Extinction Rebellion Protests

[Oexmelin]

Ah so you are talking about over the last couple centuries? You made it sound like this is something that is currently occurring.

I don't see how you got that impression that I was talking about centuries. It *is* something that is currently occurring. The recent decrease in public urban spaces is well-documented in urban studies. Just go back 50 years ago: there were much less cars on the streets. White collars used to work with the same 9-to-5 schedule. Workers tended to live close to their factories. Two-cars households were much rarer. Occupying the streets then was surely inconvenient, but much less so than today, when streets are pretty much full morning to evening, when businesses rely on just-in-time, when individual contractors, and consultants of all kinds are always on the road. And so, the tolerance for occupying streets has correspondingly decreased. Rather than question the matters of having so many cars, all the time, on our streets, we rant about protesters. Such decrease in access to the streets has thus reduced available public space; it has been compounded with an increase of policing of urban parks, and the practice of privatizing green spaces (think gated communities).

[garbon]

Ah so you are talking about over the last couple centuries? You made it sound like this is something that is currently occurring.

I don't see how you got that impression that I was talking about centuries. It *is* something that is currently occurring. The recent decrease in public urban spaces is well-documented in urban studies. Just go back 50 years ago: there were much less cars on the streets. White collars used to work with the same 9-to-5 schedule. Workers tended to live close to their factories. Two-cars households were much rarer. Occupying the streets then was surely inconvenient, but much less so than today, when streets are pretty much full morning to evening, when businesses rely on just-in-time, when individual contractors, and consultants of all kinds are always on the road. And so, the tolerance for occupying streets has correspondingly decreased. Rather than question the matters of having so many cars, all the time, on our streets, we rant about protesters. Such decrease in access to the streets has thus reduced available public space; it has been compounded with an increase of policing of urban parks, and the practice of privatizing green spaces (think gated communities).

This seems like an irrelevant aside for the situation in London.

[Razgovory]

One could certainly argue that the law against theft is just, but its application to humans is unjust, and that therefor one can "justly" violate the law against theft when freeing a slave.  Ditto for trespass laws, when they are used to protect unjust tree-cutting by logging companies.  "Civil disobedience" designed solely to inconvenience bystanders in order to draw attention to one's cause is more difficult to justify.  Blocking access to a building to inconvenience Parliament is different than blocking streets to inconvenience the public.

Inconvenience is the point...

[crazy canuck]

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

[Oexmelin]

This seems like an irrelevant aside for the situation in London.

Cool. Feel free to continue to express your annoyance. 

[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.

I agree with you--by my definition, things like helping run the Underground Railroad weren't civil disobedience.  But then again, people didn't help run the Underground Railroad to protest against slavery, they did it to directly help escaping slaves;  doing that as part of a public protest would have hurt the chances of the people they were trying to help escape.

Can you think of a way to violate laws legalizing slavery as a form of civil disobedience?

Slavery is probably not a great example because enslaved blacks were given zero representation within the legal system.  It's not like you could tell them "you should just organize and vote for candidates who will free you".  Similarly I think Palestinians are probably well entitled to use force against Israeli soldiers (it's when they frequently target civilians that things go off track).

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

The phrase "civil disobedience " was coined to describe methods for opposing slavery in the US.  What we appear to be talking about in this thread is ways to limit protests to something that most of the public won't even notice.

[Barrister]

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I said no such thing.  I agree with your assertion that civil disobedience only really applies as a concept within a democratic system.  I said that as a way of saying that comparisons to the underground railroad weren't useful.

[crazy canuck]

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I said no such thing.  I agree with your assertion that civil disobedience only really applies as a concept within a democratic system.  I said that as a way of saying that comparisons to the underground railroad weren't useful.

What I am concerned about is your concept that one needs to create a "line" for civil disobedience and somehow that the qualifier that the people involved in the act have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process.  By framing the question in that way you are implying the civil disobedience is something separate from the democratic process.  The whole purpose is to bring about political change within a democratic system.

[garbon]

This seems like an irrelevant aside for the situation in London.

Cool. Feel free to continue to express your annoyance. 

I did. The axe you want to grind doesn't fit with London given the vast amount of actually public spaces in the city.

[Oexmelin]

I did. The axe you want to grind doesn't fit with London given the vast amount of actually public spaces in the city.

Awesome. I am sure the discussion narrowly focused on the London case that you desperately want to have is going to be super interesting. 

[Malthus]

Slavery is probably not a great example because enslaved blacks were given zero representation within the legal system.  It's not like you could tell them "you should just organize and vote for candidates who will free you".  Similarly I think Palestinians are probably well entitled to use force against Israeli soldiers (it's when they frequently target civilians that things go off track).

That depends on which Palestinians you are talking about - the ones in Israel proper are Israeli citizens, and fully entitled to vote in Israeli elections; there are Arab political parties in the Knesset. Certainly, they face discrimination in their daily lives (as do minorities in many Western nations) but they are not disenfranchised.

The ones in the occupied territories, or elsewhere in the ME, are not citizens and cannot vote--not surprisingly, as they wish to create their own nation.

[citizen k]

The whole purpose is to bring about political change within a democratic system.

The only way to bring about political change within a democratic system is by voting.  Protesting in the street is not "democracy", voting is.

[Malthus]

I'm not sure I understand the discussion about whether people "can" engage in civil disobedience. I thought part of the point was to participate, get arrested and charged, and thereby put pressure on the government and the public faced with the distressing sight of lots of otherwise worthy citizens being arrested and charged with offences - in that way, demonstrating the depth of the protester's convictions (that they are willing to give up their freedom for whatever cause).

Onlookers are, presumably, to look at this and say 'all these good people feel so strongly about this cause, they are willing to face persecution for it. Maybe we should not be so quick to dismiss the cause.'

The demeanor of the protesters is a vital piece of the protest. If the protesters are otherwise upright law-abiding citizens, they behave in a dignified manner, and they face actual penalties for protesting, their protest gains moral and political weight. Conversely, if they appear to be a bunch of hooligans or partiers taking the opportunity of a protest to have fun, they act like entitled brats, and they face no penalties for protesting, the protest loses moral and political weight.

[grumbler]

I'm not sure I understand the discussion about whether people "can" engage in civil disobedience. I thought part of the point was to participate, get arrested and charged, and thereby put pressure on the government and the public faced with the distressing sight of lots of otherwise worthy citizens being arrested and charged with offences - in that way, demonstrating the depth of the protester's convictions (that they are willing to give up their freedom for whatever cause).

Onlookers are, presumably, to look at this and say 'all these good people feel so strongly about this cause, they are willing to face persecution for it. Maybe we should not be so quick to dismiss the cause.'

The demeanor of the protesters is a vital piece of the protest. If the protesters are otherwise upright law-abiding citizens, they behave in a dignified manner, and they face actual penalties for protesting, their protest gains moral and political weight. Conversely, if they appear to be a bunch of hooligans or partiers taking the opportunity of a protest to have fun, they act like entitled brats, and they face no penalties for protesting, the protest loses moral and political weight.

I agree, and I'd add the codicil that I expressed earlier (and Thoreau earlier than me) that the successful civil disobedience campaign needs to make a significant percentage of the population say Under those circumstances, I'd break that law, too."  Successful civil disobedience must seem, to their target audience, anyway, as "more just than obeying the law."

[grumbler]

The whole purpose is to bring about political change within a democratic system.

The only way to bring about political change within a democratic system is by voting.  Protesting in the street is not "democracy", voting is.

Democracy can certainly include attempting to change the way people vote.  Otherwise, candidate debates aren't part of democracy at all.