In early October, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to implement an anti-mask law, namely the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, in order to stop the ongoing street violence triggered by the anti-Extradiction Bill movement that year.

    After publishing the law on Oct 4, Hong Kong witnessed a significantly decreasing number of riots. It proves that the regulation has succeeded in exerting a binding on the radical behavior of protestors to a certain extent. However, there still remain some doubts on the legitimacy and viability of the anti-mask law.

    First, some people misinterpret it as a prohibiting masking on any occasion, even equal to wearing masks like "rioters". Second, it is difficult for the law to restrict most of the rioters with other crimes when participating in unlawful assembly. Third, some people are afraid that the law might be converted into another Extradition Bill, which has already caused huge riots.

    However, Hong Kong has already entered a de-facto state of crisis or even emergency, thus it is entirely reasonable, as well as lawful, for the government to invoke the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to make relevant regulations. In the past four months, frankly speaking, the Hong Kong authorities totally failed to curb violent clashes. Undoubtedly, the introduction of law at present shows the government's commitment to restore social order.

    Judging from the content of the law, wearing a mask is not necessarily the sign of "rioters". Strictly, it only prohibits people using masked items in "specific assembly" and also authorizes police officers' removal of masked items in public. Moreover, the law not only makes sense by punishing people who have violated the law, but also by deterring the majority who are encouraged to participate in the assembly and reducing the expectation of people escaping legal punishment by wearing masks.

    In the face of Hong Kong, which is now in a de-facto state of crisis as argued above, "rioters" are still proliferating violence in the name of "freedom" and "liberation". Unless the government takes special measures to rebuild social order, this metropolis would be in a wrong way. As the first line of anti-violence, the police, now with low morale, need more processing capacity and methods. The introduction of the anti-mask law has largely reflected the government's determination to further empower the police team institutionally.

    At the same time, the general public, who are eager to end the violence, should make efforts by using social media, for example, to spread the pressure of the police force in resisting the protestors' illegally violent behavior, and the results achieved to the public. It will not only help enforce the anti-mask law, but also contribute to the re-establishment of the Hong Kong government's legitimacy.

    Hao Shinan is an associate professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Shanghai International Studies University. Wang Min is a graduate student at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Shanghai International Studies University.

十月初，香港特别行政区政府援引《紧急情况规例条例》，颁布实施了《反蒙面法》，旨在遏制反动派势力的街头暴行。

该法于10月4日颁布之后，香港暴乱明显减少。这证明了该法在一定程度上对暴乱的遏制作用。然而，《反蒙面法》的合法性及其可行性上仍然存疑。

第一，该法会让民众产生误解，误以为任何场合均不允许蒙面，甚至将蒙面的人直接认作“暴徒”。第二，该法难以限制暴徒在非法集会场合的其他犯罪行为。第三，一些人担心此法会不会变成另一个罪犯引渡条例，这一引渡条例之前已经给社会带来巨大的动荡。

然而，香港现在已经陷入危机甚至是处于紧急状态。因此，政府援引《紧急情况规例条例》以制定相关规例是完全合理合法。在过去的四个月里，香港当局没能阻止暴力冲突。目前，《反蒙面法》的颁布表明了政府想要恢复社会秩序的决心，这点是毋庸置疑的。

 从具体法律条例分析，蒙面者并不一定是“暴徒”。严格地来讲，该法只禁止人们在“特定集会”中蒙面，并授予警察在公共场所清除面具的权力。此外，该法不仅能惩处违法的暴徒，而且还会吓退大多数受鼓动而参会的人，并打消他们试图蒙面以逃避法律制裁的侥幸心理。

 面对上述香港危机，“暴乱者”仍以“自由”和“解放”的名义在不断扩散暴力。除非政府采取特殊措施重建社会秩序，否则香港将会陷入一片混乱。作为反暴力的第一线，现在士气低落的警察需要更多的处理事情的能力和方法。《反蒙面法》的出台在很大程度上反映了政府在制度上进一步加强建设警察队伍的决心。

 同时，渴望结束暴力的公众应该通过社交媒体做出努力。例如，散布警察部队抵抗示威者非法暴力行为以给暴徒施加压力。这不仅将有助于执行《反蒙面法》，而且将有助于重新确立香港政府的合法性。

 （作者郝诗楠系上海外国语大学国际关系与公共事务学院讲师、硕导；王敏系上海外国语大学国际关系与公共事务毕业生）