|
Being able to question and express displeasure with the way society is working is a necessary part of any viable democracy. Without the ability to speak out against the use or abuse of state power people could be at the whim of illegal or immoral acts committed by agents of the state in the name of keeping the public peace. This is reasonable but a balance that needs to be struck to ensure rights of citizens are not compromised in the name of maintaining public order.
The need for this balance is now front and center in Montreal as the city council and local police force are seeking to pass a by law that would make it illegal to wear a face cover; scarf, ski mask, etc, during protests and to also make it an offense to verbally insult a police officer. The by-law faces opposition because it will negatively impact on the quality of democracy in Montreal as the onus will be on the population to show that they are not going to engage in hostile acts during public gathering, such as protests. It must be noted that some exceptions are being allowed to account for people observing religious beliefs, and covering up on a cold day, for example. As a law already exists that makes it an offense wear a disguise during the commission of a crime, maybe efforts to improve crowd control effectiveness should focus on the tactics used by the police, rather than curtailing the rights of citizens.
Rather than stifling public dissent and the actions of protesters the police could possibly look at their training methods and tactics used when trying to control large crowds to maintain order. A key factor might be in identifying troublemakers who could seek to exploit the crowd and spark a confrontation or riot. I think that sociology theorist Emile Durkheim wrote of the impact that being in a crowd can have on individuals; creating an empowering collective frenzy in which some people will act based on influence of the larger crowd. By identifying these flashpoint individuals potential problems might be avoided.
It’s not uncommon for protesters to adopt certain tactics when expressing themselves. Things such as chanting slogans, carrying posters or flags, using symbolic gestures such as a raised fist, or wearing symbolic clothing to show their solidarity with a cause are easily identifiable and in general non-threatening. Do those seeking to incite violence employ the similar signs of solidarity with a cause? In some cases they might in an effort to blend in with the crowd, but in other cases they may not.
As there are signs that indicate solidarity with a protests cause, there may also be signs revealing those who are intent on sparking a riot and violence. Some of these signs might include: carrying suspicious bags or knapsacks; having spray paint; carrying sticks or rocks; small groups of individuals who seem to be detached from the larger crowd; those who seem to be distracted by the area stores and cars rather than being focused on the protest; individuals wearing protective clothing like heavy leather gloves, steel toe boots, or hard hats / helmets. Would it not be prudent for the police to spend some time scouting the individuals in the crowd who show warning signs, rather than stifling freedom of association and expression?
If the situation arises where a protest turns violent, having taken steps to identify troublemakers could make the act of controlling the crowd and violence easier. Rather than take a global approach and trying to contain the entire crowd, efforts could split between restoring general order and protecting property and lives, and targeting those who have shown suspicious behavior as possible inciters of violence. By removing people who seem intent on escalating a situation it might be easier to restore order. There is also the fact that (for the sake of argument a riot has broken out and no pictures are available of people engaged in violent actions for one reason or another) the police would still have to get into the crowd, identify offenders, restrain and arrest them, and get them into custody and book them. If this argument holds, then prohibiting the wearing of face coverings would only aid the police in part of their work, and possibly breach the needed healthy balance between law enforcement work and protecting civil liberties.
Even if pictures of individuals were available there would still be some problems to address. It is possible that law enforcement officials could take pictures at protests, seek to identify those who have participated, and arrest and change people after the fact. This would be misguided because there is no guarantee that those pictured will definitely be identified, there might be a level of uncertainty as to whether someone in a picture actually committed an offence or was simply at the wrong spot at the wrong time. If such a situation were to occur and a person finds himself or herself in court how to they adequately defend themselves against a false accusation. It could essentially come down to the word of police officers who have an incriminating photo against the word of a particular individual who might not have any physical evidence available to dispute what might seem as damning evidence in a picture.
As I am not a police officer and never experienced any training in how to control crowds the opinions expressed above my be wrong and missing some key points. So I decided to test the value of my argument by visiting the website of the Montreal Police to see what information they have about the tactics used when engaging in a crowd control effort. Unfortunately, nothing was available on the website; no mission statement, no general principles guiding how various situations are dealt with, no explanation of the tactics employed and why such tactics are employed. I did not really expect to find detailed information about crowd control techniques as that information could be used against the police, but it would have been helpful and consistent with the need for transparency from public agencies to see a statement of general principles that guides the behavior of police officers in these situations. How can people hope to improve the effectiveness of a service if they do not know what factors are involved in the provision of that service.
When a large gathering of people or a protest turns into a riot accompanied by violence it is obviously a difficult situation for police to control. There is no doubt that people will be running here and there, throwing things, yelling and screaming, trying to find places to hide, etc…But dealing with these situations is part of the job of controlling a crowd and restoring order, therefore adjustments and improvements to how that job is carried out would likely be more effective than restricting the liberty of citizens.
|
| My Profile
By-law prohibiting wearing face covering during pr blog
