With face masks legally required to help curb Covid-19 transmission nowadays, it may seem irrelevant, even ironic, when the top court upholds a government emergency ban on protesters covering their faces in the wake of last year’s social unrest. Nonetheless, it has settled a constitutional dispute involving the chief executive’s powers in times of crisis. While legal doubts over the use of a colonial emergency law to restrict protests may now be laid to rest, the political fallout remains to be addressed in the long run. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that it was constitutionally sound for the government to impose the mask ban under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, a tool described by critics as archaic and inconsistent with the powers of the city leader and legislature as set out in the Basic Law. The court deemed the ban appropriate, as it was in line with, and no more than, what the government required to deter peaceful protests from turning violent. “The interests of Hong Kong as a whole should be taken into account since the rule of law itself was being undermined by the actions of masked lawbreakers who, with their identities concealed, were seemingly free to act with impunity,” the judgment said. Hong Kong spurns trend for fancy face masks amid Covid-19 Today, the situation is vastly different. Face masks have become indispensable wherever one goes. While some may still find the mask ban and the court ruling objectionable, the reaction is no longer emotionally charged as it was. Indeed, the raft of epidemic-related restrictions over the year, albeit imposed on a different legal basis, has made people understand that drastic times call for drastic measures. No one has launched a legal challenge to those, despite their inconvenience and damage to businesses and the economy. The mask ban did not restore peace and order as envisaged. A total of 138 people were prosecuted, with six already having faced court. The unrest only subsided due to the epidemic, and later the national security law. Freedom to protest is enshrined in the Basic Law. When the epidemic is over, peaceful protests will, undoubtedly, return. Whether people will be able to exercise their rights without undue restrictions shall be closely followed. With face masks becoming legally required to help curb Covid-19 transmission nowadays, it may seem irrelevant, even ironic, when the top court upheld a government emergency ban of protesters covering their faces in the wake of last year’s social unrest. Nonetheless, it has settled a constitutional dispute involving the chief executive’s powers in times of crisis. While the legal doubts over the use of a colonial emergency law to restrict protests may now be laid to rest, the political fallout remains to be addressed in the long run. How face masks became part of the Hong Kong identity In an unanimous decision, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that it was constitutionally sound for the government to impose the mask ban under Emergency Regulations, a tool critics argue as archaic and inconsistent with the powers of the city chief and the legislature set out by the Basic Law. The court deemed the ban appropriate, as it was in line with, and no more than, what the government required to deter peaceful protests from turning violent. “The interests of Hong Kong as a whole should be taken into account since the rule of law itself was being undermined by the actions of masked lawbreakers who, with their identities concealed, were seemingly free to act with impunity,” the judgment says. Today, the situation is vastly different. Face masks have become indispensable wherever one goes. While some may still find the mask ban and the court ruling objectionable, the reaction is no longer emotionally charged as it was. Indeed, the raft of epidemic-related restrictions over the year, albeit imposed on a different legal basis, has made people understand that drastic times call for drastic measures. No one has launched any legal challenge, despite the inconvenience and damage to businesses and the economy. The mask ban did not restore peace and order as envisaged. A total of 138 people had been prosecuted, with six already gone to court with different outcomes. The unrest only subsided due to the epidemic, and later the national security law. Freedom of protests is enshrined in the Basic Law. When the epidemic is over, peaceful protests will return, hopefully. Whether people could exercise their right without undue restrictions shall be closely watched.