Is civil disobedience protest or terrorism? [Archive I]

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 12:45 AM

Gandhi made civil disobedience famous during India's quest for independence. Martin Luther King Jr applied the same techniques during the civil rights movement here in the US. Since then, civil disobedience has been used to protest everything from opposition to war to trying to prevent trees from being cut down.

The justification for civil disobedience stems from the moral imperative to resist immoral laws. Given the subjective nature of morality, it becomes possible to justify civil disobedience in protest of just about anything you can imagine.

Is this reasonable?

If I were to believe that patent leather shoes were immoral, would I be justifed in chaining myself to the doors of an office building to prevent patent leather clad executives from going to work?

Where do we draw the line? How is protesting the war more valid than my personal distaste of patent leather shoes?

The simple truth of the matter is, people use their personal moral outrage to justify anti-social behavior, in the name of improving social conditions, regardless of whether or not they are in the majority. This then allows them to behave as rudely, as disruptively, as uncivily as they see fit, and then congratulate themselves on just how horrible they can act.

How does this further democracy? How is tossing a pie in the face of an invited guest speaker promoting dialogue or an exchange of ideas? How is this a defense of democracy?

The way I see it, civil disobedience has been completely corrupted over the years to the point where it is no longer used as a form of protest or as a way of communicating a message. It is used almost exclusively to shout down opposing points of view, or points of view that people find distasteful. It is no longer used to draw attention to a cause, but is rather used to intimidate and silence opposition. Always behind the protest is the threat of violence, or disruption, of property damage.

This is not democracy in action. It is terrorism.

Berthold

May 17, 2007, 12:49 AM

It is terrorism.
Definitely no!

How, then, would you call real terrorism?

Bonniedundee

May 17, 2007, 12:55 AM

Direct action and civil disobedience are essential for freedom, the state is not neutral and to give our situation even a sembelence of reasonability we must remind these leechs that we haven't completely surrenderd to them.

"Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it"

— Howard Zinn

Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace.

Rudolf Rocker

Your mistake is you take the current laws, state and system as impartial, democratic and free,they simply are not this, nor ever has been.

MindRevolution

May 17, 2007, 01:46 AM

Civil disobedience is still disobedience.

premjan

May 17, 2007, 03:25 AM

Civil disobedience is political rather than moral. Where it is also moral, it may sway people and succeed. Where it is not, it may suffer heavy handed retaliation.

Mrhat

May 17, 2007, 03:35 AM

If I were to believe that patent leather shoes were immoral, would I be justifed in chaining myself to the doors of an office building to prevent patent leather clad executives from going to work?

Where do we draw the line? How is protesting the war more valid than my personal distaste of patent leather shoes?

Is you chaining yourself to the doors of the office building meant to inspire terror?

ETA:
Always behind the protest is the threat of violence, or disruption, of property damage.

This is just patently absurd! It's ridiculous to assert that behind every protest is the threat of violence. In many protests, the ONLY threat of violence comes from the police and their rubber bullets and tear gas.

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 03:47 AM

It is a moral duty to disobey immoral laws. That doesn't mean the idea of protest and disobedience can't be abused, or can't be taken too far, and it doesn't stop somebody protesting something even when he or she is in a minority. But civil disobedience tends to work for the benefit of society as a whole.

Jayjay

May 17, 2007, 05:27 AM

Civil disobedience ought to be a disciplined form of protest, which most importantly means: 1) no violence, 2) no actions that harm anyone except the specific policy that you object to, and 3) accepting the consequences.

So yeah, if one wanted to chain himself to the door of the leather factory, that would be civil disobedience as long as he didn't go about physically hurting people or blocking random traffic on the street, and the police could still take him away and lock him up.

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 06:36 AM

Trout

May 17, 2007, 06:56 AM

And on topic what about this issue?

A report in Tuesday's Globe and Mail quoted a First Nation leader in Manitoba threatening widespread economic disruption and a potential blockade of CN rail lines connecting Eastern and Western Canada.....

...Fontaine also urged governments to work harder to settle more than 1,100 outstanding land claims, noting that at the current pace of negotiations, it would take 130 years to resolve them......

...The Conservatives shelved the previous Liberal government's $5-billion Kelowna Accord to address the gap in quality of living between Canadians and First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. The deal set targets to improve education, housing, economic development, health and water services, but details of how much of the money would be spent and who would provide the services were left to be negotiated at a later date......

...Speaking outside the House of Commons on Tuesday, federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said Fontaine had a responsibility to convince aboriginal communities and their leaders not to hold blockades, which he called "counterproductive" and harmful to the "goodwill" Canadians show toward First Nations communities

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/15/fontaine.html

Is this Fontaine guy a terrorist? Are road and rail blockades by natives to try to force issues through a legitimate tactic?

laughing dog

May 17, 2007, 07:01 AM

Berthold

May 17, 2007, 07:56 AM

Why wasn't it right for suffragettes to disrupt polling places on election day?
Much as I regret to have to mention, some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage) were borderline:
The suffragette movement in the United Kingdom was particularly militant, with some of its members committing vandalism and assault. Some suffragettes firebombed churches (see Modern World History textbook), threw axes at Prime Minister Asquith, smashed windows and terrorised many Liberal MPs as well as other men. Some Liberal MPs who had supported women's suffrage moved away from the movement due to the violence.

Aeron

May 17, 2007, 08:26 AM

To answer just the subject of the OP, it is protest.

Gandhi made civil disobedience famous during India's quest for independence. Martin Luther King Jr applied the same techniques during the civil rights movement here in the US. Since then, civil disobedience has been used to protest everything from opposition to war to trying to prevent trees from being cut down.

The justification for civil disobedience stems from the moral imperative to resist immoral laws. Given the subjective nature of morality, it becomes possible to justify civil disobedience in protest of just about anything you can imagine.

Is this reasonable?

I don't think making a blanket statement like yes or no is applicable here. If you are protesting that the government just confiscated all guns to keep them out of the hands of terrorists, then yes it is reasonable. If you are protesting that Sanjaya was voted off American Idol, then no it is not justified.

If I were to believe that patent leather shoes were immoral, would I be justifed in chaining myself to the doors of an office building to prevent patent leather clad executives from going to work?

Where do we draw the line? How is protesting the war more valid than my personal distaste of patent leather shoes?

I don't know where we draw the line. If there is a cause that is important enough to you that you are willing to accept the legal consequences of your protest, then it is hard to say where the line is drawn. People protest against everything from Homosexuality to deforestation - I don't usually consider the validity of their position as independent from their argument.

To use your example, if you protested against leather shoes on the grounds that you don't like leather and you think it smells funny, I would probably dismiss your "protest" as little more than a publicity stunt or some sort of mental condition. If you protested and cited the fact that cows were flayed alive for the leather by 5 year old guatemalan children in sweatshops, I would certainly understand your passion about the issue.

The simple truth of the matter is, people use their personal moral outrage to justify anti-social behavior, in the name of improving social conditions, regardless of whether or not they are in the majority. This then allows them to behave as rudely, as disruptively, as uncivily as they see fit, and then congratulate themselves on just how horrible they can act.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. People use moral outrage to justify a lot of things, and I find it incredibly rare that their positions are reasonable. Some people rail against homosexuality (using the same arguments that were used against interracial marriage). There are of course countless other issues people protest, this was just one example.

How does this further democracy? How is tossing a pie in the face of an invited guest speaker promoting dialogue or an exchange of ideas? How is this a defense of democracy?

It doesn't. I think many issues today have become so polarized that people don't want a free exchange of ideas. They just want "their side" to win. This issue is fairly widespread, and is certainly propagated by what we see in the media.

The way I see it, civil disobedience has been completely corrupted over the years to the point where it is no longer used as a form of protest or as a way of communicating a message. It is used almost exclusively to shout down opposing points of view, or points of view that people find distasteful. It is no longer used to draw attention to a cause, but is rather used to intimidate and silence opposition. Always behind the protest is the threat of violence, or disruption, of property damage.

This is not democracy in action. It is terrorism.

I think it has lost some of it's impact, but I would certainly disagree that it is terrorism. I think that word gets bandied about for the sake of emotional reactions - but claiming that all protest and disobedience is terrorism just seems like hyperbole.

Aeron

May 17, 2007, 08:28 AM

The problem with the OP is it confuses civil disobediance - the act of refusing to obey a law in a nonviolent manner - with terrorism (an act of violence). Throwing a pie in someone's face is not civil disobediance, it is assault.

I would argue it is none of the above. It isn't civil, it isn't disobedient, and it isn't assault.

It IS stupid, though

Preno

May 17, 2007, 08:36 AM

Nitrousoxide

May 17, 2007, 08:42 AM

Trout

May 17, 2007, 09:16 AM

Laurentius

May 17, 2007, 09:26 AM

Terrorism is by definition done with the intention to incite terror in (some part of) the population. The purpose of civil disobedience is not to incite terror, therefore, civil disobedience is not terrorism. Q.E.D.

Hooboy !! was right to see a similarity between the two. Civil disobedience resembles terrorism as long as it aims to express opposition publicly despite the consequences. However, civil disobedience differs from terrorism in that it does not mean to terrorize.

general_koffi

May 17, 2007, 09:31 AM

No.

Killing people, or destroying civilian infrastructure would qualify as terrorism.

Trout

May 17, 2007, 09:32 AM

However, civil disobedience differs from terrorism in that it does not mean to terrorize.

There's the crux of it.

Definition please? While you're at it, since I'm sure violence will be part of the explanation, please define that as well and what sort is acceptable.

Lots o tacit assumptions goin on here.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 09:45 AM

Is you chaining yourself to the doors of the office building meant to inspire terror?

ETA:

This is just patently absurd! It's ridiculous to assert that behind every protest is the threat of violence. In many protests, the ONLY threat of violence comes from the police and their rubber bullets and tear gas.
There are many forms of terror. The obvious one, where hooded militants roam the streets summarily executing people, or exploding anti-personnel mines on buses or in markets appears to be the only form that people seem to recognize. Consider this though...

You are a single parent, working a 9-5 job, earning a little better than minimum wage, with two kids at home. You live paycheck to paycheck, not in any kind of luxury, but well enough that there is enough food to eat, pay rent, and a little extra for fun on the weekends. Now, how would you feel were there a protracted protest that prevented you from: commuting to work, entering your place of work, effectively prevented where you worked from operating and subsequently called to tell you that you would not be needed, was run ouit of business altogether and you were laid off? How would you feel with two hungry kids you are responsible for, but all you have is $5 to your name? How would you feel when you received your final notice before your lights are shut off? How would you feel when you got home only to find your stuff in the hallway, an eviction notice on your door, and that the locks had been changed?

That is a form of terror too.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 09:49 AM

Trout

May 17, 2007, 09:53 AM

Now, how would you feel were there a protracted protest that prevented you from: commuting to work, entering your place of work, effectively prevented where you worked from operating and subsequently called to tell you that you would not be needed, was run ouit of business altogether and you were laid off? How would you feel with two hungry kids you are responsible for, but all you have is $5 to your name? How would you feel when you received your final notice before your lights are shut off? How would you feel when you got home only to find your stuff in the hallway, an eviction notice on your door, and that the locks had been changed?

Apart from slightly arguing that corporate interests may be quasi terrorists your argument would also apply to anti-abortion religious groups that snarl traffic and/or block access to clinics not to mention union protests that may shut down a major industry and cause negative economic ripples for others or at the very least, cause commuting problems.

Now being realistic as well, to extend the argument, what about a single industry town reliant on a mill for example? Say the execs are still making a profit there but can make more in Indonesia so they move operations, throw people out of work, destroy the local economy, etc Terrorists?

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 09:54 AM

I don't know where we draw the line. If there is a cause that is important enough to you that you are willing to accept the legal consequences of your protest, then it is hard to say where the line is drawn. People protest against everything from Homosexuality to deforestation - I don't usually consider the validity of their position as independent from their argument.

...

People use moral outrage to justify a lot of things, and I find it incredibly rare that their positions are reasonable.
I think this is really the point I was trying to make. History has judged Gandhi and MLK Jr to have been "righteous" in their actions. I really hate to agree with Fallwell on anything, but I think he had one thing right... moral relevancy is making it more and more difficult for people to be able to keep things in perspective and then recognize the causes that are worth fighting for and those that are not.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 09:58 AM

Apart from slightly arguing that corporate interests may be quasi terrorists your argument would also apply to anti-abortion religious groups that snarl traffic and/or block access to clinics not to mention union protests that may shut down a major industry and cause negative economic ripples for others or at the very least, cause commuting problems.
I am opposed to civil disobedience in most cases, regardless of the position on the political spectrum. Standing outside an abortion clinic and yelling at women that they are murders and are going to hell is also a form of terrorism as far as I am concerned.

Now being realistic as well, to extend the argument, what about a single industry town reliant on a mill for example? Say the execs are still making a profit there but can make more in Indonesia so they move operations, throw people out of work, destroy the local economy, etc Terrorists?
How is this a form of civil disobedience?

Personally, I do not give a flying flip about the workers who were put out of work. Why not? Because somewhere, someone else is going to be getting a job that did not have one before. I personally do not care if the owners are then able to pad their pockets with more profits. Good for them. Why not? Because that money will not just sit there and do nothing. It will be put into a bank or other investment, where more jobs will be created. This is the beauty of capitalism.

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 10:01 AM

I am opposed to civil disobedience in most cases, regardless of the position on the political spectrum. Standing outside an abortion clinic and yelling at women that they are murders and are going to hell is also a form of terrorism as far as I am concerned.

So terrorism is any speech that you are opposed to.

Personally, I do not give a flying flip about the workers who were put out of work. Why not? Because somewhere, someone else is going to be getting a job that did not have one before. I personally do not care if the owners are then able to pad their pockets with more profits. Good for them. Why not? Because that money will not just sit there and do nothing. It will be put into a bank or other investment, where more jobs will be created. This is the beauty of capitalism.

How did your predictable rightwing reactionary post to civil disobedience become a rightwing reactionary post praising capitalism?

Preno

May 17, 2007, 10:08 AM

Terrorism is by definition done with the intention to incite terror in (some part of) the population. The purpose of civil disobedience is not to incite terror, therefore, civil disobedience is not terrorism. Q.E.D.So suffragettes were terrorists?What?
The purpose of civil disobedience is most definately for the purpose of inciting terror. The very act of civil disobedience, even if it does not directly affect any other persons, is a demonstration of a lack of respect of the law and a willingness to obey and follow the law. It is, in effect, a form of rebellion against the authority of the current establishment. This is a direct threat to the very order of society, and every member of society is therefore threatened.No, the purpose is not to incite terror. Either name at least one person who participates in civil disobedience and said that he intends to incite terror by his actions or concede that this claim is absurd.

Using your logic, shoplifting also shows a lack of respect of the law. Therefore, shoplifting should be considered terrorism. But, shoplifting is not terrorism, therefore, your logic is not valid. Again, Q.E.D.
As far as I am concerned, it is not a question of "If it is terrorism?", it is a question of "Is it justified?".Dude, the thread is called "is civil disobedience protest or terrorism". You yourself claimed that it is terrorism in the OP. So it's kinda too late to be shifting the goalpost now.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:11 AM

So terrorism is any speech that you are opposed to.
I hope you are not expecting me to respond to your strawmen, particularly when I pretty clearly state the exact opposite.

How did your predictable rightwing reactionary post to civil disobedience become a rightwing reactionary post praising capitalism?
I did not raise the red herring, but I was pretty happy to clear up the misconceptions and mischaracterisations.

Trout

May 17, 2007, 10:11 AM

How is this a form of civil disobedience?.

It's not but the effects are the same as you previously defined as terrorism when resulting from protests - job loss, economic difficulties, family strife, etc

So if I understand what you are saying, so long as an action occurs within the current body of law, no matter what the effects, it can be classified as ok while something occuring slightly outside of the law (i.e. a peaceful protest) as well as more strident examples (minor violent protests-vandalism, etc) that have exactly the same effects as the action that happened within the law, they can be considered terrorist acts. So in effect, it is not the action that is the issue but adherance to the law.

Sorry man but that argument justifies the Spanish Inquisition.

Trout

May 17, 2007, 10:12 AM

What?.

Check past posts

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:14 AM

No, the purpose is not to incite terror. Either name at least one person who participates in civil disobedience and said that he intends to incite terror by his actions or concede that this claim is absurd.
Intent is irrelevant.

Using your logic, shoplifting also shows a lack of respect of the law. Therefore, shoplifting should be considered terrorism.
Yup.

But, shoplifting is not terrorism, therefore, your logic is not valid. Again, Q.E.D.
How comfortable would you be, as a shop keeper, knowing that a known shoplifter was cruising up and down your aisles?

Preno

May 17, 2007, 10:17 AM

Intent is irrelevant.It isn't. An act of terrorism is an act whose purpose is to incite fear. There are many acts that incite fear but are not terrorist. A leak of a toxic chemical from a plant may incite fear, but it is not an act of terrorism, unless it was willful.
Using your logic, shoplifting also shows a lack of respect of the law. Therefore, shoplifting should be considered terrorism.Yup.In that case, you use 'terrorism' as a synonym for 'crime', in other words, I suggest that you look up one of the definitions of the word.

Come on, Hooboy, you can possibly be seriously claiming that shoplifting is an act of terrorism.
How comfortable would you be, as a shop keeper, knowing that a known shoplifter was cruising up and down your aisles?Not at all. But how the hell is that relevant?

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:18 AM

It's not but the effects are the same as you previously defined as terrorism when resulting from protests - job loss, economic difficulties, family strife, etc
Then it is not pertinent to this discussion and is a red herring.

So if I understand what you are saying, so long as an action occurs within the current body of law, no matter what the effects, it can be classified as ok while something occuring slightly outside of the law (i.e. a peaceful protest)...
Ooops. Gotta stop you right there. I have zero problem with peaceful, lawful, protest.

So in effect, it is not the action that is the issue but adherance to the law.
That is one factor. Yes. You can protest within the law, but still be perceived as a threat though, such as the example I gave where anti-abortion protesters are screaming at patrons of an abortion clinic. So, no... lawful protest can also be a form of terrorism.

Sorry man but that argument justifies the Spanish Inquisition.
:rolleyes:

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:20 AM

In that case, you use 'terrorism' as a synonym for 'crime'
Not at all. Committing a crime is not the same as the effects committing a crime has.

Come on, Hooboy, you can possibly be seriously claiming that shoplifting is an act of terrorism.
You answer your own question...

Not at all.
In fact, you would follow that person around the store and keep careful watch over their... out of fear that they would steal something.

Preno

May 17, 2007, 10:23 AM

Not at all. Committing a crime is not the same as the effects committing a crime has.If every act that "demonstrates a lack of respect of the law and a willingness to obey and follow the law" is terrorism, then every crime is terrorism. Which is ridiculous, therefore, so is the claim that civil disobedience is terrorism based on this premise.

How exactly is that last part of your post relevant to anything you have been asked is beyond my cognitive capabilities.

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 10:25 AM

I hope you are not expecting me to respond to your strawmen, particularly when I pretty clearly state the exact opposite.

This is what you said:

Standing outside an abortion clinic and yelling at women that they are murders and are going to hell is also a form of terrorism as far as I am concerned.

So you called free speech terrorism here. And yet, when I called you on it, you state that I have built a straw man.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:26 AM

How exactly is that last part of your post relevant to anything you have been asked is beyond my cognitive capabilities.
Well then... we must be done.

laughing dog

May 17, 2007, 10:28 AM

I think this is really the point I was trying to make. History has judged Gandhi and MLK Jr to have been "righteous" in their actions.
For two reasons - their goals and their NONVIOLENT methods.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:28 AM

This is what you said:

Standing outside an abortion clinic and yelling at women that they are murders and are going to hell is also a form of terrorism as far as I am concerned.

So you called free speech terrorism here. And yet, when I called you on it, you state that I have built a straw man.
I am pro-life. I was accused of being politically biased. That was the strawman.

BTW, speech can be used to instill terror, which is why free speech does not mean that you can say anything you want, where ever you want, to whomever you want.

Trout

May 17, 2007, 10:29 AM

Then it is not pertinent to this discussion and is a red herring.

Okeedookey

That is one factor. Yes. You can protest within the law, but still be perceived as a threat though, such as the example I gave where anti-abortion protesters are screaming at patrons of an abortion clinic. So, no... lawful protest can also be a form of terrorism.

OK, so unlawful protest such as union picketing snarling traffic, sit-ins blocking sidewalk access and even lawful protests that may cause fear, etc may all be considered terrorism? Guys blowing up busses and buddhists sitting in an airport chanting to protest runway expansion can be called the same thing?

Man, that sounds like defining away the term until it's meaningless.

:rolleyes:

What? Not dramatic enough? :p

Seriously though, all of those terrible actions were sanctioned under the law and indeed sprung from it so I cannot take simply breaking the law as any sort of real definition of what constitutes terrorism. Not to mention of course that laws tend to change to justify a desired reality.

Preno

May 17, 2007, 10:30 AM

Well then... we must be done.Yes, I see no way of discussing whether X is terrorism with a person who believes that every single crime is an act of terrorism. Especially that X is a crime, so in effect you are saying: "I define A to include X. Now is X an A?" :huh:

Karalora

May 17, 2007, 10:33 AM

Hooboy!!, if I'm understanding you right, my sister was a terrorist the other day. I was a passenger in her car and she almost missed her freeway turnoff. She had to swerve suddenly across a couple of lanes, which is technically illegal, and the abruptness of her action scared the hell out of me (in a much more visceral sense than the "fear" of a shopkeeper who has a known shoplifter on his premises). It was hard for me to tell, but I think at the time she also might have been mentally complaining--that is, protesting--about the way the freeway offramps were designed.

So...was that terrorism? Should I report my sister to the Department of Homeland Security?

Tom Sawyer

May 17, 2007, 10:34 AM

Well, if you define terrorism to include everything that could potentially cause a slight bit of fear, then yes, civil disobedience and shoplifting are terrorism.

Also, some employees are somewhat afraid to ask their bosses for pay raises at the end of the year. Therefore anyone who has employees working for them in December is a terrorist.

The problem with expanding the definition of terrorists to include things like those who make shopowners and accidentally knocked-up women nervous, is that it defines the term into meaninglessness.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:35 AM

Man, that sounds like defining away the term until it's meaningless.
Perhaps. I think it is important for people to understand why protest is used. When the purpose of protest shifts from educating people or raising awareness to trying to intimidate and coerce, then it is no longer valid or acceptable, unless the entire establishment is corrupted to the point where it is no longer functioning democratically.

If you are in the minority and no amount of discussion, education, or raising awareness changes that... get the fuck over it.

If you are in the majority and the establishment refuses to change the status quo, then in a democratic society, you should be compelled to change the establishment, using any means necessary.

Seriously though, all of those terrible actions were sanctioned under the law and indeed sprung from it so I cannot take simply breaking the law as any sort of real definition of what constitutes terrorism. Not to mention of course that laws tend to change to justify a desired reality.
I understood the analogy.

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 10:38 AM

I am pro-life. I was accused of being politically biased. That was the strawman.

BTW, speech can be used to instill terror, which is why free speech does not mean that you can say anything you want, where ever you want, to whomever you want.

People on this board instill terror in me every day with their ideas. Are they terrorists?

The idea that free speech is sometimes terrorism is ludicrous.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:43 AM

Hooboy!!, if I'm understanding you right, my sister was a terrorist the other day. I was a passenger in her car and she almost missed her freeway turnoff. She had to swerve suddenly across a couple of lanes
No doubt scaring the shit out of a few people. So yea. She was a terrorist :)

Look, I understand that I am going over the top a little bit here, but I do not think by far. People are afraid of chaos. It stands to reason that any action that disrupts the order of things will be perceived as a threat. In this particular example there was a real danger to life and property, but it was not necessarily deliberate, nor was it ideologically motivated, nor was it coercive.

I am less interested in trying to group every person that has ever done something to strike fear into other people with extremists that go around beheading people. The notion is absurd. Clearly there is a spectrum here without any clear dividing line. What I am more interested in is discussing how civil disobedience and protest works. Or what the effects are on people.

It just makes me wonder. Are these same people in favor of corporal punishment? I mean, the idea is to change people's minds on a subject by putting them under duress. What's the difference between this and forcing your child to "behave" under the threat of being spanked?

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 10:44 AM

The idea that free speech is sometimes terrorism is ludicrous.
Tell that to the women who live in emotionally abusive relationships.

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 10:46 AM

Tell that to the women who live in emotionally abusive relationships.

Their partners are abusive, not terrorists.

chapka

May 17, 2007, 10:51 AM

Hooboy, I think you're conflating a couple of related terms here. The scenario you describe in the OP is not an example of civil disobedience.

The relevant techniques of political action are:

Civil disobedience refers to an individual's refusal to obey a specific law that he or she feels is unjust. The classic example is Rosa Parks. The law said she had to sit at the back of the bus. She didn't chain herself to the bus company's doors; she just ignored the specific law she felt was unjust. A right-wing example would be a pharmacist who refuses to follow a law requiring him to fill birth control prescriptions because he feels it would be immoral to do so.

A protest is an individual's attempt to draw publicity to a cause. Most of your classic people-milling-around-with-signs-and-giant-puppets protests fall into this category. Protests can be illegal but the illegality isn't the point of a protest; the publicity is.

Direct action is an attempt to directly prevent something from happening that you think would be unjust. Sitting in a tree so that it can't be cut down, or sit-ins, are a classic example. Direct action is generally illegal.

Terrorism is an attempt to promote your ideology, or silence your critics, through violence or the threat of violence.

The line between the latter three categories are not always hard and fast, and the last two are close to indistinguishable where the "direct action" involves violence or the threat of violence. For example, an abortion clinic bombing is direct action to the extent that it stops abortions at that clinic, and terrorism to the extent that it scares people away from opening more clinics. Earth First spiking trees is direct action and terrorism, because they are achieving their goal (stopping logging) through the threat of violence (if you try logging, you may be killed).

Your patent leather shoe example looks at first like direct action, but in reality is more like a protest. Nobody is going to stop wearing leather shoes because of some nut at an office building; the most this guy could hope for is to bring some publicity to his cause by getting arrested. If he chained himself to a cow, that might be closer to direct action. But as it is, it lacks the threat of violence, and that makes it not terrorism. And unless he's doing it because he thinks the law against chaining yourself to doors is unjust, then he's not engaging in civil disobedience.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 11:00 AM

Civil disobedience refers to an individual's refusal to obey a specific law that he or she feels is unjust.
Not always true. Sometimes civil disobedience is simply a form of protest and has nothing to do with the morality of the law being broken.

Direct action is an attempt to directly prevent something from happening that you think would be unjust. Sitting in a tree so that it can't be cut down, or sit-ins, are a classic example. Direct action is generally illegal.
Or in other words... civil disobedience.

Terrorism is an attempt to promote your ideology, or silence your critics, through violence or the threat of violence.
There are many forms of coercion, not all involving violence, which I have provided examples for.

Your patent leather shoe example looks at first like direct action, but in reality is more like a protest. Nobody is going to stop wearing leather shoes because of some nut at an office building; the most this guy could hope for is to bring some publicity to his cause by getting arrested.
Sure they would. If they were unable to enter their office building to go to work, there would be no need to get dressed for work. The patent leather shoes would stay in the closet and gym shoes would be worn instead.

laughing dog

May 17, 2007, 11:45 AM

This entire thread is based on the false equivalence of civil disobediance (which is nonviolent) and terrorism (which is violent). The history of civil disobediance - as some posters acknowledge - is resistance to what are considered as unjust laws or unjust authority. For a quick and easy to understand history, see Civil_disobedience.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 11:56 AM

Terrorism

Types of Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Types_of_Terrorism)
Civil Disorders – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community.

chapka

May 17, 2007, 12:01 PM

Not always true. Sometimes civil disobedience is simply a form of protest and has nothing to do with the morality of the law being broken.

No, it isn't. If you break a law in order to protest something other than that law, you have not committed civil disobedience. There are some marginal cases, such as refusing to pay taxes based on that tax money goes to, but what you're talking about is not civil disobedience. The term is not coextensive with "protest."

There are many forms of coercion, not all involving violence, which I have provided examples for.

Terrorism is not about coercion; it's about violence and the threat of violence.

If you redefine the terms radically enough, freedom can equal slavery, too. But calling something "terrorism" doesn't make it "terrorism."

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 12:09 PM

No, it isn't. If you break a law in order to protest something other than that law, you have not committed civil disobedience. There are some marginal cases, such as refusing to pay taxes based on that tax money goes to, but what you're talking about is not civil disobedience. The term is not coextensive with "protest."
Refusing to obey a law, regardless of how it is perceived morally, is civil disobedience. Deliberately exceeding the speed limit is a form of civil disobedience. The Wiki definition that laughing dog linked to simply elaborates on the method of disobedience so that it is non-confrontational. It says nothing about the morality or even the relevancy of the law being broken.

Terrorism is not about coercion; it's about violence and the threat of violence.
Yes it is. The violence and the threat of violence has a purpose. It is not random.

Pavlov's Dog

May 17, 2007, 12:10 PM

Hooboy just expanded the definition of terrorism to include Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus, shoplifting, intentionally violating the speed limit, and pretty much every other action a person takes. As long as you have this overly broad and absurd (not to mention unique) definition of terrorism it is pointless to even discuss whether civil disobedience is terrorism.

Trout

May 17, 2007, 12:24 PM

Perhaps. I think it is important for people to understand why protest is used. When the purpose of protest shifts from educating people or raising awareness to trying to intimidate and coerce, then it is no longer valid or acceptable, unless the entire establishment is corrupted to the point where it is no longer functioning democratically.

If you are in the minority and no amount of discussion, education, or raising awareness changes that... get the fuck over it.

If you are in the majority and the establishment refuses to change the status quo, then in a democratic society, you should be compelled to change the establishment, using any means necessary.
.

Majority terrorism is acceptable then. The people have the responsibility to revolt if their system remains unresponsive. Good enough and just as a sideline - that is the essential purpose for why the original Chinese Triads came to be.

However, your point about a functioning democracy and the rights of minorities within it is an interesting one. Do democratic systems often function for minorities generally without "terrorism" or disobediance toat least initiate change? The most obvious example is the US civil rights movement but there are many others.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 12:55 PM

Majority terrorism is acceptable then.
:)

Now yer gettin' it. I think it easy to understand how some people will view "terrorists" as freedom fighters, or legitimate insurgents, or folk heroes. It is really just a matter of perspective.

However, your point about a functioning democracy and the rights of minorities within it is an interesting one. Do democratic systems often function for minorities generally without "terrorism" or disobediance toat least initiate change? The most obvious example is the US civil rights movement but there are many others.
Democracies are not immune to fascism or tyranny. I believe that this is why there is so much distrust and dislike for conservatism, because it seeks to preserve the status quo and sometimes... the status quo includes institutionalized bigotry, or nepotism, or oppression.

The theory in a democracy is that all members of the community are free to express themselves, free to assemble, free to engage in debate and discussion. When this occurs, the assumption is that rational, reasonable, moral, just, causes will gain support and eventually affect change. But, this assumption is based on the premise that people are rational, reasonable, moral and just, which they very often are not, especially when they have something personal at stake. I would further venture to say that most people will actively work against any movement that will take away from them selves, be it freedom, property, or privilege; irrespective of how rational, reasonable, moral or just it is.

Loren Pechtel

May 17, 2007, 03:08 PM

I think this is really the point I was trying to make. History has judged Gandhi and MLK Jr to have been "righteous" in their actions. I really hate to agree with Fallwell on anything, but I think he had one thing right... moral relevancy is making it more and more difficult for people to be able to keep things in perspective and then recognize the causes that are worth fighting for and those that are not.

The key point I see is that there's no violence. That's the dividing line between the two as far as I'm concerned.

Chaining yourself to the fur factory: Civil disobedience.
Throwing bleach on somebody's fur clothes: terrorism.

May I suggest you quit listening to conservative "news"?

Loren Pechtel

May 17, 2007, 03:11 PM

I am pro-life. I was accused of being politically biased. That was the strawman.

BTW, speech can be used to instill terror, which is why free speech does not mean that you can say anything you want, where ever you want, to whomever you want.

Threatening speech can be terrorism.

If the guy outside the abortion clinic was saying "If you have an abortion I'll burn your house down tonight" then it would be terrorism.

Saying "If you have an abortion you'll burn in hell" is merely providing information. The mere fact that it's false doesn't make it terrorism.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 03:14 PM

The key point I see is that there's no violence. That's the dividing line between the two as far as I'm concerned.

Chaining yourself to the fur factory: Civil disobedience.
Throwing bleach on somebody's fur clothes: terrorism.

May I suggest you quit listening to conservative "news"?
Look, I grew up in a company town and lived through several strikes. There are many kinds of "terror" and they do not all involve violence, though violence was pretty common on picket lines.

BTW, I get my news from many different sources and if I am watching cable news, I usually watch CNN.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 03:17 PM

If the guy outside the abortion clinic was saying "If you have an abortion I'll burn your house down tonight" then it would be terrorism.
Doesn't this conflict with your definition of terrorism? Where is the violence in this? A threat of violence is not violence and if there is no history of violence, not even a very credible threat at that.

Loren Pechtel

May 17, 2007, 03:29 PM

Terrorism

Types of Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Types_of_Terrorism)

"Civil disobedience" <> "civil disorder"!!

laughing dog

May 17, 2007, 03:41 PM

The OP tries and fails to equate violence (terrorism) with non-violence (civil disobedience). The dividing line is easy to recognize.

Nice Squirrel

May 17, 2007, 03:44 PM

Are terroristic threats* the same thing as terroism.

*in the legal sense: "I will kill you." "When I come back this house will be burnt to the ground."

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 04:14 PM

"Civil disobedience" <> "civil disorder"!!
Civil disobedience may not necessarily result in civil disorder, but it certainly can.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

May 17, 2007, 05:01 PM

If I were to believe that patent leather shoes were immoral, would I be justifed in chaining myself to the doors of an office building to prevent patent leather clad executives from going to work?

This isn't an example of civil disobedience, it's an example of insanity.

Where do we draw the line? How is protesting the war more valid than my personal distaste of patent leather shoes?

Not wanting to fight a war is pretty much the status quo of people likely to be either called involuntarily to fight it or stand to lose family members if we go to war.

Not liking patent leather shoes to the extent of chaining oneself to a building to protest it is the line at which pschiatry is probably the appropriate response.

The simple truth of the matter is, people use their personal moral outrage to justify anti-social behavior, in the name of improving social conditions, regardless of whether or not they are in the majority. This. then allows them to behave as rudely, as disruptively, as uncivily as they see fit, and then congratulate themselves on just how horrible they can act.

You said it! Fuckin' Fred Phelps, the Moral Majority, and half of the Republican party sure piss me the fuck off.

How does this further democracy? How is tossing a pie in the face of an invited guest speaker promoting dialogue or an exchange of ideas? How is this a defense of democracy?

Well, I think if someone tossed a pie in Hitler's face in public circa 1932, I don't think WWII would have panned out quite the way it did.

The way I see it, civil disobedience has been completely corrupted over the years to the point where it is no longer used as a form of protest or as a way of communicating a message. It is used almost exclusively to shout down opposing points of view, or points of view that people find distasteful. It is no longer used to draw attention to a cause, but is rather used to intimidate and silence opposition. Always behind the protest is the threat of violence, or disruption, of property damage.

Yes, those pacifists are always threatening to kill and maim and loot and riot at the drop of a hat.

IsItJustMe

May 17, 2007, 06:02 PM

Well, like nearly everyone in this thread, I utterly reject the attempt to draw a parallel between civil disobedience and terrorism. It is not an act of terrorism to chain yourself to the door of Macy's, whether or not it is insane. It is not an act of terrorism to hang a Puerto Rican flag from the Statue of Liberty. Both are examples of civil disobedience.

Terrorism involves killing and wounding people. Neither of these examples involves either of those. Terrorism involves violence. Neither of those examples involves violence.

To call someone a terrorist who is not a bona fide terrorist is a very nasty debating tactic, and one which is getting badly out of hand. It also risks cheapening actual terrorism. If you have a sticker posted on your McDonald's by a rabid vegetarian and it takes you a full 15 minutes to scrape it off the window glass, that does NOT put you in the same league as the people who lost relatives in the 9/11 bombing. Not even close.

I do not believe in the law as an absolute. Law is there to serve people; people are not there to serve laws. Nor do I believe that a system of laws must be absolutely accepted or absolutely rejected. I believe that a middle is possible.

So, in some circumstances, I see civil disobedience as a moral necessity, and in others as a wrong, but a reasonably mild one. I do not think it is all that dangerous to any but the weakest societies.

B.S. Lewis

May 17, 2007, 06:30 PM

If I were to believe that patent leather shoes were immoral, would I be justifed in chaining myself to the doors of an office building to prevent patent leather clad executives from going to work?

Where do we draw the line? How is protesting the war more valid than my personal distaste of patent leather shoes?

A basic course in the concept of civil disobedience:

True civil disobedience entails - by definition - breaking the law. Whether you do it for some cause or just for kicks, you are always free to break the law; but, then you must suffer the consequences.

If enough people in society believe the consequences you suffered were too severe, or even altogether unjust, then you've successfully spotlighted a law that public opinion is against--and if your society is truly democratic, then the law will be chucked. If most people agree that you got what you deserved, then the law remains.

Bottom line is: you are suggesting that civil disobedience should be punishable. It already is punishable. Therein lies the very key to its usefulness.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 06:36 PM

Bottom line is: you are suggesting that civil disobedience should be punishable. It already is punishable. Therein lies the very key to its usefulness.
No, I am suggesting that civil disobedience is being used in the same way that terrorism is used, to promote a political agenda through coercion, including veiled threats of violence.

IsItJustMe

May 17, 2007, 06:41 PM

No, I am suggesting that civil disobedience is being used in the same way that terrorism is used, to promote a political agenda through coercion, including veiled threats of violence.

Well, the OP doesn't suggest that civil disobedience is in some way similar to terrorism, but rather that civil disobedience may BE terrorism. Your title reads "Is civil disobedience protest or terrorism" and you don't seem to think it's protest.

Now, civil disobedience has certain things in common with terrorism. So does speeding in that both are illegal. So does kinky sex in that most people want to hide the fact they're involved in it. So does skydiving in that both are dangerous.

What civil disobedience as a general rule DOES NOT have in common with terrorism is killing.

Now, someone somewhere might be combining civil disobedience and terrorism. In that case, they may be right or they may be (mildly) wrong for the civil disobedience and they are almost certainly seriously wrong for the terrorism. But other people might be combining smoking tobacco and terrorism, and that does not mean that all smokers should be sent to Guantanamo.

As for veiled threats of violence, I can't think that they can be very convincing for very long unless they are actually coupled with real violence. If they are, then that may very well be terrorism. But it's hardly the fault of the (crazy?) guy who chains himself to the door of Macy's that SOMEONE ELSE blew up a fur farmer, now is it?

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 06:42 PM

Refusing to obey a law, regardless of how it is perceived morally, is civil disobedience.

Refusing to obey is necessary, but not sufficient, for an action to be a civil disobedience. eg

If I were to smoke marijuana in the privacy of my home, I am refusing to obey the law but my action is not a civil disobedience, I have simply broken the law.

If I were to smoke marijuana in front of Parliament House, openly advertising what I was doing and demanding marijuana be legalised, my action is a civil disobedience.

Neither action could possibly count as terrorism, unless you once again expand terrorism to include getting baked.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 06:56 PM

Well, the OP doesn't suggest that civil disobedience is in some way similar to terrorism, but rather that civil disobedience may BE terrorism. Your title reads "Is civil disobedience protest or terrorism" and you don't seem to think it's protest.
The operative word is "or".

What civil disobedience as a general rule DOES NOT have in common with terrorism is killing.

Now, someone somewhere might be combining civil disobedience and terrorism.
Because murder is against the law, then terrorism is also a form of civil disobedience?

As for veiled threats of violence, I can't think that they can be very convincing for very long unless they are actually coupled with real violence. If they are, then that may very well be terrorism. But it's hardly the fault of the (crazy?) guy who chains himself to the door of Macy's that SOMEONE ELSE blew up a fur farmer, now is it?
There was a recent court cause of eco-terrorists who were committing acts of arson. Now, these are acts of violence wouldn't you agree? Violence does not necessarily have to be directed a person to be "violence". I guess we could qualify this as "vandalism" in order to make a distinction. However... if a person were to set a fire and then accidentally kill someone... would this be terrorism and not vandalism? How is a person to know when an act of vandalism will become an actual act of terrorism?

Violence is violence. Disregard for rule of law, is disregard for rule of law. Coercion is coercion.

Labeling an act "civil disobedience" and then pointing to an ideal example of what it is and then explaining what the intent was, does not absolve the practicioners of responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If the action results in a death... if the action results in people being intimidated... it is terrorism.

IsItJustMe

May 17, 2007, 07:06 PM

The operative word is "or".

Right. Meaning it's one "or" the other. A dichotomy. In this case, a false one, since there are many other things it could be. But a dichotomy nevertheless. Thus to posit that civil disobedience must be either terrorism or protest, and to deny that it is protest is, logically to call civil disobedience terrorism. And this is true whether or not you are willing to explicitly draw the logical conclusion of your argument.

Because murder is against the law, then terrorism is also a form of civil disobedience?

Um, no.

There was a recent court cause of eco-terrorists who were committing acts of arson. Now, these are acts of violence wouldn't you agree? Violence does not necessarily have to be directed a person to be "violence". I guess we could qualify this as "vandalism" in order to make a distinction. However... if a person were to set a fire and then accidentally kill someone... would this be terrorism and not vandalism? How is a person to know when an act of vandalism will become an actual act of terrorism?

Well, a person can know pretty well that no one is going to be killed as a result of a flag hanging from the statue of liberty, or the shaving of a fur coat. Whether or not the people who set fires for ecological reasons are terrorists, the guy chained to the door of Macy's is NOT one.

I reiterate a point I had to make twice in a previous discussion with you: The fact that X may meld into Y at some point does not mean that X and Y are the same thing. Whether a person is running or jogging may be hard to tell in some cases, but in most cases it is clear enough, and the two are certainly not the same thing.

Violence is violence. Disregard for rule of law, is disregard for rule of law. Coercion is coercion.

I can't think you seriously mean any of that. Slapping your kid's hand when he reaches for the stove is violence, but it is a very different thing from serial murder. Speeding is a violation of the law, but it is a very different thing from serial murder. Etc.

Do you think that we should have only one punishment for every crime from parking violations up to treason?

Labeling an act "civil disobedience" and then pointing to an ideal example of what it is and then explaining what the intent was, does not absolve the practicioners of responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If the action results in a death... if the action results in people being intimidated... it is terrorism.

Well, first of all, civil disobedience virtually never results in anyone dying. Maybe you can dig up an exception to this, but I actually think it will take some digging. In any case, the overwhelming majority of cases of civil disobedience pose no meaningful danger to anyone.

Second, intimidation and death are not equivalent. Terrorism is violent, intimidation need not be.

Third, even if a person commits an act of civil disobedience which causes the death of someone by a freak accident, it is certainly not terrorism. It's a terrible accident.

For instance, suppose that in an act of civil disobedience I carry my picket sign onto the actual grounds of the US Army School of the Americas. And supposing that a freak gust of 200 mph wind snatches it from my hand and drives it straight through the head of a passerby. My civil disobedience in some sense caused the death of that passerby, since if I had not been there with my picket sign he would still be alive. But that does not make me a terrorist. The law has a term to cover this, called proximate cause.

unrealist42

May 17, 2007, 08:19 PM

In the U S of A the citizens have a right, some say an obligation, guaranteed in their constitution, to gather together to address their grievances to the government.

That the government tries to restrict this right through the passage of laws meant to obstruct and intimidate the citizenry and make them fearful is an act that forces these citizens into committing civil disobedience to exercise their rights.

So, in a political protest, who is commiting terrorism, the protestors exercising their constitutional right, or the government that seeks to oppress and limit and intimidate them?

laughing dog

May 17, 2007, 08:47 PM

Labeling an act "civil disobedience" and then pointing to an ideal example of what it is and then explaining what the intent was, does not absolve the practicioners of responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
To my knowledge, part of the civil disobedience is to be arrested and to be held responsible for the action.

If the action results in a death... if the action results in people being intimidated... it is terrorism. It depends. If a cop has an heart attack while arresting a nonviolent protester, it is not terrorism. If chickenlittle is intimidated by someone with a different color skin, it is not terrorism. You can try this sophistry all day and all night, but your "analysis" is based on a false assumption: civil disobedience is NONVIOLENT and terrorism is VIOLENT.

Hooboy !!

May 17, 2007, 09:05 PM

Right. Meaning it's one "or" the other. A dichotomy. In this case, a false one, since there are many other things it could be. But a dichotomy nevertheless.
How was I saying that it could not be other things? Civil disobedience is widely regarded (by definition) to be a form of protest. I am making a case for it also being a form of terrorism.

Well, a person can know pretty well that no one is going to be killed as a result of a flag hanging from the statue of liberty, or the shaving of a fur coat. Whether or not the people who set fires for ecological reasons are terrorists, the guy chained to the door of Macy's is NOT one.
The point was... you don't know. Can't know. What you can do is make a prediction based on what you do know. But, it remains a prediction. Intent is not relevant.

The fact that X may meld into Y at some point does not mean that X and Y are the same thing.
This statement is contradictory. Intent is irrelevant.

Well, first of all, civil disobedience virtually never results in anyone dying.
I do not think people have to die for an act to be terrorism. A credible threat of violence is sufficient. Any form of fear as a means of intimidation or coercion is sufficient.

In any case, the overwhelming majority of cases of civil disobedience pose no meaningful danger to anyone.
Interferring with my ability to put food on the table is a danger.

Third, even if a person commits an act of civil disobedience which causes the death of someone by a freak accident, it is certainly not terrorism. It's a terrible accident.
Intent is irrelevant. The example you cited had nothing to do with an act of civil disobedience. It was an act of God (for lack of a better phrase). If you were using that sign in a threatening manner, which caused a person to duck for cover or try and avoid being hit, stepped off a curb and was hit by a car... that is terrorism.

laughing dog

May 17, 2007, 09:31 PM

Interferring with my ability to put food on the table is a danger. It is not a meaningful danger. And what type of civil disobedience prevents one from putting food on the table?

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 09:42 PM

It is not a meaningful danger. And what type of civil disobedience prevents one from putting food on the table?

His fantasy scenario of a woman being prevented from going to work and therefore loses her home and her children starve to death.

Of course, Hooboy would not want society to mitigate such pain by providing welfare. Let the children starve!

Metaphor

May 17, 2007, 09:47 PM

<snip> Intent is not relevant.

<snip> Intent is irrelevant.
<snip>

Intent is irrelevant. <snip>

No. Intent is everything. Breaking the law, in private, in the hopes not to get caught could never be civil disobedience.

You never responded to my smoking marijuana example. I wonder why?

DougP

May 17, 2007, 10:19 PM

A preemtive warning to stay civil and discuss the arguments and not the people. I can tell that everyone is getting heated, which is fine so long as people keep the rules of the forum in mind. Looks like everyone has done that so far, keep it up.

RED DAVE

May 17, 2007, 10:24 PM

As one of the few people around here who has actually engaged in civil disobedience and had training in nonviolence, I have a few things to say. I want to read the whole thread over first. Then I'll jump in.

RED DAVE

B.S. Lewis

May 17, 2007, 10:56 PM

Bottom line is: you are suggesting that civil disobedience should be punishable.

No, I am suggesting that civil disobedience is being used in the same way that terrorism is used

OK, but I was assuming that this was more than just an idle academic musing on your part--what do you see as the policy implications of your "civil disobedience-as-terrorism" viewpoint? Do you want Guantanamo for protesters? how about the death penalty? It's a serious question: I do not understand what you are suggesting be done with those who (peacefully) break the law to make a point. Maybe you think that violations of the law which are committed to make a political point should be punished more severely than random violations of the law--sort of similarly to hate crimes? Anyway, I was wrong in my first guess, so now I'll let you tell me what you meant.

B.S. Lewis

May 17, 2007, 11:00 PM

Now, civil disobedience has certain things in common with terrorism. So does speeding in that both are illegal. So does kinky sex in that most people want to hide the fact they're involved in it. So does skydiving in that both are dangerous.

Pardon me, but may I use this in every argument I ever get in henceforth?? :notworthy:

RED DAVE

May 17, 2007, 11:12 PM

No, I am suggesting that civil disobedience is being used in the same way that terrorism is used, to promote a political agenda through coercion, including veiled threats of violence.This is as good a point to enter as any as it basically incorporates the OP.

What, in my arrogant opinion, we are dealing with here is Hooboy !!'s rightwing conception of the world. The fact that he erupted into a defense of unbridled capitalism at one point, is not an accident. Hooboy !! has a political agenda as do I. I think he is responding to the gradual escalation of protest against the War in Iraq, which is more and more taking the form of demonstrations and civil disobedience.

Now, classically, civil disobedience is not usually considered a form of coercion but a form of persuasion, but this is not necessarily the case. The Salt March, for example, where the protesters submitted nonviolently to beating, was a form or civil disobedience by persuasion. Blocking access to buildings, while nonviolent, is a form of coercion. Attempting to "shut down the war," as was attempted during massive demonstrations late in the Vietnam War, were forms of coercion. An informational picket line is a form of persuasion. A strike is a form of coercion.

I see nothing wrong with coercion, per se. I would love to be able to coerce the Bush Administration into bring the troops home. The sticking point comes with violence. It is absolutely not true that civil disobedience implies the threat of violence. This is either Hooboy !!'s fantasy or his attempt at political slander.

Do large demonstrations and civil disobedience occasionally break out into violence? Yes. This is either due to the actions of the police and the crowd protecting itself, or the actions of a determined minority, often a tiny one, within the larger group. I have personally witnessed both. Neither action was implicit in the original purpose of the demonstration, which was nonviolent.

I think I've made my point. Hooboy !! is standing out alone to defend his equation of civil disobedience with terrorism. This is a rightwing political postion brought about by the exposure of the bankruptcy of the war and its continued horrors. Hooboy !! is, last time I checked, one of the few uncompromising supporters of the war. This thread is, I believe, an attempt by him to provide some kind of theoretical justification for attacking the growing protest movement that is continuing to struggle to end Bush's criminal acts of mass murder based on mass deception.

RED DAVE

laughing dog

May 17, 2007, 11:16 PM

More interestingly and to the point, using the pecular definition in this thread that anything that intimidates is terrorism means that the Bush adm is engaging in terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and with Iran. Hence, anyone supporting those actions, is, according to this definition, supporting terrorism.

Loren Pechtel

May 18, 2007, 12:26 AM

Loren Pechtel

May 18, 2007, 12:28 AM

There was a recent court cause of eco-terrorists who were committing acts of arson. Now, these are acts of violence wouldn't you agree? Violence does not necessarily have to be directed a person to be "violence". I guess we could qualify this as "vandalism" in order to make a distinction. However... if a person were to set a fire and then accidentally kill someone... would this be terrorism and not vandalism? How is a person to know when an act of vandalism will become an actual act of terrorism?

Eco-terrorism = terrorism.

Even if the fire only accidentally killed someone there's a good reason arson is a felony.

thefugitivesaint

May 18, 2007, 12:28 AM

Hooboy!:The purpose of civil disobedience is most definately for the purpose of inciting terror*. The very act of civil disobedience, even if it does not directly affect any other persons, is a demonstration of a lack of respect of the law and a willingness to obey and follow the law. It is, in effect, a form of rebellion against the authority of the current establishment. This is a direct threat to the very order of society, and every member of society is therefore threatened.

*I emphasis this particular aspect of this post because it is pure assertion, one that claims knowledge about the intentions of those who participate in acts of civil disobedience. In fact, it completely ignores the "civil" as it relates to the "disobedience". Violence is far from a "civil" act and is central to terrorism. Your respones in this thread continually conflate the terms to the point of meaninglessness.

There is also an undercurrent of absolutism in your argument that sits ill well with me and my sense of what is required of citizens in a democratic society. Laws are not absolutes and should never be treated as such. As history has clearly demonstrated, laws can be biased in favor of the powerful, who have often used their power to shape the form laws take.

The socio-political environment is a constantly contested terroritory and should never be left to the simple "rule of law". Active engagement with the mores of a society is necessary. To much change at once in any culture tends to have deleterious effects. Conversely, social stagnation, the continued enforcement of unequal treatment under existing laws and blind obedience to the dictates of "power" bear their own negative consequences. Your arguments weigh heavily in favor of the POV of the state, IMO.

Your argument seems to overlook the fact that the Declaration of Independence was an act of war with England. The actions taken by the founders of this country were deemed treason by loyalists and by the "current establishment" of England. Was the assertion of seperation from English rule an "act of terrorism" or was the English response, to send in troops, the coercion you have decried?

When Rosa Parks refused to move from her seat for a white man, she was arrested. Who committed violence here? Who was submitted to an act of coercion? She simply refused to surrender a seat she had paid for. She demanded EQUAL treatment in the society in which she was a member. Where was the law here? There was no law stating she had to move, there was only the CUSTOM, enforced by white drivers, to MAKE black passangers relinquish their seats for whites if no seats were available. This is in the age of Jim Crow, "Seperate but equal", and the Klu Klux Klan. Who was in a situation facing "A credible threat of violence", as you stated? (Does the name Emmett Till ring any bells?) Where does your defense of law begin here? Who was in the wrong, Parks or the whites who enforced there own "extra-legal" code to supplement the "law" you champion?

Your treatment of "law" here is confused, vaguely platonic and deviod of any sense of cultural dynamics. Laws do not enforce themselves and those who do the enforcing are required to be held in check. Corruption and discrimination run rampant in a society that acquiesces its moral obligation to debate its laws to those who "enforce" them. Positions of political power held in a democracy, theoretically speaking, are held in stewardship for the citizens. Those who rule do so at the CONSENT of those ruled. When this relationship is forgotten or broken, it is the DUTY of the citizenship to reassert the terms and that makes civil disobedience indispensible.

Just to add some nails:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."-The Declaration of Independence

A "terrorist" decree?

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, --a most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with , or neat about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the Tories of our own revolution.-Abraham Lincoln, from the Congressional Record, Jan. 12, 1847.

An advocate of "terrorism?"

i am done here.
-theSaint

RED DAVE

May 18, 2007, 01:23 AM

From Hooboy !!:
The purpose of civil disobedience is most definately for the purpose of inciting terror.Oh, really. I mean, do you sit up nights making this shit up, or do you use a ouija board or what. Just as an example, was Rosa Parks' purpose to incite terror?

From Hooboy !!:
The very act of civil disobedience, even if it does not directly affect any other persons, is a demonstration of a lack of respect of the law and a willingness to obey and follow the law.Now there is some truth there. It certainly demonstrates a lack of respect for a particular law and shows lack of respect for the principle of obedience as an absolute.

But what must we do if there is an unjust law or, perish the thought, just laws are being perverted or there's just general bullshit going on like the War in Iraq? Grin and bear it? Let go and let God? Huh? What?

From Hooboy !!:
It is, in effect, a form of rebellion against the authority of the current establishment.And we can't have that, can we Hooboy !!? 'Cause that would be bad, and Big Daddy George and Big Mommy Laura/Barbara might punish us.

From Hooboy !!:
This is a direct threat to the very order of society, and every member of society is therefore threatened.And there you have it folks: the rightwing belief system in a nutshell. A capitalist who tears down a factory and puts thousands of people out of work so that they can make money overseas is cool. Martin Luther King, by the definition, is a threat to society.

At very least, he's a threat to Hooboy !!.

RED DAVE

Bonniedundee

May 18, 2007, 01:26 AM

If you think it is wrong to disobey a bad law then you -pretty much give the state unlimited power to do anything. You couldn't fight the Nuremburg laws, or the state removing even a appearance of popular sovereignty.

And in the end just what is a state? You would have to prove it has the natural prerogative to this infallibility.

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 09:30 AM

No. Intent is everything. Breaking the law, in private, in the hopes not to get caught could never be civil disobedience.

You never responded to my smoking marijuana example. I wonder why?
I did not respond, because breaking the law in private is not a form of protest. I do take issue with drug abuse, whether public or private, when the consequence of drug abuse is a cost to me. I consider this a form of extortion and therefore terrorism. No doubt you think blazing up a doobie is a victimless crime. It may well be, but it is beyoind the scope of this topic.

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 09:32 AM

It is not a meaningful danger.
If starving is not a meaningful danger, what would you consider "meaningful" then?

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 09:34 AM

OK, but I was assuming that this was more than just an idle academic musing on your part--what do you see as the policy implications of your "civil disobedience-as-terrorism" viewpoint? Do you want Guantanamo for protesters? how about the death penalty? It's a serious question: I do not understand what you are suggesting be done with those who (peacefully) break the law to make a point. Maybe you think that violations of the law which are committed to make a political point should be punished more severely than random violations of the law--sort of similarly to hate crimes? Anyway, I was wrong in my first guess, so now I'll let you tell me what you meant.
I think people have the right to engage in whateve form of rebellion they see fit. I really do not see much difference between miltiary insurrection and civil disobedience though. Proponents of civil disobedience do not own the moral high ground, especially when it is used for socially inconsequential issues or for the purposes of publicity and self-promotion. Hollywood actors come to mind for example.

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 09:48 AM

I think he is responding to the gradual escalation of protest against the War in Iraq, which is more and more taking the form of demonstrations and civil disobedience.
Actually no. This thread was inspired by events that took place on this board by people who felt morally justified in violating forum rules. The War in Iraq, despite its unpopularity, is not really being protested in any real way in this country. The tip of the spear, Cindy Sheehan, has all but vanished from the limelight, no doubt as a consequence of the shit eating grin on her face while being arrested recently. Civil disobedience has been so overused at this point that it has reached the status of cliche.

I do feel concern that when a serious social issues arises that justifies civil disobedience that the only way that they will be able to gain the attention they need to affect social change, will be to resort to tactics that transcend the line that separates "protest" from "terrorism".

Now, classically, civil disobedience is not usually considered a form of coercion but a form of persuasion
Semantics.

It is absolutely not true that civil disobedience implies the threat of violence.
It most certainly does. The very presence of a mob is a threat of violence, no matter how peacefully they are behaving at the moment.

Neither action was implicit in the original purpose of the demonstration, which was nonviolent.
Intent is irrelevant. The tendency to blame the police, who are responsible for making sure that the mob does not escalate from peaceful to violent, is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the police would not even be there if not for the presence of the mob. Who cares if it is a tiny minority that sparks the escalation? The presence of the mob is the gasoline.

<snip of well poisoning>
Nice try though.

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 09:53 AM

There is also an undercurrent of absolutism in your argument that sits ill well with me and my sense of what is required of citizens in a democratic society. Laws are not absolutes and should never be treated as such.
Which is why we have a process for changing laws.

The willingness to resort to civil disobedience is basically an assertion that the very fabric of a society is disfunctional and unable to adapt to the changing social climate. It smacks of nihilism.

Do not get me wrong though. I have zero problem with nihilism.

ETA

This post also satisfies RED DAVE's post. This is a strawman BTW. I have no where discouraged insurrection, civil disobedience, or any form of rebellion against an unjust, immoral government.

laughing dog

May 18, 2007, 09:55 AM

If starving is not a meaningful danger, what would you consider "meaningful" then? Because starving in your example is not realistic. Nor is starving necessarily an immediate or realistic possibility - it would depend on the circumstances.

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 09:57 AM

laughing dog

May 18, 2007, 09:58 AM

I think people have the right to engage in whateve form of rebellion they see fit. I really do not see much difference between miltiary insurrection and civil disobedience though.
You do understand that a military insurrection usually means a violent rebellion. You do understand that civil disobedience is a means of non-violent protest of a law or authority. Please explain how there is not much difference between the two.

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 09:59 AM

You do understand that a military insurrection usually means a violent rebellion. You do understand that civil disobedience is a means of non-violent protest of a law or authority. Please explain how there is not much difference between the two.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=207410

Metaphor

May 18, 2007, 10:02 AM

I did not respond, because breaking the law in private is not a form of protest.

That indeed was the entire point of my post. Intentions matter. Smoking marijuana in public, protesting drug laws would be civil disobedience, but not terrorism.

Gracchus

May 18, 2007, 10:08 AM

Civil disobedience is still disobedience.

Faith, loyalty, patriotism, and obedience are more seldom virtues than excuses.

Protest is civil disobedience in the hope of inspiring reason and action. Terrorism is civil disobedience in the hope of inspiring fear and inaction.

The protests of the Viet Nam War were effective. They stopped the war, as they were designed to do.

The 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center also did what it was designed to do. It propped up the failing Bush presidency.

:wave:

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 10:15 AM

That indeed was the entire point of my post. Intentions matter. Smoking marijuana in public, protesting drug laws would be civil disobedience, but not terrorism.
Intent is irrelevant. If light up a fatty and as a consequence of that you harm another person, then that is not an "accident". It does not matter if you intended to harm another person or not. The definition of "terrorism" includes a political agenda, so technically, this is not terrorism. However, it has the same effects as terrorism.

There were two points being made. First, civil disobedience is the willful breaking of the law. It does not matter if it is a form of political protest. Civil disobedience as a form of protest is another thing. Second, civil disobedience as a form of protest that results in harm to other people is a form of terrorism, regardless of whether or not the intent was to cause harm. The definition of "civil disobedience" is irrelevant.

There is a concept in the law something to the effect of "proximity" in that fault is a function of how directly an action affects an event.

Jimmy Higgins

May 18, 2007, 10:34 AM

Let's play nice people. View this as a humble warning. :)

Metaphor

May 18, 2007, 10:34 AM

Intent is irrelevant. If light up a fatty and as a consequence of that you harm another person, then that is not an "accident". It does not matter if you intended to harm another person or not.

Intent is everything. It is the difference between manslaughter and murder. It is the difference between euthanasia and murder. The law takes intent into account when evaluating behaviour and so does everyone else.

If my action has consequences that are not reasonably foreseeable, I can hardly be held to task for those consequences. If my wearing a red shirt causes you to go into convulsions, I am not responsible.

The definition of "terrorism" includes a political agenda, so technically, this is not terrorism. However, it has the same effects as terrorism.

What isn't terrorism? Smoking a doobie in public? Of course it isn't.

And, in my example, it WOULD have a political agenda, that's the whole point.

There were two points being made. First, civil disobedience is the willful breaking of the law. It does not matter if it is a form of political protest. Civil disobedience as a form of protest is another thing. Second, civil disobedience as a form of protest that results in harm to other people is a form of terrorism, regardless of whether or not the intent was to cause harm. The definition of "civil disobedience" is irrelevant.

Since you classify speech as harmful, any act at all can be terrorism. I might be a nudist, and I might be offended by the fact that so many people wear clothes. I might have a delusion that it is sinful to mix fibres, and so anyone wearing a cotton/polyester blend is terrorising me.

There is a concept in the law something to the effect of "proximity" in that fault is a function of how directly an action affects an event.

What has this to do with anything? Civil disobedience is not terrorism. Many posters have already pointed out dozens of cogent points supporting this.

laughing dog

May 18, 2007, 10:47 AM

Is this an example of terrorism or civil disobediance?

"(AP) Austin, Minn. An Austin man who allegedly included dog feces along with his payment for a parking ticket has been charged with disorderly conduct.

The 22-year-old man was charged with the misdemeanor May 11 in a criminal complaint filed in Mower County District Court." http://http://wcco.com/local/local_story_137155304.html (http://http//wcco.com/local/local_story_137155304.html)

Trout

May 18, 2007, 10:54 AM

Here's a crazy one for ya. Terrorist?

Passers-by stop to watch as flames envelope a young Buddhist monk, Saigon, October 5th, 1963.

The man sits impassively in the central market square, he has set himself on fire performing a ritual suicide in protest against governmental anti-Buddhist policies. Crowds gathered to protest in Hue after the South Vietnamese government prohibited Buddhists from carrying flags on Buddha's birthday. Government troops opened fire to disperse the dissidents, killing nine people, Diems government blamed the incident on the Vietcong and never admitted responsibility. The Buddhist leadership quickly organized demonstrations that eventually led to seven monks burning themselves to death.

http://www.ri.net/middletown/gaudet/studentwork/east_asia/Group%205/vietnam/ryant_ss7/burning_monk.jpg

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 10:57 AM

It is terrifying.

thefugitivesaint

May 18, 2007, 11:37 AM

Hooboy!:
The willingness to resort to civil disobedience is basically an assertion that the very fabric of a society is disfunctional and unable to adapt to the changing social climate. It smacks of nihilism.

Once again, the substance of my previous post is ignored and what little response is provided further demonstrates your inability to employ terms. First, you attempt to conflate terms that possess entirely different discriptive purposes and now you add to this obscurantism by proceeding to further your unfounded comparisons.

The intent of "civil disodedience" is tied to a moral objection of existing socio-political arrangements. It seeks to alter these arrangements, NOT destroy them in any nihilistic sense. Nihilism lacks a moral center and sees any moral stance as illegitimate. "Civil disobedience" is a positive assertion of ones beliefs in the face of unjust practices. It is an ethical act, a deliberate violation of a law for a social purpose. It is not disregard for the law in general just disregard for specific policies. I fail to sense the underlying nihilism in this. I also think you distrust the intelligence of people to make proper distinctions between just and unjust laws. (Woud you rather that pressures of discontent be disallowed from the public discourse? If your answer is yes, then you advocate for the very social environment that fosters violence.)

Your defense of "law and order" fails to account for justice, meaning the fair treatment of all human beings. When the existing laws service justice, we have order and stability but when the existing laws fail to achieve justice, we are then obligated to confront them.

Was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 serving justice? I think not and every runaway slave that defied this law did so in the name of justice, criminal though they were. And, what of the actions of those who assisted the slaves flee their captivity? They broke the existing laws on moral/ethical grounds, treating people as people, were the law only saw "property." Here human rights superceded the mere violation of the law. The law was morally bankrupt and the resulting civil war demonstrated this to some degree.

Hooboy!:
I have no where discouraged insurrection, civil disobedience, or any form of rebellion against an unjust, immoral government.

Not explicitly, no but you have not been clear about any of the terms you have employed in this thread.

To conflate "civil disobedience" with "terrorism" is to defer to the POV of the State. You have repeatedly defended the right of authority against the right of the citizenry. You stated that the "very presence of a mob is a threat of violence, no matter how peacefully they are behaving at the moment. That would indicate that church gatherings on sunday, sports events, circuses, block parties and any gathering of people is a "threat of violence." It is this kind of mentality, seeing a threat were none has demonstrated itself, that reeks of authoritarianism. Thus we have the following statement:

The tendency to blame the police, who are responsible for making sure that the mob does not escalate from peaceful to violent, is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the police would not even be there if not for the presence of the mob.

The presence of police is the presence of the State and the State makes itself known as an assertion of its own power. It was not the "mob" who opened fire at Kent State in 1970, killing four of its own "members." In 1989, when hundreds of protesting students were killed in Beijing, who committed the violence you deplore? Read any labor history, care to discuss the Ludlow Massacre? To state that the free assocation of citizens to assemble implies a "threat of violence", one that requires police presence, is authoritarian and demonstrates a distrust of the public. It speaks volumes about your own motivations here to conflate "civil disobedience" to "terrorism."

Hooboy!:
I really do not see much difference between miltiary insurrection and civil disobedience though

And this inability to differentiate is reflected in your arguments and elucidates the fact that you have not given sufficient effort to clarifying your position(s). This thread is only one of many examples of this fact.
-theSaint

virtuzoso

May 18, 2007, 12:23 PM

The purpose of civil disobedience is most definately for the purpose of inciting terror. .

Then it wouldn't be C I V I L disobedience, now would it? You know, Civil, as in the root word of civilized... An act done for the purpose of inciting terror is, uh, terrorism. Call a spade a spade.

If civil disobedience is terrorism and crashing planes into a building is also terrorism, then thats a pretty broad category and you should probably think about throwing the word terrorism around so loosely before it loses its actual meaning.

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 12:49 PM

Then it wouldn't be C I V I L disobedience, now would it? You know, Civil, as in the root word of civilized... An act done for the purpose of inciting terror is, uh, terrorism. Call a spade a spade.
In the context of "civil disobedience" the word "civil" is not referring to how a person conducts themselves. It is referring to what is not being obeyed.

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 12:57 PM

The intent of "civil disodedience" is tied to a moral objection of existing socio-political arrangements. It seeks to alter these arrangements, NOT destroy them in any nihilistic sense. Nihilism lacks a moral center and sees any moral stance as illegitimate. "Civil disobedience" is a positive assertion of ones beliefs in the face of unjust practices. It is an ethical act, a deliberate violation of a law for a social purpose. It is not disregard for the law in general just disregard for specific policies. I fail to sense the underlying nihilism in this.
When society has a prescribed method of social change? I fail to see how it is not nihilistic.

This statement BTW is the center of the debate. The presumption of moral justification is not a given and may be intrinsically immoral.

I also think you distrust the intelligence of people to make proper distinctions between just and unjust laws.
"Justice" is a subjective concept.

To conflate "civil disobedience" with "terrorism" is to defer to the POV of the State. You have repeatedly defended the right of authority against the right of the citizenry. You stated that the "very presence of a mob is a threat of violence, no matter how peacefully they are behaving at the moment. That would indicate that church gatherings on sunday, sports events, circuses, block parties and any gathering of people is a "threat of violence." It is this kind of mentality, seeing a threat were none has demonstrated itself, that reeks of authoritarianism.
This is a false analogy. A church gathering or a sporting event serves to preserve the community. A protest seeks to disrupt or at the very least affect change to the community, or challenge the status quo of the community, or in other words... the rightness of the community.

Pavlov's Dog

May 18, 2007, 01:04 PM

Is this an example of terrorism or civil disobediance?

It depends on whether he was investigated by homeland security.

{Mod Snip}

Gracchus

May 18, 2007, 01:19 PM

Intent is irrelevant. If light up a fatty and as a consequence of that you harm another person, then that is not an "accident". It does not matter if you intended to harm another person or not. The definition of "terrorism" includes a political agenda, so technically, this is not terrorism. However, it has the same effects as terrorism.

There were two points being made. First, civil disobedience is the willful breaking of the law. It does not matter if it is a form of political protest. Civil disobedience as a form of protest is another thing. Second, civil disobedience as a form of protest that results in harm to other people is a form of terrorism, regardless of whether or not the intent was to cause harm. The definition of "civil disobedience" is irrelevant.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'" Through the Looking Glass --- Lewis Carrol

"ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." --- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism

Definitions are not irrelevant but, in fact, necessary for sane discussion, and intent is indeed relevant to definition. Unless of course, you are a solipsist, limited to the looking-glass world of your own cracked mind.

:wave:

B.S. Lewis

May 18, 2007, 01:35 PM

I think people have the right to engage in whateve form of rebellion they see fit. I really do not see much difference between miltiary insurrection and civil disobedience though. Proponents of civil disobedience do not own the moral high ground, especially when it is used for socially inconsequential issues or for the purposes of publicity and self-promotion. Hollywood actors come to mind for example.

Both civil protesters and violent insurrectionists have the moral high ground, at times. The American Revolution comes to mind for example.

Of course, both of them do not have the moral high ground at other times. Civil disobedience has it more often than violent insurrection because, although you refuse to recognize this fact, the means of political action count just as much as the ends in determining if they are justified or not. More people killed means more good had better be done in the long run. Protesters don't do much damage, if any, and so they really don't have to achieve much good to break even in their actions.

Edit: Hooboy, I am starting to see your point here, particularly as a result of your point about lighting up a fatty. Yes, civil disobedience does a similar goal as terrorism--producing a change in state policy. But are we other posters mistaken in thinking that you believe civil disobedience to therefore be morally equivalent to terrorism? And if so, do you plan to justify your complete disregard for the significance of means, and the total importance that you give to the ends of political action?

http://www.ri.net/middletown/gaudet/studentwork/east_asia/Group%205/vietnam/ryant_ss7/burning_monk.jpg

Weird to see that picture without "rage against the machine" printed across it. ;)

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 01:37 PM

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'" Through the Looking Glass --- Lewis Carrol

"ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." --- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism

Definitions are not irrelevant but, in fact, necessary for sane discussion, and intent is indeed relevant to definition. Unless of course, you are a solipsist, limited to the looking-glass world of your own cracked mind.

:wave:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4461071&postcount=53

Hooboy !!

May 18, 2007, 01:42 PM

Both civil protesters and violent insurrectionists have the moral high ground, at times. The American Revolution comes to mind for example.

Of course, both of them do not have the moral high ground at other times. Civil disobedience has it more often than violent insurrection because, although you refuse to recognize this fact, the means of political action count just as much as the ends in determining if they are justified or not. More people killed means more good better be done in the long run. Protesters don't do much damage, if any, so they really don't have to achieve much good to break even.
The subjectivity of morality makes the entire thought process pretty invalid. Who cares who has the moral high ground? Both sides of any conflict will presume that they hold it. Only the winner gets to decide who was right.

I have been trying for this entire thread to avoid the morality question, except from the perspective that the presumption of the moral high ground is hypocrisy. I really do not care one way or the other.

As far as I am concerned, civil disobedience should only be used as a method of last resort, instead of for the temper tantrums by members of the political minority. Our society has a system for affecting social change, which is based on democratic principles. Our society has a means of allowing people to get their message out there and for engaging in debate. That should be good enough.

B.S. Lewis

May 18, 2007, 01:48 PM

The subjectivity of morality makes the entire thought process pretty invalid. Who cares who has the moral high ground? Both sides of any conflict will presume that they hold it. Only the winner gets to decide who was right.

Civil disobedience is an attempt to influence public opinion. Therefore, public opinion decides who was right and who was wrong (the state or the protesters). "Moral high ground" is decided by majority consensus, but not necessarily by the winner. That's why it's possible to have such a thing as an illegitimate government: the government "wins," yet does not have the moral high ground.

As far as I am concerned, civil disobedience should only be used as a method of last resort, instead of for the temper tantrums by members of the political minority.

No one here disagrees with that.

But most of us also believe in the first amendment, which protects the right of minority group members to say even things they probably shouldn't (as long as they don't cause an imminent threat). It's very hard to tell if you agree with that right, because you won't say what you believe to be the practical, policy implications of your equation of civil disobedience with terrorism.