Can you cut and paste where I asserted that? No, didn't think so. If you're going to lie try not to make it quite so easy to disprove.
Here you go:
"If you're demonstrating peacefully and not breaking the law you have no reason to cover your face."
Your actual copy/pasted quote there is essentially paraphrasing "If you have nothing to fear, then you have no reason to hide"; it's the classic logical complement of the actual "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" statement. I though it was an obvious parallel, but I'll accept that I might be the only person who would make that jump.
If you think its fine to cover your face in a public place without issue in every situation then try and walk into a bank with your lid on and see how far you get.
To quote you back at yourself, could you confirm where I asserted that? I simply pointed out a set of situations (I am not the only motorcyclist in the UK, so it will be a set, not a single one) where wearing a balaclava is completely socially acceptable, considered a valid reason to wear one, and happens regularly.
On a lighter note, I actually have walked into a high street bank wearing my motorcycle helmet; this particular one is a full-face opener, and the face part was flipped up, revealing the rather large face hole in the balaclava (the motorcycle ones, or at least the ones I own, aren't your classic film ninja-eye-slit headgear, the face holes are about the size of a face). It was completely possible for me to both keep my helmet and balaclava on, and reveal almost my entire face while talking to the bank staff. I've done exactly the same thing when paying for petrol and the cashiers had no problem with it either. Point that I never actually said validated anyway, I guess?
"On a scale of Right to Wrong, wearing clothing at a protest doesn't even come close."
Your naivety is breathteaking. But frankly unsurprising on this site.
Naïve? Naïveté would be in thinking that everyone who turns up to a protest wearing a mask is automatically a violent criminal.
In your own words, "If you're demonstrating peacefully and not breaking the law you have no reason to cover your face. Ok, in turkey perhaps that rule doesn't apply, but in the west people who cover their faces at demos usually have trouble in mind."
People at Anonymous rallies wear masks to cover their faces, and the vast majority intend nothing more than peaceful protest. It's a basic, low-effort refutation, but would still appear to be a valid refutation nonetheless. Have I missed something?