Civil Disobedience

[Garbarsardar]

French President Jacques Chirac has announced that the new youth employment law that sparked weeks of sometimes violent protests will be scrapped.

He said it would be replaced by other measures to tackle youth unemployment.

Millions of students and union members have taken to the streets over the last month in protest against the law, which made it easier to fire young workers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4895164.stm

I wonder how the fellow mudpiters regard the issue of civil disobedience, or even revolt. Is it ever justified and in which cases? Is there a universal rule? Is it the first or the last line of defence against an oppressive state?

When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row

You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton

The Clash, Guns of Brixton

[the Black Prince]

revolt, no
violent protest, no
commiting crimes (other than public order offences) as part of a protest, no

the right of people to gather lawfully, to protest, to chant, to show their opinion, and ultimately, to ignore and flout those laws passed in opposition to the will of the bill is undeniable (except in China)
a case of true democracy in action

[Tom Paine]

Its justified as action against any oppessor be they foreign or home grown; its justified as a protest against bad governmental decisions; its justified against governments who do not govern for the people; and it is the best protection for civil rights. This all applies only to nonviolent protest however.

[Perikles]

I think that Civil Diobediance is justified whenever the governemnt makes a bad decision that is agains the will of the people. I believe it is our duty to keep them in check, without this threat they could do whatever they want.

[imb39]

Civil Disobediance can only work in some situations, really. For example, in China I suspect it would be fairly ineffective. In Britain, though, it is an effective tactic the and ONLY legitimate way to go. Gandhi proved that correct. Of course, this means that in a well established democracy, this is the appropriate path. In a totalitarian regime, this might not work. I cannot pass judgement on those who live under those curcumstances as I have little idea about it.

[Elu Barcino]

In a totalitarian regime, this might not work. I cannot pass judgement on those who live under those curcumstances as I have little idea about it.

It probably depends on the country involved. I believe it was effective in Serbia with the removal of Milosevic, but in other countries it is probably not as effective (eg. China)

[The White Knight]

In a totalitarian regime, this might not work.

This reminds me of the current situation in Nepal, with the dictatorial regime of King Gyanendra. Any more "protesters would be should without a trial" (with the same guns Belgium so kindly supplied this totalitarian regime with to "support the growing democracy" ).

[MoROmeTe]

I am a citizen. And all democracies (demos + kratos) are supposed to be all about the will of the citizen. Citizens are supposed to be also rulers. But this would only be possible in a direct democracy which, sadly, is impossible because of the numbers of citizens nowadays. I say a limitation on who is and who is not citizen is in order. But this is another issue...

If I as a citizen see and/or feel that the government, which are supposedly my representatives, act in a way which I deem to be not my will then I have the right to contest and dissent (man I think of HoI2 when I say dissent). I can constest the government throught elections, but sadly these are far between, like from 4 to 4 years. I can lodge a formal complaint with my representatives (say my deputee or any government representative which is closest). But this is unlikely to lead to anything.

Civil disobedience is likely to attract a reaction from the governenment. On the condition that it draws a large numbers of citizens and/or is able to inflict damage, material and/or psihological, on the government. So I say civil disobedience is always a good thing, as long as it is thought out and others means of dissent and contestation are used too...

[The White Knight]

Civil disobedience is likely to attract a reaction from the governenment.

Or attract reaction from the international community through press.

[Valentin the II]

Civil disopidiance is justyfide as long as its not violent.
Problem is, that its almost always violent.
Also, sometimes people (peasents ) dont rely know what they whant, they just get convinced by cresmatic spoksmen to fight for their caws.
Just look at (former) USSR.

[imb39]

Yes, but those countries have direct contact (as in on borders) with working democracies AND the concept was not unknown. Also, under Milosovic, Serbia had a form of democracy, I believe.

I ought to add, that civil disobediance is always jsutified but not always appropriate.

[Tom Paine]

If its violent is it still civil disobedience or out-and-out revolution?

[MoROmeTe]

It might be revolt if it is violent, but it really can't be revolution unless there's a counter-elite which wants the elite now in power to go and tries to get popular support for itself...

[Tom Paine]

I disagree, popular revolution can still occur, not with a counter-elite but simply with the people being disatisfyed and wanting to change their own governments.

[MoROmeTe]

Meh, someone must side with the "people"... if only them are against the government it is a revolt not a revolution.

And I really can't think of a situation where the people without some sort of counter-elite rebelled...

[Tostig]

The English Revolution in that although some members of the aristocracy joined the Parliamentarian side they didn't plan it? Equally the Peasant's Revolt doesn't seem to have been masterminded by an elite. Similarly most of the Eastern European anti-Communist/anti-dictatorship revolutions and the Colour revolutions lacked an internal elite, although foreign activities in the latter are questionable.

[Tom Paine]

English Civil War was very much instigated and planned by two elite sides, each having their own armies and neither a popular uprising; the Peasants' Revolt wanted to keep the status quo in many ways and remained faithful to the monarch; and the Eastern European revolutions of 1989 were only possible because Gorbachev ordered them.

[Gwendylyn]

Dictionary:
Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.

Civil disobedience is nonviolent, otherwise it isn't civil disobedience. It's violent disobedience. What is going on in France is far away from the definiton of civil disobedience.

As to the OP, civil disobedience is an avenue of protest. It depends entirely upon context whether it is justified, which usually means whether or not *we*, after the fact, think the law that is being disobeyed is in fact unjust.

[Nihil]

I saw a duplicate thread on another forum a while ago, and I was amazed at the seemingly blinkered attitude of some people who believe that the government and state is always inherently right in everything it says and does. I can't even begin to comprehend such arse-about-face logic.

So briefly, we need recourse to civil disobedience. It is the only means we have to protect our freedom. Without it, there is no freedom, and no possibility of freedom. Does anything else need to be said on the subject?

[Bwaho]

If you get a communist government it is justified...actually in that case violence is also preferable