Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Civil Disobedience

Whale... Whale... Fish!

11:56 / 09.04.04

This is sparked off by this story.

Now, in the local newspaper there was an article calling for civil disobediance in Shetland against these deportations. Fair enough, it wasn't front page news but still, this is the local paper calling for direct action and it got me thinking: Do we have the responsibility to take action, in the form of civil disobedience etc, against a government that doesn't represent our interests?

I feel that because of the actions of our government are becoming more and more totalitarian then we have to force a change of governement.
They ignored the views of 2million people last year when it came to the war in Iraq, they have brought in legislation creating more draconian policing and are about to bring in ID cards. With the country heading down the route of a totalitarian regime (the removal of one being the reasons for military action against Iraq), i think it's time the people stopped this.

Or am I just paranoid?

12:31 / 09.04.04

No, you're not being paranoid (or if you are, you also happen to be right

).

The population should certainly take action against the government, at the very least to resist new attacks on their interests if nothing else.

How this ought to be done is a whole other matter, and it's far too early for me to make any kind of meaningful statements (or, uh, diatribes) about that right now.

~L

The Prince of All Lies

17:41 / 09.04.04

I'm just gonna quote two great thinkers..
"You're only paranoid if they're NOT after you"
and
"The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

SO, get started with the civil disobedience. If your governement ignores you, screw them. I'm not saying you should dig out your Anarchist's cookbook and blow City Hall, just peaceful thought-provoking civil disobedience.

09:36 / 10.04.04

And, a great songwriter.
"Just because youre paranoid, dont mean theyre not after you".

08:08 / 11.04.04

Ws it Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson who said something along the lines of

"questioning your Government is your patriotic duty"

sorry to paraphrase but it was something like that

Anyway, be careful. I know it seems romantic to talk about civil disobedience but in this day and age, you are not only at risk of getting tear gassed and hit over the head by some monosyllabic police man, like in the sixties

But there are all these new laws and detention rights that the Government have passed

Be careful that is all I ask of you all

Whale... Whale... Fish!

15:48 / 11.04.04

All more the reason for the people to oppose it then.

I view the threat to my civil liberties as a form of oppression and don't we have an obligation to oppose an oppressive government.

And to think I voted for these people in the first place. Granted it was tatical voting to keep Micheal Rifkind from gaining Edinburgh Pentlands but still...

17:17 / 12.04.04

This is kinda off-topic, but one of my favorite Ben Franklin Quotes would have to be,
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Civil disobedience could be considered "giving up a little temporary safety to obtain essential liberty"

18:36 / 12.04.04

I bow to your greater wisdom and bravery (NO sarcasm intened, I geneuinely mean that)

as a Brit I suppose I have centuries of indoctrination to get over regarding civil liberties

But my point still stands. Whilst I admire your True American spirit...PLEASE BE CAREFUL

These guys have pepper spray, water cannons, GUNS and loads of anti social behaviour laws at their disposal that might hurt you or your family if they choose to use them against you

You are indeed correct Fear should not stop you

but with the odds MASSIVELY stacked in their favour and a police force stupid enough and compliant enough to carry out their wishes.......just be careful

I wish you well (and admire your spirit........just don't get carried away....................literally!!!!!!!!)

21:48 / 14.04.04

Inspired by all the quotes, I'll add this:

"A paranoid is just someone in possession of all the facts."

Whale... Whale... Fish!

23:03 / 14.04.04

Thank you for the concern but I'm not planning on doing anything... just yet...

17:26 / 16.04.04

While we're trading quotes:

"Nothing ever burns down by itself - Every fire needs a little bit of help."

And, in the Borrible spirit: "Don't get caught!"

~L

18:55 / 16.04.04

I think so. Unfortunately, there is a problem. Like someone mentioned, even 2 million peaceful protesters on the streets had zero impact on public policy.

But, if you don't protest peacefully, you run the risk of being labelled a) a tiny minority, not whose political statement is obliterated in the public mind because of your means, or b) a 'terrorist'.

And, remember, they have all those shiny new laws to lock you up or 'contain' you with now.

So, what's the answer? I certainly don't know.

Voting isn't much good, either.

One of my favourite quotes: 'Democracy is elected dictatorship'. A bit of a bold statement, but it has an element of truth, I think.

If you're protesting for anything, protesting for a more representative/proportional form of election is a good place to start, because under proportional representation, it is far harder to gain a majority in whatever political forum. There is more need to compromise, so what you're left with is more democracy-like.

But 'proportional representation now' isn't much of a protest slogan, huh?

All I can add is that I feel increasingly desperate and depressed about our increasingly undemocratic society.

Whale... Whale... Fish!

23:28 / 16.04.04

I completely agree! Although, I would rather see direct democracy as the ideal, at least on major issues such as any declarations of war.

I've been amusing myself with the idea of militant liberalism or liberal extremists. It kinda seems an oxymoron but thinking about it, isn't anarchy just extreme liberalism?

I feel though, that my big act of rebellion will just be me becoming a minor annoyance to some civil servant somewhere rather than a reclaim-the-streets effort. But who knows. Maybe if we can turn the 2million into 10million then we might get somewhere. I live in hope.

09:57 / 18.04.04

"Don't get caught" is not the rallying cry of civil disobedience. The point is that for it to be effective, you should be able to show that you are willing to take the consequences for your actions. Otherwise the people you're trying to appeal to will not take you seriously.
All very well for me to say that: I'm a coward.

14:44 / 20.04.04

this is my advice to you americans. think about what your political actions in a scale from talking to militans. what sort of governmental repression makes radical methods motivated.

- at what point is it motivated to start talking around with your friends about things that are wrong? is it when you don't have cash enough for an education? or is it when your government goes to war without reason?

- at what point are you motivated/forced to make flyers, organise demos, write in newspapers, etc about what´s wrong? is it when your friends gets 5 years of prison for stealing a bike? is it when all media are owned by less than 5 corporations?

- at what point is it motivated to use sabotage as a means of political action? is it when the newspapers doesn't give you space to speak? is it when the website you run get closed down because it's unpatriotic? is it when all the borders are closed to refugees?

- at what point is it motivated to use militans as a political method? is it when people are putted in working camps? is it when people doesn´t even have the courage to speak their minds?

14:49 / 20.04.04

about taking the consequences for your actions: don't. that's lutheran self-spanking bullshit. if you are into that sort of stuff - go to church. trust your own ideas on what is motivated or not. Direct action is supposed to change something for real - not look good in media.

14:35 / 23.04.04

A willingness to accept the "legal" consequences of insurrectionary action only reinforces the state's "right" to hand out consequences. How much sense does it make to fight for more personal freedom by sacrificing all of it? Sort of misses the point, doesn't it?

So I repeat: Don't Get Caught.

~L

15:09 / 23.04.04

In the UK we live in a democracy. If you belive in democracy and believe that demcracy in the UK functions well then civil disobedience isn't a logical option. Using your one vote to express your personal beliefs is though.

Isn't civil disobedience a kind of might makes right? Should we all do what the countryside alliance wants because they are willing to kick up enough fuss?

16:54 / 23.04.04

Buk: What if democracy isn't working the way it's supposed to, though? What if, as proposed at the beginning of this thread, the government is no longer [??!] representing the interests of the people? If the vote has become devalued, then how do the people make their voices heard? In this scenario, civil disobedience is nothing more than democracy writ large.

As for 'might makes right,' does anyone actually believe that a group of activists at a demo are in any way mightier than the state? It would take an awful lot of effort by a large proportion of the population to even begin to swing the balance (assuming we're talking only about non-violent 'civil disobedience'), and again: isn't that really just another face of democracy? If enough people unite to actually create a real change, that sure enough counts as a majority vote.

On the other hand, there's also the perspective that democracy itself is nothing more than the 'Tyranny of the Majority.' Whether they're 'kicking up enough fuss' by waving signs and chanting or by voting, it's still 'might makes right' for the other 49% (or 15%, or 1%) -- whoever doesn't agree with the majority is still being forced to do something (or live with something) against their will. This might be sidetracking the thread a little bit, but I think it does have some relevance if we're going to talk about "our" interests (whose interests?) and whether or not the government is (or can, or should) represent them -- and what can be done about it.

~L

00:06 / 24.04.04

Doesn't anyone ever read Thoreau any more? I mean, he is where we get the term "civil disobedience" from....

"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Read the link, read this summary or this study guide, read it.

20:14 / 24.04.04

Breaking the law without getting caught is just breaking the law. It makes no statement outside itself. OK, I'll agree that some laws are shit and should be ignored. If you can get away with it, fine, but you aren't changing anything. The point of civil disobedience is being seen to be disobeying: to set an example, if you like.
You may want to see it as self-flagellation, and I probably won't persuade you, but civil disobedience is a quite specific form of law-breaking which has an aim in mind which is usually to get the law repealed.
If you don't get caught, you've notched up a little personal victory, but no-one knows and no-one cares. If anything you're more likely to increase acceptance for the bad law as people will think that no-one is challenging it, so it must be OK.
For proper civil disobedience, think freedom rides, Ploughshares women, or strikers.
Despite the fact that I think the Countryside Alliance are at best misguided and at worst scum, if I saw a single one of them willing to take the consequences of true disobedience, in order to challenge what they saw as bad laws, then I might take them more seriously.

21:34 / 24.04.04

I've been trying to write something regarding the different tactics used in civil disobedience, but I can't seem to get it right.
It seems to me that there are several degrees of activism, each with their different tactics and attached views on activism. The first step is that it's ok to break the law; that's the type we are discussing. The second step is that it's ok to destroy property. For example sabotage, grafitti actions etc. The last step is that it's ok to use direct violence against other people. At this point we are practically talking revolution.

I think most people, besides pacifists, can agree that all of these tactics are acceptable, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. What these circumstances are may be harder to agree on.
I guess it all depends on how you see the current political situation. Whether the democracy in your country (assuming you live in a democratic country, this is the internet) works or not. If it doesn't work, whether it can be corrected, or needs to be completely reworked. Do you even want a representative democracy? (I am continually amazed at how the current, living citizens of a country are never asked if they like their political system).
And, regarding the whole "might is right" thing, is there some point where democracy should be suspended because the people have chosen wrong. What I mean is, can people always be trusted to make the right decision?

I hope this all makes sense, I'm a little unsure of how to word it.

13:49 / 06.05.04

Action *is* being taken against the government. Just not enough. Plain and simple, people are afraid of going to jail.

Because not enough people are willing to sacrifice their jobs and their lives for the cause, more and more people are leaving the system completely and forming their own underworld that has no association with their country except for the geographical labeling. So you either care enough to O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-E and risk going to jail or detach + separate.

14:14 / 11.05.04

Rage: Yes, certainly risk going to jail - I never meant to suggest that people shouldn't take a stand out of fear of imprisonment. All I said was "be careful," i.e. "think tactically to maximize the effect of your actions without handing yourself to the police." The masks and coordinated movements of the Black Bloc in Seattle, for example, or the masks and destruction of security cameras during the "J18" Carnival Against Capital in London are just two examples (they can lay their hands on you in the streets, but if they don't see your face, they can't track you down later). Anonymous acts of eco-sabotage (a la EF! or the ELF) are others. I personally think that it is a credit to the success of an action when it fulfills its objectives with the fewest arrests possible.

And cube: I think it depend on what one is trying to achieve. Are you just trying to draw attention to a problem, or are you trying to do something about it? Massive arrests at a protest make good press, but they don't accomplish much. I suppose this is one place where you can draw the line between "civil disobedience" and "insurrection" - the amount of public notice one wishes to secure, as the point of the action itself. And, so far as that goes, I concede that my comments in this thread have attempted to push insurrectionary values, when the thread was actually about civil disobedience. I do apologize for the mismatch - it seems several of us were talking at cross-purposes.

On the subject of civil disobedience, though, I still think it's in the activist's best interests not to go to jail, if it can be helped. Except possibly in some high-profile situations, they can probably continue to do more good on the outside (see my comment earlier in this post re: "successful actions, number of arrests in").

That's all I'm sayin'.

~L