KATHY’S PLAN TO UNMASK HATE
Eyes partial face-cover prohibition
Gov. Hochul is mulling a partial mask ban for the city’s subways as antisemitic hate by masked protesters goes off the rails.
Hochul said Thursday she’s working with lawmakers after Jewish leaders’ calls, first reported by The Post, to reinstate an antimasking law that was repealed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The talks are largely, but not entirely, focused on subways, the governor said.
“It’s time for a reset,” she said during a news conference. “There’s obviously a problem here. This will be dealt with.”
The potential about-face on masks comes after what Hochul called “vile and disgusting” recent anti-Jewish incidents, especially one in which masked protesters demanded that “Zionists” raise their hands on a crowded train.
Hochul said any mask policy would include reasonable carveouts for health concerns, cultural events, religious reasons and Halloween. She drew a distinction between wearing an N95 mask for health reasons and a full-face covering to hide one’s identity.
Banning masks at protests entirely carries freedom of speech complications, but she said protesters’ criminal and threatening behavior is a “different ballgame.”
“You certainly have to say there are major exemptions,” she said.
The governor didn’t lay out a timeline or say she would ask lawmakers to come back to Albany — a necessary step to reversing the ban on masks at protests, given that the legislative session ended last week and won’t reopen till next year.
‘Important to the mayor’
Hochul’s push appears to have a powerful ally: Mayor Adams.
“This is important to the mayor,” a source close to Adams told The Post on Thursday. “The administration is reaching out to the parties across the city and state — elected officials in the council, the Legislature and the governor’s office — to figure out a way to get this done.”
Supporters of a mask ban contend that making protesters show their faces will help crack down on violent and hateful incidents. They argue that such anti-masking laws
were effectively used in the past to combat the Ku Klux Klan’s hooded menace.
New York’s ban originally went on the books in 1845 to fight rent protests, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union. Similar laws are on the books across the nation, although they largely bar people from wearing masks while committing crimes.
Lawmakers repealed New York’s law in 2020 as masking became a public health necessity during the pandemic and amid concerns from groups such as the NYCLU that the legislation could be unfairly used by cops against people of color.
Freedom of dress?
“Simply put, the state should not give police legal authority to arrest or ticket oppressed people, whether they are engaged in cultural or political expression, and wearing a mask should not be a crime,” a brief by the group states.
Michael Feeley, 62, a retired city dweller, said he opposed reinstating a ban.
“I think people are free to wear what they want to wear,” he said.
Others worried about unintended consequences for sick New Yorkers who need to wear masks in public. North Carolina legislators this week had to rework a protestertargeting bill banning masks after it originally removed health exemptions, The Associated Press reported.
“A big thing people are missing is that any act of criminalizing masks in any context, even if technically some kind of health exemption is included, further stigmatizes and scares people away from wearing masks, and makes our job in public health even more difficult,” Lucky Tran, a Columbia University science communicator, posted on X.
Linda Young, an 81-yearold retiree, had no issue with a mask ban. “They want to say something, well put your face behind it,” she said.
Assemblyman Mike Reilly (R-Staten Island) said he was glad the governor may be supportive of mask laws.
“It doesn’t make sense that we removed it,” he told The Post.
Reilly said he has heard support for the idea from Republicans and Democrats in the state Legislature.
He carries one of a few bills that would reimplement the law, but his bill differs in that it would also create legal penalties for those who threaten others or destroy property while masked.