Civil Disobedience

When is civil disobedience appropriate?

What parameters and perimeters should govern such actions?

What legal and constitutional ramifications are involved and how should they be addressed?

Is this an IELTS essay question?

Surely, if one is not civil in class, one is disobedient. :laughing:

When there’s blatant discrimination, DUH!

The Greensboro Woolworths, which was sadly razed in the past decade, was the site of an ‘illegal’ sit-in of blacks in the 60’s. They were not allowed to eat in the Woolworth’s because they were black.

Gays are not allowed to legally marry, because, um, they’re gay?
Ok. Good enough for me. I read Thoreau in high school.

[quote]Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?
[/quote]

Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

Alien:

Yes, yes, yes, we all know how enlightened you are about race and sex so can we get off that kick? What did you watch too many movies about brave white women defending the helpfless but grateful darkies against big bad Whitey in your youth? But in addition to frequently going to excessive lengths to prove your “liberality” and your “sensitivity,” can we also explore the consequences of such actions? Just because some of us have concerns here does not mean that we should immediately be painted as somehow unenlightened or against changing the laws. We just have concerns about HOW such laws are being changed. Does that make sense to you?

In fact, to my understanding, we have a new constitutional amendment defining the protection of Black rights (Civil Rights Act). So the laws were in fact changed. Also, a major difference is that Jim Crow laws were ultimately deemed unconstitutional so here again we have a legal basis for underpinning this change.

Finally, given that gays can form civil unions and receive legal, medical, insurance, etc. rights where is the big discrimination here? They are already being allowed to “marry” in all but name. AND if any (not limited to the religious right in deference to IYBF) oppose such marriages WHY? wherein lies the justification? If I am wrong here and in fact gay unions are not accorded these rights, can I have some specific examples please? AND to be fair, where is the legal basis for denying gays the rights to marry if anyone is on the opposing side here?

But I still take issue with your gross oversimplification of my concerns over the legal ramifications involved as in somehow being akin to discrimination or at least that’s how it appears to me so DUH yourself. :mrgreen:

You asked the question, Mr Smith. :unamused:

Yes Eclectic and where is the blatant discrimination? :unamused:

Be a rebel, Fred. I know it doesn’t match your turtlenecks and navy blue blazers, but I’d really recommend a new tailor. That look went out with penny loafers, sock hops and McCarthyism.
How “constitutional” is Homeland Security? Draw the parameters there please.

Duh, you raised a hypothetical question in the head post, and she offered an opinion on it. You respond with a seeming attacking her behavior and her general political views:

[quote=“fred smith”]Alien:

Yes, yes, yes, we all know how enlightened you are about race and sex so can we get off that kick? What did you watch too many movies about brave white women defending the helpfless but grateful darkies against big bad Whitey in your youth? …[/quote]

Really?

You don’t like my tailor?!! Why not?!!

Homeland Security is a special case (due to an undeclared war on America) and the only ones that are currently being denied their “rights” are NOT American citizens (those in Guantanamo). This is a gray area that affects no US citizens (unless Padilla is counted) and then I would say give him his legal rights and try him for treason. We are at war. This is an issue but one that I trust the government to sort out. I can see where there is cause for concern but my concern is with the safety and security of American citizens first. These people regardless were involved in some very questionable activities so it’s not like we just swooped down on Afghanistan terrorist training camps and little Abdullah Hassan just happened to be walking down the wrong street on the wrong day. The whole world is watching and judging America and prisoners are gradually being released. But given that terrorists are not exactly wearing uniforms, I don’t see how the Geneva Convention applies to the extent of offering them POW protection. There that’s my answer.

Now, since you are the resident expert on all things involving black and gay rights, why don’t you tell me how exactly gays are being disenfranchised? how they are losing their rights by not being allowed to get married? how does this differ from civil unions? wherein lies the “discrimination” factor that justifies such urgent action by civil servants. Again, if anyone wants to show how gays are legally barred from marriage, now is the time to bring it up to. But for now, Alien give me YOUR parameters and perimeters on this, um, please.

Part of this carried over from the original gay marriage thread. Please refer to earlier thread. Now do you see why I raised the issue? And can someone explain to me why this is in this discussion at all? How is race a factor in this particular debate and how is it that as soon as anyone disagrees with Alien, out comes the racial tar brush, get it TAR BRUSH. My God I must be racist after all. Get a job working on Sharpton’s presidential campaign if you must but in the meantime, can those of us who are interested in subjects other than race have a discussion about them once in a while unimpeded by the “it’s all about race” insertions. Hell, I am starting to miss the old “it’s all about oil.” :unamused: :wink:

But that does raise a good question. Given that the Civil Rights Act etc. was over 40 years ago, is this an appropriate example or one that needs to raised with such regularity now? Are there not more apprpriate examples that are more timely and therefore au courant to this discussion?

For example, what about these tree huggers, er that is environmental activists who release minks (who die in the wild ironically enough) from cages, or chain themselves to trees or board ships illegally or block traffic etc. etc. I am more interested in how far these types of actions can go and whether such change cannot be better effected “legally.” Anyone want to venture down this path? I guess by way of this and my earlier sarcasm to Alien, I am suggesting that we can explore other scenarios that need not necessary use the Civil Rights experience as the only touchstone.

Well it seems - to me at least - that you have opened up a discussion, and then jumped on a respondent who apparently holds opposite view to yours. I say “jumped on” because your reply appears to me to be highly personal and inappropriate.

And now, it seems that you wish to impose limits to the boundaries of the discussion. :unamused:

Then again, if this is an extension of a prior debate, who knows what shit has already flown. Exit stage left.

Boundaries? You mean like sticking to the original debate itself? Okay. Gotcha. See you later. Stage Right (cuz I am a Republican get it get it?)

[quote=“fred smith”]
In fact, to my understanding, we have a new constitutional amendment defining the protection of Black rights (Civil Rights Act). So the laws were in fact changed. Also, a major difference is that Jim Crow laws were ultimately deemed unconstitutional so here again we have a legal basis for underpinning this change.[/quote]

True, but the changes in the law may not have been made if the acts of civil disobedience had not occurred first. The move to pass the Civil Rights Act was preceeded by acts of violence against blacks who refused to comply with segregation laws. If blacks had never acted in defiance of the Jim Crow laws, if they had willingly and passively submitted to the laws, would there have been a need to pass the Civil Rights Act? If blacks had accepted life under Jim Crow, would such laws still be illegal?

Those may seem like silly questions now, but at the time, many whites needed to be smacked in the head with a hammer (or see images of brutal violence in the media over and over) in order to realize how messed up our laws were.

I don’t think there can ever be a set standard for all forms of civil disobedience. An unlawful act today may be viewed in the future as either an historic event leading to the greater development of political thought, or simply an unlawful act. The development of free speech in America has resulted from many acts of civil disobedience over the course of our history. When those acts were committed, however, some of those people were harshly punished. Today, those same acts would garner no legal sanction.

Alternatively, there are people in America who will continue to engage in civil disobedience by refusing to pay taxes. I feel fairly confident in saying that it won’t be in my lifetime when their dream comes true. That’s one act of civil disobedience the government most likely does hold to a set standard.

Smerf:

I see your point and it is a valid one, but are gays prevented from voting? are they prevented from holding jobs? are they prevented from eating at restaurants? shopping in certain stores? from having civil unions that are essentially the same as marriage?

So to my way of thinking, we have civil servants who are individually and somewhat randomly choosing to overturn laws that they do not like, but for no other purpose than what appears to me to be a technical issue, i.e. “I want my civil union to be called a marriage.” Please feel free to prove me wrong if I am out of line here. Therefore there is no urgent need to protect rights of gay couples as I see it currently and this could set a dangerous precedent. (God don’t let Rascal see this!)

See what I mean. Read the other thread and see what’s going on in Georgia and Nebraksa.

[quote=“fred smith”]Smerf:

I see your point and it is a valid one, but are gays prevented from voting? are they prevented from holding jobs? are they prevented from eating at restaurants? shopping in certain stores? from having civil unions that are essentially the same as marriage? [/quote]

I do not equate the gay marriage movement with black resistence to the Jim Crow laws. I simply wanted to point out that civil disobedience plays a role in political and social development, and it is really hard to have a standard to determine when such acts will have long lasting value.

To be honest, I am surprised that Newsom is pushing for this. He has this “I’m the next JFK” image of himself and it is often speculated that he has eyes on Sacramento (as a future CA Governor), and then the White House in 15-20 years. This move looks great in SF, but it will piss off a lot of Californians who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. He’s taking a huge risk politically.

BTW, I support gay marriage, but agree that Newsom is acting recklessly under the law.

Smerf:

What do you think of this…?

Just in …

Following the flouting of the law by civil servants in San Francisco to support gay marriage, various Christian and Republican groups in the South and Midwest have moved to outlaw homosexual acts, making them punishable by prison terms and mandatory counseling sessions. Lawmakers are moving to stop religious activists but admit that they are being stymied by failure to stop similar actions in California. “Just what are we supposed to tell these people?” asked Jim Mitchell, a civil rights lawyer in Atlanta Georgia. “That it is okay for one group of citizens in San Francisco to ignore the law because it’s the right thing to do? Well, what about people, here, who believe that they are doing the right thing, too?”

Too late - seems god isn’t on your side this time … :wink: :wink:

(But I will stay out of this discussion, I promise!)

[quote=“fred smith”]Smerf:

What do you think of this…?

Just in …

Following the flouting of the law by civil servants in San Francisco to support gay marriage, various Christian and Republican groups in the South and Midwest have moved to outlaw homosexual acts, making them punishable by prison terms and mandatory counseling sessions. Lawmakers are moving to stop religious activists but admit that they are being stymied by failure to stop similar actions in California. “Just what are we supposed to tell these people?” asked Jim Mitchell, a civil rights lawyer in Atlanta Georgia. “That it is okay for one group of citizens in San Francisco to ignore the law because it’s the right thing to do? Well, what about people, here, who believe that they are doing the right thing, too?”[/quote]

Doesn’t surprise me. Looks like America is in for a fight. I’d love to read the letters to the editor in the SF Chronicle on this one. :smiley:

From the piece you reprinted, it doesn’t appear that these groups are doing anything illegally. Simply pushing for changes in the law. Personally, I think they are nuts, but there is no law in America against being nuts. Given the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Texas sodomy law, I would say that these groups are in an uphill battle.

I also think that these groups would similarly respond if Newsom was acting within the law. I think it is more of a reaction to gays getting married then it is to the acts of civil disobedience (although that doesn’t help). Who knows, the gay marriage movement might be happy to see such a response, brings the fight out into the open.

Damn Rascal:

Now every time the dangerous precedent argument comes up you are going to throw this in my face even though the two issues are very different. Promise me you won’t. I already have enough on my hands fighting Alien (Defender of Gays and Blacks Everywhere) over this even though I have NEVER said I oppose homosexual marriage rights. I guess that little fact got lost in her need to DEFEND something, ANYTHING at all costs. :wink:

Now Alien: Are you going to realize that I am not opposing to deny anyone their rights and that I do not oppose gay marriage, but there are other issues at stake here. :cry: :cry: :cry: