Civil disobedience anyone?

[Rum]

The recent student 'riots' here over tuition fees raise an interesting question yet again. Although the protests were not well focused they did represent perhaps a frustration that is only going to increase as the current UK governments policies bite. For example pubic sector jobs over the next two to three years are likely to reduce by as much as a third. There are going to be a lot of angry citizens out there.

Sooo - if you disagree with decisions (made by a democratically elected government don't forget - however borderline that is with our coalition), when would you feel justified to:

1. break a law to challenge something that you felt was unjust
2. Do something violent in the case above.

and 3. - Suppose everyone with a point of view that was different from the elected government was also civilly disobedient?

Recipe for chaos?

[eXcommunicate]

Hmm, I think politicians should fear and respect their constituents, rather than the other way around. If the government is unresponsive, then it is our right and duty to make them responsive. That's why I like seeing the French riot over everything. It makes me feel good to see somebody here in the first world try to stand up for themselves against what they see as unjust. And we Americans have the gall to call the French, "pussies."

[Clinton Huxley]

I was seriously considering direct action if the whole ID card farrago went through. Damned unBritish business, that.

[chaggle]

I felt like doing something naughty when they banned hunting with hounds.

[HomerJay]

It's crime and punishment innit?

If there are sanctions for breaking the law, the reason for breaking the law isn't relevant, we don't punish criminals because they broke a law. I don't think we can expect some sort of self-policing contract that means citizens should never break a law, simply that if they break a law the sanction will be applied. Citizenship is conditional on an agreement to keep the law, most of the time but not necessarily all the time.

[Warren Dew]

1. break a law to challenge something that you felt was unjust
2. Do something violent in the case above.

I thought "civil disobedience" meant breaking a law nonviolently, and willingly going to jail if arrested.

Violent disobedience would be insurrection or revolution. It might be justified sometimes, but it isn't the same as civil disobedience.

[Rum]

1. break a law to challenge something that you felt was unjust
2. Do something violent in the case above.

I thought "civil disobedience" meant breaking a law nonviolently, and willingly going to jail if arrested.

Violent disobedience would be insurrection or revolution. It might be justified sometimes, but it isn't the same as civil disobedience.

I agree that this is the correct distinction. Arguably though some of our major social and political changes have come about not through civil disobedience, but through violent action. It's all very borderline.

An example of this is the case here in the UK in 1996 of the so called Ploughshares Women who vandalised and damaged Hawk jets which were due to go to East Timor and would have been used for genocide related purposes, allegedly.

They were arrested and charged and clearly they were guilty of criminal damage and yet the jury acquitted them because it seems they felt that the women held the moral high ground.

Link if you want t read more: http://www.tridentploughshares.org/article1430

I am raising the difficulty of the argument for and against here, not proposing an answer. The women were right in my view, but if we all decided when it was 'right' to break the law, and possibly go as far as committing criminal damage we would have social chaos.

[Clinton Huxley]

I suppose it depends on how despotic the government is. Harking back to the
Peasant's Revolt - would anything have improved for the peasantry if they hadn't chopped off a few tax collectors heads and raised an army of 50,000?
Maybe, maybe not. I do think the Westminster Bubble needs pricking sometimes though. We have a ruling class that largely goes to the same schools and universities and pursues the same types of careers, a class that is insulated against the worst effects of the austerity measures they are imposing, a class that has no frame of reference for what poverty actually is. I think the anger of the masses needs to be thrust in the faces of such people.
Introduce them to reality.

[Pappa]

I suppose it depends on how despotic the government is. Harking back to the
Peasant's Revolt - would anything have improved for the peasantry if they hadn't chopped off a few tax collectors heads and raised an army of 50,000?
Maybe, maybe not. I do think the Westminster Bubble needs pricking sometimes though. We have a ruling class that largely goes to the same schools and universities and pursues the same types of careers, a class that is insulated against the worst effects of the austerity measures they are imposing, a class that has no frame of reference for what poverty actually is. I think the anger of the masses needs to be thrust in the faces of such people.
Introduce them to reality.

They were mostly tradesmen rather than peasants, it's one of the most enduring bits of spin in English history.

[Clinton Huxley]

The Tradesmen's Revolt doesn't have the same ring to it...

[HomerJay]

The Tradesmen's Revolt doesn't have the same ring to it...

But they could have renamed one of the gates at the Tower of London 'The Tradesmen's Entrance'.