Debate Tournament - PeterParka vs.Leah

[retro]

Peter Parka vs. Leah

Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience is deliberately disobeying the law in order to further a disputed moral principal or to bring about change in behaviors or government policy. Civil disobedience was an important part of the civil rights movement, as well as women's suffrage. However, civil disobedience can lead to the breaking of laws as a way of drawing attention to the perceived injustice, for example by damage to property, non-payment of fines or taxes, obstruction of building work, and trespassing; all of which could detract from their movement.

Is it justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of their cause?


There will be three rounds, the first two will be limited to 350 words each, and the third round will allow 400 words. There will be no editing of your post allowed, unless it is approved by me, and only before your opponent has their chance to respond. You will have 24 hours from the conclusion of each post in order to post your response.

I would request that nobody, other than the participants, post in this thread until the conclusion of the debate.

I flipped a coin to determine who would lead off the debate.

Peter, you may lead off...

 

[Peter Parka]

Civil Disobedience

I say it can be justified. Look at just about every major law change in history. It wouldn't have happened if someone hadn't broke and challenged the law. Even peaceful Ghandi didn't get great by sticking to the law. Sometimes you need to break the law to get something done. If no one broke the law, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages where a 12 year old girl could get burnt at the stake for defacing a tiny bit of money, true story.

 

[retro]

Bump for Leah's response.

 

[Leah Love]

Challenging the law and breaking the law are not freely interchangeable expressions.

In a democracy, civil disobedience cannot be justified. There are legal channels through which everyone can initiate change; individuals who are unhappy can always act within the boundaries of law, they can create petitions, organize marches or even run as a candidate in elections.

Too often crimes as mugging, arson, draft evasion, juvenile delinquency and political assassination are committed under the false cover of civil disobedience. These crimes not only degrade any just cause, but also set an example of illegality and contempt for law and order which others, with less worthy causes or no cause at all, will follow.

However, I do support Public Resistance; a term also used by Gandhi to describe the struggle against the British Raj instead of the more ambiguous and often misused "civil disobedience".
In this case the action involved is not necessarily disobedience, but instead involves supporting the norms of a society against usurpers; and where the decision not to use violence comes not from a philosophy of nonviolence, but from prudential, ethical and legal considerations.

 

[retro]

bump for Peter's response... you have about 6 hours.

 

[Peter Parka]

Sometimes, there are no other options to breaking the law to achieve your aim. Politicians seem to get more and more indifferent to the people the're supposed to be looking after and it takes an act of violence or disobedience to wake them up and realise that people wont stand for it. These kind of politicians are unlikely to listen to people sticking to the law as this isn't causing them any problems.
Just because something is law dosen't make it morally right. Take what's happening in Libya, for example. Does anyone seriously thing Gadaffi is right and the protesters are wrong because they are breaking the law?

 

[retro]

Peter - you were late with your response, but Leah has agreed to continue the debate.

 

[Leah Love]

The use of violence undermines the moral cause and violates the rights of other individuals. Two wrongs do not make a right; you cannot balance the scale of justice with violating the law and the rights of others. Too often civil disobedience involves “productive violence” directed against innocent members of the public, often causing serious injuries and even the loss of lives. How could domestic terrorism of such a kind ever be justified?

If a law is obviously unjust and can be proven that it is in conflict with the Constitution, appropriate steps can be taken and the law can be overturned. Citizens who are unhappy with such a law should turn to the courts, rather than taking it to the streets and undermining the rule of law itself. The repercussions of such actions, the riots, the damage of property, the injuries, the possible loss of lives, the fear and terror it generates can further no just cause, no matter how noble the motive.

 

[Peter Parka]

Civil disobedience isn't always about using violence. Take the poll tax riots, for example. Yes there was violence commited but people just refusing to pay it and going to prison for it were just as effective. Gandhi led large movements of civil disobedience but didn't result to violence.
Basically, laws rarely get changed without civil disobedience forcing them to change. Hundreds of years ago the common man virtually had no rights and the king could do as he please. If it wasn't for civil disobedience and violent revolt, we'd still be living under that system. We wouldn't even be able to have this conversation on the internet if it wasn't for civil disobedience forcing through freedom of speech.

 

[Leah Love]

Civil disobedience is dangerous, uncontrollable and more often than not counterproductive. Even in your own example, regarding the poll tax riots, it came to violence, when it was just as effective to use non violent methods.
Civil disobedience is like a snowball – once it leaves your hand and is rolling down the hill, it leaves your control and the outcome, how big it will get, how much damage it will cause and who it will hurt is unpredictable.

Yes, opposing and challenging the law, overthrowing dictators and fighting for civil rights is necessary to establish a just society within a country. But do not confuse revolution with civil disobedience. The current movements in Egypt, in Libya and in the Middle East are not examples of civil disobedience, but the citizens attempt to overthrow the current leadership. That is revolution.

The power of civil disobedience, while undeniably great, is in itself corrupted. Winning a change in the law is worthless, if by obtaining it one has destroyed the ability of the state, its police and its courts to uphold any law, just or unjust.

Besides, we all know that a smile and a wink are usually more effective than a punch in the face.

 

[retro]

This debate is closed now.

Please send a PM to me in order to vote for your chosen participant. I ask that you give a reason for your choice, and not just because you agree with the stance they were defending. Please base your decision on the merits of the debate itself.

Please do not post in this thread until voting is completed. I'm going to leave voting up until Sunday night at 8pm Pacific.