with laws that ban anything that covers the face in public.

We want people protesting? Then we have to recognize that facial recognition software exists, as do photos, and some people work for asshats who will fire them for what they do on their personal time; some people have abusive exes and family members and cannot afford to be seen in photos; and that women and people of color are more likely to be targeted by riot cops with direct violence when the cops decide to bust skulls. This is why buffs and balaclavas are protest wear. And that is in public.

Also, when it is 2 degrees F and the wind chill is -30 -- you bet your frosty ass I am covering my face. Frostbite sucks.

that the only people committing violence on inauguration day were those who were masked - likely right wingers trying to cause trouble for liberals? I also don't see anything about balaclavas on a cold day. The specificity of the law is this:

which would ban the burqa, niqab and other face-covering veils

And I'll fight against those misogynistic, female disappearing, disgusting face veils all day, every day. They're repulsive. And those in the article calling it discrimination? Fuck them. It's a law for everyone.

Secular reasons, it's banned for religious ones, too. Otherwise, it's pure religious discrimination. And that's no better than the bullshit coming from Tiny Paws. We are better than that. It's not your faith, it's not your face, it's not your decision.

I have Bloc'ed. Have you? Clearly not. Yes, I agree, the ones on Inauguration Day were disrupters. They're the risk. This is how it works. Bloc's purpose is to be a defensive force in the face of state sanctioned aggression against unarmed citizens. Bloc exists and trains to provide equal, front-line shield walls, to return dropped canisters to those who lost them, and to take the shock when an action goes sideways, giving the more vulnerable time and space to escape. Anonymity matters for the same reason riot cops all dress alike. Bloc's work is defensive, not aggressive, and that's how you can tell the difference.

You are speaking from a place of extremely unexamined privilege. You feel it's okay for you to show your face everywhere, so it should be fine for everyone else. I have given you reasons that is not true, and you continue to push your point. If you're not willing to at least hear other perspectives, you're not helping. Good day, sir.

Perhaps that's why I look at your entire argument and find it nothing but hand wringing about the actual damage this does to women. Until religions stop trying to disappear their women, I don't give a fuck about "defensive forces" when it includes allowing women to be further marginalized. I hear your argument, have thought about it and think it's bullshit. My opinion.

...personally I find that a woman wearing the burkha in a western country draws a lot more attention.

No better way to attract attention.

A somewhat right-wing member of my extended family told me that when she sees niquabs and hijabs and all the rest it acts as an announcement that this person wants to be separate from the larger culture and considers our culture to be immoral - after all, if we were all modest we'd be dressing like that, too. To her credit, she feels the same way when she sees fundie women wearing little head coverings or the 'uniform' (calf-length denim skirt, ill-fitting blouse, baby sling). She calls that the "holier-than-thou" outfit.

For what that is worth.