# Should Anarchists be allowed to mask themselves? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287 "2005-07-13T02:58:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/61 "2005-07-14T17:15:32Z")
Quote: Or is your attitude more “eh, if we catch them we catch them. If not, not.” **Sentient Meat** > [@](#): > > This is my attitude to any crime given the principle of innocence until proven guilt which I regard so highly. Not understanding this. At all. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/62 "2005-07-14T17:23:13Z")
Crowds can have weird affects on human behavior. An individual who isn’t normally prone to violence might suddenly find himself smashing windows and throwing rocks at people when part of a crowd. I’m no expert on crowd behavior but it’s been the subject of numerous studies. I wonder if someone wearing a disguise is more likely to cause violence while in a crowd then someone showing their face. I certainly don’t think those punk anarchist are wearing mask as a form of protest I just think they want to cause trouble without getting caught. I can certainly understand the oppositions point of view when it comes to masks. Marc ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/63 "2005-07-14T18:01:37Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Not understanding this. At all. [if we catch them we catch them. If not, not.] This tautology is true. People who break the law should be apprehended and prosecuted. Criminalising apparel based on past statistics of its wearers presumes guilt despite no crime being committed, and IMO is a cure which is worse than the disease. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/64 "2005-07-14T19:13:43Z")
How does that tie into not caring if we catch a criminal? If a cop catches someone in the act, they are resposible for that act. Being found guilty or not guilty doesn’t change whether they did something or not. They must first be caught to stand trial. I really still don’t get what you’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/65 "2005-07-14T21:01:54Z")
jimpatro, The line above is confusing because it was included out of contest. It is from post 23. Here it is: > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by SentientMeat > No, you construct a straw target of my position. It is not that it is no biggie - I would see them prosecuted under the full force of the law just as you would. But removing some liberty or other from us all is a cure which is worse than the disease. > > Me: > So you not being able to shroud yourself in black and wear a mask as part of a group of protestors who have demonstrated a high likelihood that violence will be part of their “march” is WORSE than people beiing inured and property being destroyed? Is that your position? > > If it is, am I to assume that you would be then be in favor of a MASSIVE police presence lurking to be able to stop the violence and mayhem after it starts? Or is your attitude more “eh, if we catch them we catch them. If not, not.” > > Which leads to your point about the property being insured. You never answered my question. Here it is again: > > Me restating a previous question: > About your indication that property being damaged is “insured”. Do you really think that matters? Hope that helps. Byt the way, your post #59 was perfect. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/66 "2005-07-14T21:12:14Z")
Thanks and thanks, **magellan01**. Boy those quotes and sub-quotes can really add up! ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/67 "2005-07-14T21:14:49Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > That’s why I love anarchist. I guess it’d be ok for whoever insured that Nike store to smash up your property. Fair is fair. > > Marc Except that property destroyed in a riot is not covered by insurance. You’re arguing as if an anarchist has any common sense at all. Without exception, every anarchist that has been unfortunate enough to poke me with a finger has come across as a self-loading underachiever who couldn’t reason beyond the blind hatred that drives him. You might as well argue with a Klan member. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/68 "2005-07-14T21:52:18Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Except that property destroyed in a riot is not covered by insurance. You’re arguing as if an anarchist has any common sense at all. Without exception, every anarchist that has been unfortunate enough to poke me with a finger has come across as a self-loading underachiever who couldn’t reason beyond the blind hatred that drives him. Good point. In that case I shall wish them well and remind them to wear their “Rage Against the Machine” t-shirts when their out storming the corporate headquarters. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2005, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/69 "2005-07-14T23:20:59Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > This tautology is true. People who break the law should be apprehended and prosecuted. Criminalising apparel based on past statistics of its wearers presumes guilt despite no crime being committed, and IMO is a cure which is worse than the disease. Out of curiousity, what do you think of loitering laws? If someone is hanging around an area, it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily committing some other crime, but there are laws throughout the country on loitering. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/70 "2005-07-15T15:33:50Z")
> [@Raven](#): > > Out of curiousity, what do you think of loitering laws? If someone is hanging around an area, it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily committing some other crime, but there are laws throughout the country on loitering. In the UK, loitering is linked only to _soliciting_, in which one is effectively _inciting_ others to break the law. Yet again, I don’t think prostitution should be illegal in the first place, but that’s beside the point here, and there’s other laws which relate to incitement to _riot_ and such like. If you’re talking about loitering _with intent_ or suchlike, that “sus law” was abolished in Britain in 1981 after it [caused riots itself](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/11/newsid_2523000/2523907.stm). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/71 "2005-07-15T17:48:41Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > As an alternative, if the police were to announce over loudspeaker, for example, that the Riot Act is being read, so that our hypothetical non-violent protester can vacate the area without removing her mask, then anyone remaining in a mask may be arrested, I think I’d be all in favor of that. That way people at the demonstration, masked or not, when it appears it is about to go critical can be advised that the police are going to go from protest mode to riot mode. Not a bad idea in _theory_, but in practice I think it would be problematic: a protest march is under way. Some people are masked, some not. As the march progresses the level of excitement increases. The protest then begins to show signs of becoming viloent. The police then make the announcement you suggest. I would think that would just add fuel to the fire. Still, I don’t mind having your idea implemented as genreal practice. But, I maintain that if there is a likelihood of violence stemming from a certain protest or event, the police have the right and responsibility to manage the situation preempmtively, so it does not get to the point where chaos ensues. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/72 "2005-07-15T19:26:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I would think that would just add fuel to the fire. I guess I’d have to disagree, but even if it did I would consider it the price we have to pay to not have laws that are vague. BTW, my suggestion is not new. > [@](#): > > But, I maintain that if there is a likelihood of violence stemming from a certain protest or event, the police have the right and responsibility to manage the situation preempmtively, so it does not get to the point where chaos ensues. I’m not disagreeing w/ you on that. Merely the method. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/73 "2005-07-15T20:06:54Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > I guess I’d have to disagree, but even if it did I would consider it the price we have to pay to not have laws that are vague…I’m not disagreeing w/ you on that. Merely the method. Okay, you are in charge, There is going to be a protest by Anarchists. What do you do, both preemptively, if anything, and during the protest as it starts to turn violent? ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/74 "2005-07-15T20:14:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Okay, you are in charge, There is going to be a protest by Anarchists. What do you do, both preemptively, if anything, and during the protest as it starts to turn violent? Read them the riot act, as I described above. Those who don’t disperse, get arrested and charged with felonies. Those who get away are lucky. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/75 "2005-07-15T22:54:56Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > Read them the riot act, as I described above. Those who don’t disperse, get arrested and charged with felonies. Those who get away are lucky. Okay, but you’re bound to have clashes that could have been eliminated with the tiniest of restrictions. I think we understand each other and we’re not that far apart. Thanks for the dialogue. ---
**Author:** ![lexan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/73ab20/32.png) [@lexan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lexan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/76 "2005-07-16T00:28:18Z")
> [@UnwrittenNocturne](#): > > Furthermore, most anarchists will NOT act against ‘mom and pop’ stores, but only against corporations. I, personally, see nothing wrong with destroying property owned by the likes of Nike. YMMV. Do you understand that a Nike or Starbucks storefront is not actually owned by the Nike corporation, but is a franchise owned by the same sort of local small-business owner that would own a Mom & Pop store? I agree with most of the issues anarchists raise; I’m a leftist myself, and have marched against the WTO, IMF, WB, etc. But property destruction of that nature effectively sets the movement back. It alienates potential supporters and gains us nothing. Activism isn’t about proving how much righteous indignation you’ve got; it’s about demonstrating to potential sympathizers that alternative points of view exist, and pressuring institutions of power to change. Throwing a brick through a Starbucks window isn’t about anything except impressing one’s friends with how committed to the cause one is. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287/77 "2005-07-16T01:33:11Z")
Lexan, we don’t line up 100% on philosophy, but that was one of the best, most cogent posts I’ve read on SD. Thanks for playing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-anarchists-be-allowed-to-mask-themselves/312287.md?page=3)