Masks

A few weeks ago BBC news interviewed people in Guy Fawkes masks, based on the one worn by the main character in V for Vendetta (the graphic novel and film). The wearers were part of the Occupy London street protest against economic inequality. They claimed not to support violence: but the interviewer wondered whether hiding their faces would provoke public fear. After all, the original Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament: and the Vendetta character actually did so. In any case, if they have peaceful intent, why were they hiding their faces?

At around the same time, the news carried a story about the French burqa ban. Again, there was a protest. On this occasion a Muslim woman wearing a full-face veil was detained by police. BBC news did not ask whether she was provoking public fear. Instead, she was said to be a “burqa martyr”.

I have to say that this phrase is inappropriate – for two reasons. Firstly, people have been killed for failing to subscribe to someone else’s agenda (whether Christian or Muslim or atheistic). These are martyrs. To use the word of a person facing a 150-euro fine is hysterical, in more senses than one.

Secondly, the French law does not mention burqas - or full-face armour or Ku Klux Klan outfits. Or Guy Fawkes masks, come to that. It is about hiding one’s face in public, and it is about public security. (I have been here before, on a discussion site somewhere.) If I stroll into the bank with my crash helmet hiding my face; if I hover opposite the cashpoint with my hoodie up; if I prance up and down the Falls Road in a balaclava helmet - people are going to worry.

Obviously, hiding one’s face does not prove violent intent. Not everyone in a pointy hood is a Klansman. (Some are Seville penitents.) But in terms of legitimate public concern, there is little difference between one mask and another.

Since then, David Cameron has told us that Britain is a Christian country built on Christian values. He argues that our tolerance of other religions is built on our Christian heritage – as compared with more secular countries (like France, perhaps). He does not pursue a comparison with Muslim regimes. 

However, I cannot help wondering how much Christianity and capitalism have in common. Or whether in fact Christianity has more in common with Islam (which at any rate worships God) than with capitalism (which worships Mammon). Which brings us back to the Occupy London protesters. The Guy Fawkes masks are catchy but are a distraction from the Occupy statement, which includes the following comments:

·         The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet.

·         We call for a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present and future generations

·         We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed.

These express a concern for “good news to the poor” which sits well with Christianity but is an irrelevance to Capitalism. The protest’s location, between St Paul’s Cathedral and the City of London Corporation, is symbolically appropriate.

Giles Fraser, Canon of St Paul’s, took sides with the protesters, declaring that they occupied a “fault line between God and Mammon”. Wikipedia describes Fraser as having had “special responsibility for contemporary ethics and engagement with the City of London”. This dual role became unsustainable: and, to his credit, he resigned. Let this brave churchman – not a terrorist mask – be the face of the Occupy protest.