Extinction Rebellion Protests

[Tamas]

That's a yes then.

To be fair though, CC's position is influenced by his frequent flying exactly as much as yours by you not flying frequently.

[dps]

That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

Civil disobedience can also be breaking a just law (for example a law regarding trespass) to protest an action.  A well known example is trespassing on land on which a company is carrying out certain activities to protest those activities.  BB used the example of protesters chaining themselves to trees to protest legal logging activities.

You have simply narrowed the definition to exclude these acts.

Well, if the law you're breaking is just, breaking it simply makes you  a criminal IMO.

[garbon]

Apparently the rebellion is over.

[Tamas]

Apparently the rebellion is over.

No, it is glued to the Stock Exchange at the moment:

[Tamas]

Change of costumes since blocking the Natural History Museum:

[garbon]

Apparently the rebellion is over.

No, it is glued to the Stock Exchange at the moment:

Yes, the last day.

[garbon]

Apparently the environment has been saved.

[Tamas]

Apparently the environment has been saved.

In fabolous style, too.

[crazy canuck]

That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

Civil disobedience can also be breaking a just law (for example a law regarding trespass) to protest an action.  A well known example is trespassing on land on which a company is carrying out certain activities to protest those activities.  BB used the example of protesters chaining themselves to trees to protest legal logging activities.

You have simply narrowed the definition to exclude these acts.

Well, if the law you're breaking is just, breaking it simply makes you  a criminal IMO.

Who decides what is "just"? The person who thinks it is just to revoke rights to protect the nation, to use but one example of the problem with your self referential definition.

[dps]

That's where my confusion comes in.  Civil disobedience is refusing to obey unjust laws.  Whether or not someone is inconvenienced doesn't seem all that relevant.  If you're black, and refuse to give up your seat on a bus to a white person, because the law that requires you to do so is unjust, you are breaking the law, but the law you are breaking is the unjust law.  If you block public roads to protest climate change, that's a different matter, because the laws you're breaking are laws against blocking public roads, but you're not protesting against those particular laws or saying that they're unjust, so IMO blocking the roads doesn't qualify as civil disobedience, at least in the traditional sense.  And I can't tell from your and Yi's posts if either of you agree with me or not.  I think you disagree with me, but I'm not sure, and I have no idea what Yi thinks about it.

Civil disobedience can also be breaking a just law (for example a law regarding trespass) to protest an action.  A well known example is trespassing on land on which a company is carrying out certain activities to protest those activities.  BB used the example of protesters chaining themselves to trees to protest legal logging activities.

You have simply narrowed the definition to exclude these acts.

Well, if the law you're breaking is just, breaking it simply makes you  a criminal IMO.

Who decides what is “just“? The person who thinks it is just to revoke rights to protect the nation, to use but one example of the problem with your self referential definition.

If the laws you're breaking are the laws you're protesting against, presumably you consider those laws unjust, and you're trying to draw public attention to that injustice.

[crazy canuck]

If the laws you're breaking are the laws you're protesting against, presumably you consider those laws unjust, and you're trying to draw public attention to that injustice.

You have dodged my question. I raised the scenario of breaking a law while protesting something other than the law.

What about the scenario BB suggested of protesting logging of old growth forest?  The protest group is not protesting the trespass laws they are violating.  They are protesting the logging. 

They are certainly breaking the law.  And when the Court issues an injunction to restrain the trespass they are also in contempt of court.  But that is certainly a textbook example of civil disobedience.

In democratic societies, civil disobedience as such is not a crime. If a disobedient is punished by the law, it is not for civil disobedience, but for the recognised offences she commits, such as blocking a road or disturbing the peace, or trespassing, or damaging property, etc. Therefore, if judges are persuaded, as they sometimes are, either not to punish a disobedient or to punish her differently from other people who breach the same laws, it must be on the basis of some feature or features of her action which distinguish it from the acts of ordinary offenders.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

[crazy canuck]

Also, if you are interested, an event which led to policing reforms in this province related to how the police reacted to protesters who engaged in acts of civil disobedience (which mainly involved sitting down roads) at the APEC conference held in Vancouver.  Note the matters being protested had nothing to do with the laws that were being broken.

The full report on how the police reaction and suggestions for how police ought to act in the future is here

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/hv%207641.a8%20r6%202001-eng.pdf

One of the main recommendations was to allow an opportunity for non violent protest - even though the protesters were certainly violating the law of trespass.  The practical suggestion was to give time and space before warning and then removing the protesters from the road.  In this instance the pepper spray was deployed almost immediately.

[dps]

The scenarios you mention are not civil disobedience, IMO. 

To directly answer the question you posed, there's no one source that can determine if a given law is just or not.  If a protester is breaking a law and states that they believe the law is unjust, then in general I'm willing to believe that they do actually believe the law unjust, which would qualify their actions as civil disobedience by my definition.  That doesn't mean that I or anyone else not involved in the protest would necessarily agree that the law is in fact unjust.

[Admiral Yi]

Are those actual pics from the protests? 

Ucks, maybe you can tell me how the elaborate outfits are empowering and uplifting.  To me they make it look like a bunch of bored trustifarian fine arts grads.

[Razgovory]

The problem with DPS' definition is that it does not allow for some sort of civil disobedience for actions that allow private citizens to commit unjust acts.  Take for example slavery.  If the law says that you can purchase and sell blacks how exactly do you violate that law as a protest?  You can help free those people, but that's probably a violation of laws against theft.