Mat Bowles ([info]matgb) wrote in [info]ukpolitics,
@ 2005-08-19 00:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Civil Disobedience
should the subject merit further discussion feel free to start a new post
OK boss...
"'You're confusing the current state of the law with what's right and wrong.'"

"Only criminals do that. For anyone who respects the law, the two things are the same so there's no confusion."

I believe, very strongly, that it is the moral obligation of members of a civic, democratic society such as ours to object to laws they believe to, campaign against them and try to get them changed. I believe that, in extreme circumstances, it is acceptable to break an unjust law or regulation in order to highlight the injustice. Many examples spring to mind, but Rosa Parks is a good one.

In fact, I'm prepared to make a stand, as are many other people. I believe that the governments planned ID card scheme to be deeply flawed and completely unjustified. In fact, they have alienated me (formerly a soft supporter of the idea of some form of ID scheme) into a complete opponent of the idea. I'm prepared to go to jail over the issue if necessary, as are, at time of writing, 11,092 other people, minimum.

http://www.pledgebank.com/refuse

There are, apparently, people in this community who believe that civil disobedience is always wrong, the law is always correct, and the only way to get it changed is to vote, completely ignoring the other precedents that civil society allows for.

That does not make me an anarchist. It makes me a concerned citizen prepared to stand up for what I believe to be right. Blind obedience to authority and the law is the path to the destruction of civic society. Failure to engage in the process is an abrogation of civic responsibilty.

That is my belief. I stand by it.

(Post a new comment)


[info]neonchameleon
2005-08-19 12:40 am UTC (link)
My beliefs almost exactly.

For those who believe that all laws written by democratic governments are morally right, I suggest you read the Jim Crow Guide and then get back to me. (Having read this in the past week goes some way to explaining, if not excusing my language in an earlier post).

For those who think that the law may not be right, but you should uphold it anyway, where do you draw the line? Is there any possible law that you would consider sufficiently unjust to be worth breaking?

(Reply to this)


[info]vampwillow
2005-08-19 08:50 am UTC (link)
I signed on the original ID Cards pledge, as it happens, but yes, whilst there are laws that are generally considered just ("Thou shalt not kill" for example) many of them have questions that also apply which are not covered in the present law (eg. is it OK to pump someone so full of morphone that they die comfortably rather than in agony? where do you draw the line? etc).

This world would not be as it is without people questioning the laws that applied to them (no USA or USSR for instance - I'll leave to the reader to decide which if either of those may have been a good thing!) but the reverse doesn't hold true either; by preference you work within a system to change it rather than overthrow it by force. *If* you can, anyway ...

(Reply to this)


[info]0ct0pus
2005-08-19 10:03 am UTC (link)
To change a law, surely one lobbies, not votes? You vote to change a government.

There are many ways to lobby those who make laws, writing to your MP is probably the most traditional but there are many other, including mass disobedience as a means of generating media coverage to aid your campaign.

Just ignoring a law surely doesn't work towards changing it. By doing so you are building a case which can be used to persuade lawmakers to make a change. There are other things you need to do beyond disobeying to achieve your goal.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a poor strategy, it has often been very effective, but without some kind of coherent campaign backing it is pretty useless.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]matgb
2005-08-19 10:34 am UTC (link)
Agree; and you're right on the voting/lobbying distinction, although they can be linked (I won't vote for you unless oyu promise to change law X); we do vote for MPs to represent our interests, and they happen to form the govenrment.

You're also right on the need to campaign, breaking the law on its own doesn't ever do anything, it's the campaign surrounding it, both before and after, that makes the impact.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]neonchameleon
2005-08-19 11:12 am UTC (link)
breaking the law on its own doesn't ever do anything

That depends on the law in question. Although breaking the law on its own (particularly in secret) doesn't help change the law, the work of e.g. Oskar Schindler or the Underground Railroad did do quite a lot of good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]matgb
2005-08-19 11:15 am UTC (link)
I meant in terms of getting that law changed; although the railroad did do things towards long term change, but essentially, you're right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]knr_warrior
2005-08-19 11:27 am UTC (link)
I agree with that. Authority shouldn't be obeyed just because it is there but only if it is rightful and lawful. The men of 1688 said that rebellion against a legitimate ruler is sedition which should be punished, but it was no crime to resist a tyrant, and that's an idea we could all learn from, just as the founding fathers of the USA did.

(Reply to this)


[info]yossarian_22
2005-08-19 12:18 pm UTC (link)
I believe that, in extreme circumstances, it is acceptable to break an unjust law or regulation in order to highlight the injustice.

But you'll still be a criminal if you do that, even if lots of you do that. My point is that I have a big problem with the idea that the "criminal" label makes you some sort of morally bankrupt underclass. The flipside of it being your moral duty (by definition it can't be your civic duty) to disobey laws you disagree with on moral grounds, is that if you do so you are legally indistinguishable from a common thief. I for one would be fine with this, but it's amazing how many would-be criminals would be quick to disassociate themselves from other "common" criminals.

Unfortunately there aren't people in this community anymore who believe that civil disobedience is always wrong and the law is always correct because the inability of various people here to debate without resorting to personal insults means they leave soon after joining.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]neonchameleon
2005-08-19 12:40 pm UTC (link)
em>Unfortunately there aren't people in this community anymore who believe that civil disobedience is always wrong and the law is always correct because the inability of various people here to debate without resorting to personal insults means they leave soon after joining.</em>

Correction: if you are right, there appears to have been only one person who held such an extreme view - and he left the community in response to being reprimanded for deleting comments.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]yossarian_22
2005-08-19 02:03 pm UTC (link)
I think what he said was he'll come back when you leave. And he's not the first person to leave this community because of needlessly abusive posts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]neonchameleon
2005-08-19 02:28 pm UTC (link)
I think what he said was he'll come back when you leave.

But he explicitely left over the moderation issues. Keep your facts straight please.

And he's not the first person to leave this community because of needlessly abusive posts.

But did any of the others hold the same beliefs he does?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]yossarian_22
2005-08-22 09:49 am UTC (link)
Keep your facts straight please my facts are straight- he explicitly made both comments, which when taken together (and not selectively in isolation) clearly show that the real underlying issue is abusive posters.

did any of the others hold the same beliefs he does? what is your point here? Is your goal to insult and alienate all those with views other than your own so that this community becomes some sort of homogenous love-in? Or does your adherence to your different beliefs prevent you from being seen to be acting no different from eu2hell, in principle

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]_jamez_
2005-08-19 02:30 pm UTC (link)
His comments weren't really of much interest though as he had little meaningful argument to offer other than righteous evangelical statements. Stating an opinion and then just saying "I'm right, you're wrong" doesn't a debate make. I'd really, really like to have somebody who genuinely did hold such a belief and then made an attempt to argue it in a meaningful way, but [info]pevans that is not, infact my personal take on it is that his statement about morality and the law was actually just a case of bad wording, which he then decided to defend anyway.

The abusive post line is just a red herring, really.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]flydanman
2005-08-19 06:29 pm UTC (link)
Stating an opinion and then just saying "I'm right, you're wrong" doesn't a debate make. - Really? You tried that with me.

Stating an opinion and then just saying "I'm right, you're wrong" doesn't a debate make. - With regards specifically to the wildcat striking, he is right, in my opinion. Unofficial strike action should not be condoned or tolerated at any level and it is far from one's moral duty to disobey employment law that is in place to protect with employer and employee.

The abusive post line is just a red herring, really. - Yeah, you like giving it, it's a whole different story when you have to take it, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]neonchameleon
2005-08-19 11:19 pm UTC (link)
With regards specifically to the wildcat striking, he is right, in my opinion. Unofficial strike action should not be condoned or tolerated at any level and it is far from one's moral duty to disobey employment law that is in place to protect with employer and employee.

Surprisingly enough, I agree.

On the other hand, the principle he was working from was completely wrong. A stopped clock can be right twice a day.

There would be times when it would be one's duty to disobey employment law that is in place to protect employer and employee (as long as this is genuinely the case* (although I think our system is pretty good)) - but only when doing so to protect a third party. Whatever the employment conditions of e.g. the workers in Congo Free State or Belsen, the workers would have been morally right to disobey employment law.

* And moves to change this should be aimed at the law, not directly at employers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]yossarian_22
2005-08-22 09:58 am UTC (link)
The abusive post line is just a red herring, really

Admittedly pevans' argument for his case wasn't the greatest- but that's no reason to abuse him in breach of the community rules. The two issues aren't interrelated. If anything, usually abuse is a sign of someone who's losing the argument.

I think the abuse is the real issue, rather than anyone's debating abilities, which after all is what the community is here to express. By abusing those who express opinions other than our own we alienate individuals who would otherwise contribute (even if not skillfully every time) to the community.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]_jamez_
2005-08-22 05:32 pm UTC (link)
I disagree.

At the end of the day he was only called a moron - that's not exactly harsh and as far as alienation goes, I think a poor style of debate is far more likely to put off inteligent contributers with a serious and broad-minded interest in politics than a few mean words here and there.

It wasn't that pevan's argument was poor it was that he wasn't willing to engage in argument at all, instead choosing to state what he thought was right, often in a prevocative way, and then leave it at that with no further justification or response to argumentative challenge - that's not debate that's just being annoying, troll-like even. The abuse wasn't aimed at his opinions, but at his lack of backing up anything he said with any form of argument at all, and to be honest I think it was quite justified.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]_jamez_
2005-08-19 02:20 pm UTC (link)
One fairly common example I can think of, are cannabis smokers. In my time I have come accross a large number of people who use cannabis on an occasional to regular basis and who are therefore technically all criminals but for whom the law soon becomes just a technicallity, especially with regard to the general lack of enforcement. It amazes and in a way delights me sometimes how such a broad cross-section of society actually do this, the vast majority being otherwise good, honest law abiding citizens. It's not civil disobedience for the sake of a principle, per se, but it does demostrate how vast numbers of people are willing to break the law when the law is utterly stupid and not applicable to the modern day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]0ct0pus
2005-08-19 03:39 pm UTC (link)
Is the use of cannabis a crime? I thought only possession and distribution were criminalised.

Just read that again and have just realised that if that is the case the only possible legal action if you happen to come across any cannabis is to smoke it immediately! Surely not...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]flydanman
2005-08-19 06:30 pm UTC (link)
Surely in order to use it you'd have had to have possessed it or distributed it?

However, unsurprising to most I'm sure, I'm very against putting cannabis in the same legal class as calpol or asprin.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]neonchameleon
2005-08-19 11:11 pm UTC (link)
Surely in order to use it you'd have had to have possessed it or distributed it?

Not when someone's using a vapouriser in the same room that you are.

However, unsurprising to most I'm sure, I'm very against putting cannabis in the same legal class as calpol or asprin.

How about the same legal class as alcohol or caffiene?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]0ct0pus
2005-08-22 10:45 am UTC (link)
So you feel that calpol and aspirin must be sold under controlled circumstances, and with a legal requirement that documentation is provided detailing dosage instructions, possible interactions, side-effects and other advice.

But that the only way to buy cannabis in the UK should be from a bloke in an alley and that no medical or pharmacological advice, and indeed no indication of quality or dosage is required.

Given the large numbers of people who experiment with cannabis, wouldn't it be safer to legalise it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]_jamez_
2005-08-22 06:47 pm UTC (link)
Exactly. Infact I'll start a new thread on the subject

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]matgb
2005-08-22 10:17 pm UTC (link)
I agree actually; I'd be a criminal by definition if I engaged in illegal civil disobediance. The problem Ihad witht he statement
"Only criminals do that. For anyone who respects the law, the two things are the same so there's no confusion." is the assumption that to break the law is always wrong, the law is not always right, which is what was stated.

It's a shame that we seem unable to attract sane authoritarians to this group, who are able to argue and defend their case, and actually answer criticisms of it.

Ah well. Considering the insult in question was apologised for and explained as a moment of frustration, the overreaction and response was, in my mind, excessive.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…