[clue-talk] The War On...?

[Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:20:10 -0700, Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's pretty clear that the laws that forbade blacks to have an equal
> share in society were unjust laws and worthy of disobedience. Any
> rational person except for certain Southerners and Afrikaaners can see
> that.

Clear to whom? You and me? The laws were on the books, yeah? It seems
pretty obvious it wasn't "clear" to society in general until a few
people made a fuss about it.

As long as black people obeyed the law, and allowed themselves to be
treated as second-class citizens, it was probably "out of sight, out
of mind" for most white people. (Mind you, I'm speculating, seeing as
I'm not old enough to have witnessed the civil rights movement
first-hand.) But when people start going to jail just because they
want to sit at the front of the bus or eat in the same establishment,
well... I think that drives it home. The hard-core bigots probably
would enjoy seeing black people jailed for trying to ride at the front
of the bus, but it woke other people up to the fact that it was wrong
to treat black people as if they weren't as good as white people.
Those laws might still be in place if Rosa Parks and others had
decided to go along with the laws in the hopes that people might
eventually see the light.

> The problem comes in when you extend that concept to "anything the
> person who is disobeying the law finds objectionable." I'm not really
> exaggerating much. Where does the rule of law stop and anarchy take
> over? Who is going to decide what is an unjust law?

Each person has to decide for themselves. The other key point to the
discussion is that you have to be willing to go to jail for your
beliefs. It's not about just disobeying laws you "don't like" -- it's
about being willing to stand up for your beliefs, even if it means
going to jail. I don't like speed limits, but I wouldn't be willing to
do a couple of years in jail to protest the fact that the speed limit
on I-25 is 55 MPH when I think it should be 75 MPH. In fact, I'm
rarely even willing to risk a ticket for that issue.

> Examples:
> 
> The law provides for awarding custody of minor children to a single
> parent in a divorce. The other parent decides that he/she would rather
> have custody and takes off with the child[ren]. The offending parent
> is jailed. The law is clear. Is it a just law?

You're confusing the law with the decision of the court. If a parent
is not awarded custody and they decide to violate the custodial
agreement, they're really protesting the decision, not the law -- in
your example, the parent would (probably) be fine with the law if the
decision had favored them.

> The law allows police to haul off to jail groups of people who are
> blocking the streets and interfering with fire service, etc., just to
> get across their politically dissident viewpoints. Just think of the
> hordes that descended on the Republican convention (or the Economic
> Summit in Seattle) and afterwards screamed "police brutality." The law
> is clear. Is it a just law?

Is it applied equally? Is it a law designed to protect public safety
or a law designed to curtail first amendment rights?

Most of the laws that police use to arrest protesters, "disturbing the
peace" for example, tend to be fairly subjective and it's really the
enforcement of the law that's in question rather than the law itself.
I'd disagree that "the law is clear" in this case when it's really
something that's at the discretion of the police. The same group of
people might be hauled off for protesting the RNC but left alone if
they had gathered to protest something else or if they were gathered
to celebrate some sporting event. In that case, the law isn't really
"clear" and it's certainly not just.

I suspect that the police brutality claims had more than a little
merit to them. If laws are being passed specifically to defuse
protests rather than to protect public safety, then yes, I'd say that
the protesters are right to break the law.
 
> I am not especially fond of most speed laws, and I violate them from
> time to time. The consequences are: I get speeding tickets. The law is
> clear. Is it a just law?

Wait, I thought you said it was our duty to obey the law, but you
don't even follow your own dogma. You're not living up to your duty as
an American!
 
> I could continue in this vein.
> 
> There is always going to be a conflict between rule of law and those
> who would prefer not to be law abiding. Civil disobedience has to be
> tempered in a non-anarchic society.

Ah, so now it has to be "tempered" -- previously, you staked out a
much more concrete position and said that it was "our duty" to obey
the law. Now it's "tempered." Which is it?

You're also assuming that a protester does not wish to be "law
abiding" -- a person who breaks the law in protest is a different
situation than a person who breaks the law simply because they don't
care about the law.

I prefer to be law abiding, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't
break the law if I believe the law to be wrong. Let's say that a law
is passed tomorrow that says that it's illegal to say or write
anything critical of elected officials. I'm going to break that law,
quickly and deliberately, because I believe that we have a right to
free speech and if I simply comply and go along with the law in the
hopes that it might be changed, the country is going to be in much
worse shape than if people protest and break that law right away.

I agree that laws are not meant to be broken lightly, and that it
would be a Bad Thing (TM) if people just decided that they didn't have
to follow any laws that they didn't like or found inconvenient -- but
that's a far cry from breaking a law out of civil disobediance when
one believes that a law is unjust.

Yes, people will occasionally break laws that they believe to be
unjust, and they'll be (at least from a majority point of view) wrong
about it. Those folks will go to jail (or whatever) and it's unlikely
that anything will change. But, if someone breaks the law to protest
something that's genuinely wrong, people may just sit up and take
notice and work to get the law changed or removed from the books --
but many people would ignore the situation if the protester simply
decided to write a letter to the editor or carry a picket sign. They
might agree with the protester, but not be moved to action by a letter
or a guy on the sidewalk with a sign -- but they might be moved by the
injustice of a person jailed for doing the right thing.

-- 
Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier
xonker at gmail.com
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, doctor, and I'm happy
to state I finally won out over it." ~ Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey"