Read the full article in Haaretz
By Rachel Fink
Two pieces of mask ban legislation were introduced last summer in New York state and are being reviewed now that the legislature is back in session: one sponsored by State Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz; and a companion bill sponsored by Sen. James Skoufis in the upper chamber.
...
Scott Richman, New York and New Jersey's regional director for the ADL, said that the proposed legislation is meant to target those who cover their faces to deliberately harass or intimate others: "Since October 7, New York has seen a significant rise in anti-Israel protests. And they have every right to peacefully protest.
"But this ban is about intent," he said. "When you are engaging in criminal activity, or threatening others, and you are concealing your identity so that you can get away with it, you have to be held liable for that."
Any ban, Richman insisted, would have exemptions carved out for health and religious exceptions, and "law enforcement would be tasked with determining those on a case-by-case basis."
That is precisely what Sophie Ellman-Golan, director of strategic communications for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, is worried about.
"This is basically handing the New York Police Department a gift," said Ellman-Golan, whose organization staunchly opposes the mask ban. "In the work JFREJ does with policing, we know that the problem of racial profiling runs rampant. This is just another excuse to harass, question or arrest Black and brown New Yorkers."
Ellman-Golan also addressed what she called "antidemocratic" attempts to crack down on protests. "We have no problem with authorities reacting to legitimate threats and danger," she said. "But most of these protesters are covering their faces because they have very real concerns about losing their jobs or being doxxed, not because they have nefarious intentions.
"There is certainly a lot of work being done to make us think these protests are dangerous," she said, arguing instead that "the vast majority of the violence that occurs there is perpetrated by the police."
According to Ellman-Golan, "Every single person in this city has the right to feel comfortable in public, and antisemitism is real and needs to be addressed. We just do not feel that pitting people against each other is the way to do that.
"This is an unserious approach to a very serious problem," she continued. "Jewish safety is best created through the formation of an open, just and democratic society. It is ensured through community initiatives where neighbors get to know each other, not demonize each other."
Jews for Racial and Economic Justice is one of many Jewish organizations that is helping to support a grassroots movement known as Jews for Mask Rights, which was formed last summer by a small group of volunteers. For co-founder Michal Richardson, when politicians like New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Eric Adams began talking about mask bans as a response to antisemitism, she was confused.
"As a high-risk COVID-cautious Jewish person who wears a mask for health reasons," Richardson said, "I had no idea where this was coming from or how to respond."
She and fellow organizers penned an open letter addressed to Hochul and other local politicians. "Mask bans are a direct violation of Jewish values as well as being ableist, infringing upon First Amendment rights, and putting all New Yorkers in danger," the letter reads. So far, it has gained over 2,000 signatures, including from some 300 Jewish leaders and organizations.
"We are particularly horrified that such bans could be enacted in the name of 'combating antisemitism,'" it goes on to say. "Antisemitism is a real threat, but legislating masks will not protect Jews. Banning masks will not address the underlying ideologies that fuel antisemitic sentiments and behaviors."
As Richardson sees it, "Responses to antisemitism should involve dialogue and engagement and education. Taking away people's rights will only have the opposite effect."
She is also skeptical of any claims that mask ban laws will include meaningful health protections. "The current law on the table for New York state includes language that only allows for health exemptions 'under publicly declared health emergencies,'" Richardson said, while acknowledging that the problem is much bigger than phrasing.
"A medical exception does not work unless it applies to everyone. Everyone needs to have access to masks, whether that's someone who wears one every single day of their life or someone who needs to wear one because they got sick, have to protect a relative or there's wildfire smoke. That's not something that can be determined by a police officer," she said.
It wasn't so long ago that the mask debate had an entirely different connotation. During the COVID pandemic five years ago, as mask mandates were put into place, fierce ideological clashes erupted. These were largely divided along political lines over issues of public health and personal freedoms.
According to Rob Kahn, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota and an expert in mask laws, "COVID really changed the culture around masking in the United States. Unlike other cultures, we did not have a widespread practice of wearing a mask when we were sick until the pandemic came along."
On the other hand, he said, COVID protocols also created an aversion to masking for large groups: "Anti-maskers tended to view wearing them as weak or cowardly."
From there, he argued, it is not a huge leap to call for a ban – especially for someone who is already skeptical of the health considerations. "There is definitely crossover between the two groups: those who didn't want to mask during COVID; and those that now don't want to see them during protests," he said.