It was really a frenetic night here in Hong Kong in last night. Countless of destruction happened throughout the territory. It was just one step away from war zone. Things in war zone like petrol bombs and gun shooting did happen. The difference is that there was no fire exchange only. Violence stepped up quickly from China's national day on Oct 1 and it reached another milestone since the enactment of the "ban masks law" effective after mid-night of Oct 4.
The ban masks law (BML) was established without going through the legislative council but under the discretion of Carrie Lam, the CE of HKSAR, and a co-decision with the Executive Council. The BML is meant to refrain the radical protestors from engaging violence when they are easier to be identified without the covering of a mask. BML prohibits protestors wearing masks during a demonstration consisting of more than 30 people or public assembly of 50 people.
This is another stupid action that Lam and/or her master made again relating to this biggest ever social movement in Hong Kong after the returning to China. No one can tell the almost civil war in last night was the analogy of question of chicken first or egg to this highest level of violence so far in response to the BML. The point is that if the BML does work then the radical protestors was just using the last few hours left behind after the announcement of the BML till the enforcement to have their last strike which led to the "civil war" in last night.
However, the key point still lies on whether the BML is going to work though. To have an educated guess one needs to examine the logic of the BML which claims that protestors tends to be more furious when their identification are concealed under masks. Therefore banning on wearing masks during demonstration or assembly could retard radical protestors' violence, hopefully.
The stupidity of this logic is that protestors march peacefully without masks does not necessarily mean they will not wear masks when they start to commit violence. After all, engaging in violent destruction is a crime already so why care about the offense of violating the BML when they are smashing things? The stupid logic of the BML assumes radical protestors will not wear masks all the way through demonstration to destruction. The reality is that for sure any sensible radical protestor will not wear his mask until the moment he commits the destruction. BML just literally cannot serve as what it is expected. After all, carrying a mask in pocket or bag is not a crime anyway.
Having said, BML does deter the truly peaceful protestors from participating demonstration if they do not want to be identified for various reasons like the fear of job security. After all, China's economic influence has already infiltrate into every sectors in Hong Kong's economy. The firing of cabin crews and pilots in Cathay Pacific, the prime local carrier in Hong Kong did seed the white terror of its kind.
Perhaps this is the actual purpose behind the BML. Ending violence via BML? Come on!
