ed No masked terrorists
Proposed ban on protestors’ face covering ill conceived
A proposed ban on protestors covering their faces with masks is ill conceived for many reasons. First and foremost are President Park Geun-hye’s remarks that triggered this legislative effort.
In the Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Park compared demonstrators with their faces covered during the Nov. 14 protests to terrorists from the Islamic State, the extreme terrorist group that are particularly infamous for beheading or burning alive people they kidnap and showing these brutal scenes on video.
It’s true that the protests organized by the militant Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) turned violent and those who violated the law are either being legally prosecuted or those who are not should be punished according to the law. However, they are Korean nationals who are also entitled to the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of assembly and expression, by no means terrorists comparable to IS extremists.
It is noteworthy that the United States took extra care not to call a knifing attack of Ambassador Mark Lippert an act of terror, instead of describing it as “act of violence,” obviously considering it could be a “loaded” word that could have unexpected political implications. Then, foreign media have also raised questions about the appropriateness of Park’s wording, for instance the AFP news agency dispatching an article titled “Park calls for mask ban at protests to thwart ‘terrorist elements.’”Alastair Gale, the Wall Street Journal’s Seoul bureau chief, reportedly tweeted his surprise, “South Korea’s president compares local protestors in masks to ISIS, really.” ISIS is another name for IS, meaning IS in Iraq and Syria. In other words, it is not just appropriate but unthinkable by any standard for the head of state to compare dissenting nationals to the terrorists in the extreme.
A day after Park’s remarks, the ruling Saenuri Party initiated a legislation process for an anti-mask law in the form of a revision on the law governing assembly and demonstrations, which newly introduced limitations on protests on the days of tests for college entrance and punishment for the making and possession of guns and iron pipes. For mask-wearing protestors, punishment would be prison terms under one year or up to 2 million in fines.
Worrisome is that the anti-mask proposal comes as the President is increasingly showing a “my way or highway” tendency, using law above dialogue and confrontation above reconciliation as her primary means of governance. Regarding the mask ban, the latest survey, conducted by Realmeter, shows that 54.6 percent are against it with 40.8 percent who support it. Park is pushing for the renationalization of history textbooks, although a majority of people oppose it, along with even conservative newspapers, the erstwhile supporters of Park, calling it a foul.
History is also against her on the mask ban as well. There have been several attempts to push for the anti-mask legislation, favored by police for making it easier to identify leaders of protests. In 2003, police tried unsuccessfully to have a relevant revision submitted to the National Assembly, while, respectively in 2006 and 2007, a bill was submitted but left unattended. In 2008 after the candlelit vigils, that almost toppled the Lee Myung-bak administration, a similar attempt was shot down as the Constitutional Court sided with progressive nongovernmental organizations, ruling that it ran against the spirit of the basic law to suppress protests. The National Human Rights Commission also rejected it as well.
President Park would be best advised to consult the ruling party so the anti-mask ban initiative will be dropped. We hope that Park will listen more attentively to dissenting opinions and reflect them in her governance for the remaining two years of her term. It is time for her to think of her legacy and it is she who should choose between thought of as a president of division or one of harmony. Now, she is inclined toward the former.