Ringo writes:
What does defying a law accomplish in changing it?
I don't know much about Canadian history. You folks have always seemed like kinder, gentler Americans. I don't know how you got to that place.
But I know that dramatic changes in U.S. laws came about in part because a nice black lady refused to give up her seat to a white man--in violation of the law. Black people were arrested for sitting down at white-only lunch counters--in violation of the law.
Soon after, the world watched vicious dogs and rabid deputies attack black folks who marched for justice even though they had been denied permission to do so under the law.
I'm with Thoreau (and Silent H) on this one:
quote:
...if [an injustice] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." -- Henry David Thoreau
Civil disobedience is a fine and necessary tradition. One does then expect prosecution under the law, but one also expects the opportunity to argue that the law is unjust and should not be upheld.
Ringo writes:
Defiance is more likely to polarize people against the defiant than to build a consensus that can be used in a democratic process.
Sometimes the democratic consensus has to be whacked to get its attention.
People who organize against injustice are often warned not to alienate the moderates, lest the extremists gain power. But moderates are not agents of change; watching the consequences of defying the law can force them to recognize the need for change.
Democracy has virtues, but it is not virtuous: a privileged majority can natter on for decades (or centuries) and never come to a consensus to surrender their privilege.
Sometimes it takes dramatic, polarizing action to effect change.
Edited by Omnivorous, : subtitle got unjustly chopped off
Real things always push back.-William James
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------