria's new anti-burqa law isn't quite working as intended". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  15. 1 2 3 4 "Top Europe court upholds ban on full-face veil in Belgium". Al-Arabiyya English. 11 July 2017. Archived from the original on 13 July 2017. Retrieved 11 July 2017.
  16. 1 2 3 4 Angel Krasimirov (1 October 2016). "Bulgaria the latest European country to ban the burqa and niqab in public places". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "LOV nr 440 af 31/05/2000 om ændring af straffeloven (Maskeringsforbud)". retsinformation.dk (in Danish). Civilstyrelsen. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  18. 1 2 "Danes march in Copenhagen to protest ban on wearing face veils in public". Reuters. 21 August 2018. Retrieved 5 September 2022.
  19. 1 2 3 4 Kim Willsher (1 July 2014). "France's burqa ban upheld by human rights court". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  20. 1 2 3 4 "§ 17a VersG". dejure.org. Retrieved 2014-02-16.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 "Police stop Muslim woman wearing veil in Italy". BBC News. 3 May 2010. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  22. 1 2 3 4 "Gedeeltelijk verbod gezichtsbedekkende kleding" (in Dutch). Rijksoverheid. 26 June 2018. Archived from the original on 5 February 2021. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  23. 1 2 "Eerste Kamer stemt in met 'boerkaverbod'". nu.nl (in Dutch). 26 June 2018. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
  24. ↑ Petra Vissers (1 August 2019). "Wie handhaaft het boerkaverbod? (dat eigenlijk niet zo mag heten)". Trouw (in Dutch). Retrieved 1 August 2019.
  25. ↑ "Islamic face veil to be banned in Latvia despite being worn by just three women in entire country | The Independent | The Independent". Independent.co.uk . 21 April 2016.
  26. 1 2 3 "LOV-1995-08-04-53, Lov om politiet (politiloven)". Lovdata. Government of Norway. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  27. 1 2 3 "Spain's anti-protest bill criticized as anti-democratic". Reuters. 29 November 2013. Archived from the original on 2014-02-17. Retrieved 2014-02-16.
  28. 1 2 3 4 "Lag (2005:900) om förbud mot maskering i vissa fall". Lagen.nu. 2006-01-01. Retrieved 2014-02-16.
  29. ↑ Pells, Rachael (21 April 2016). "Islamic face veil to be banned in Latvia despite being worn by just three women in entire country". The Independent. Retrieved 12 November 2019.
  30. ↑ "Wet gedeeltelijk verbod gezichtsbedekkende kleding" (in Dutch). Dutch Senate. Retrieved 27 June 2018.
  31. ↑ Federal Law on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Picketing No. 54-FZ OF 19 June 2004 of the Russian Federation* as amended by Federal Law No. 65-FZ of 8 June 2012 (*Unofficial) (PDF). Strasbourg: Council of Europe, European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). 2012. p. 6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 February 2019. Retrieved 18 February 2019.
  32. ↑ Федеральный закон "О собраниях, митингах, демонстрациях, шествиях и пикетированиях" от 19.06.2004 N 54-ФЗ (последняя редакция). www.consultant.ru. Консультант.
  33. ↑ Закон о собраниях, митингах, демонстрациях, шествиях и пикетированиях. Российская газета (in Russian). Retrieved 2019-02-18.
  34. ↑ Госдума ввела тюремные сроки до пяти лет за неоднократные нарушения на митингах. ТАСС. Retrieved 2019-02-18.
  35. ↑ КоАП РФ Ст. 20.2. Нарушение установленного порядка организации либо проведения собрания, митинга, демонстрации, шествия или пикетирования. legalacts.ru. Retrieved 2019-02-18.
  36. ↑ "Parliament Bans Wearing Masks, Helmets, Camouflage Clothing At Mass Rallies". Ukrainian News. Un.ua. 2014-01-17. Archived from the original on 2014-02-28. Retrieved 2014-02-16.
  37. ↑ Верховная Рада отменила "скандальные" законы – В Украине. MIGnews.com.ua. 2014-01-28. Archived from the original on 2014-04-23. Retrieved 2014-02-16.
  38. ↑ Kramer, Andrew E. (January 28, 2014). "Ukrainian Prime Minister Resigns as Parliament Repeals Restrictive Laws". The New York Times . Retrieved 2018-07-13.
  39. ↑ Flanagan, Ed (2014-01-28). "Ukraine anti-protest laws repealed; PM resigns". NBC News. Retrieved 2014-02-16.
  40. ↑ "Woman cannot give evidence in a niqab, Australian court rules". TheGuardian.com . December 2016.
  41. ↑ "Victorian judge bans niqab in court's public gallery". TheGuardian.com . 18 July 2018.
  42. ↑ "Crimes Act 1958" (PDF). Victorian Legislation. The State Government of Victoria. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  43. ↑ Corderoy, Amy. "Police given broad powers to remove facial coverings". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2017-01-23.
  44. ↑ Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, elegislation.gov.hk
  45. ↑ "Hong Kong officially enacts emergency laws to ban masks at protests as NGOs criticise 'draconian' measure". Hong Kong Free Press. 4 October 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2019.
  46. ↑ "Hong Kong protest march descends into violence". BBC News. 6 October 2019.
  47. ↑ "High Court again refuses injunction over mask ban". RTHK. Retrieved 2019-10-08.
  48. ↑ Cheng, Kris (5 October 2019). "Crowdfunding campaign for jailed activist Edward Leung's appeal surpasses HK$350,000 goal within 15 minutes". Hong Kong Free Press HKFP. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  49. ↑ "KWOK WING HANG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [2019] HKCFI 2820; HCAL 2945/2019 (18 November 2019)". www.hklii.hk. Retrieved 2019-11-20.
  50. ↑ Hong Kong's High Court rules anti-mask law unconstitutional, HKFP, 18 Nov 2019
  51. ↑ People free to wear masks again: govt, RTHK, 18 Nov 2019
  52. ↑ Ban on masks must follow legal process, SCMP, 18 Nov 2019
  53. ↑ "Hong Kong courts have no power to rule on face mask ban, says China". The Guardian. 19 November 2019. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  54. ↑ "KWOK WING HANG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [2019] HKCFI 2820; HCAL 2945/2019 (22 November 2019) para 38". legalref.judiciary.hk. Retrieved 2019-11-23.
  55. ↑ "KWOK WING HANG AND OTHERS v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [2019] HKCFI 2884; HCAL 2945/2019 (22 November 2019)". www.hklii.hk. Retrieved 2019-11-27.
  56. ↑ Standard, The. "Anti-mask ruling appeal set for January". The Standard. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  57. ↑ "Court extends anti-mask law suspension, say pan-dems - RTHK". news.rthk.hk. Retrieved 2019-11-27.
  58. ↑ "Ruling that Hong Kong mask ban is invalid suspended until December 10". South China Morning Post. 2019-11-27. Retrieved 2019-11-28.
  59. ↑ "Hong Kong court lifts mask ban, refusing government request to suspend earlier ruling". South China Morning Post. 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  60. ↑ "Court deals govt blow over mask ban ruling - RTHK". news.rthk.hk. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
  61. ↑ Standard, The. "Court of Appeal rejects mask ban ruling suspension". The Standard. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.