This is
actually a debate between two writers rather than a typical article
or opinion piece. Which of them do you
think has the better arguments in terms of whether protestors in democracies
are sometimes justified in breaking laws in order to make their voices
heard? How do these arguments play out
in a Slovak (rather than a British) context?
Monday, November 1, 2021
If the government makes the laws, and you are protesting the government…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is it OK for protesters to break the law?
ReplyDeleteYES – Peter Tatchell
NO – Dominic Grieve
Tatchell seems to be a rather open-minded person, considering laws and the government as only constructs of democracies we've created to better monitor ourselves. Its laws aren't absolute and should reflect the principles of our society. If they don't however, then we should do whatever is in our power to oppose it, including breaking the law. Because if left unchecked, he warns, its power could grow substantially enough to turn into an elective dictatorship.
Grieve, contrary to Tatchell, fears that even the slightest breach of law could inspire many groups with minority opinion to use extreme methods of protests, in breach of the law. He uses a real example of people gluing themselves on the M25 and climbing on top of a train to halt it, as direct examples proving his point, comparing these methods of protest to blackmail. His use of these examples is what I feel has the most value from his argumentation.
“You worry that civil disobedience will give a green light to others – and so it should, whenever the circumstances warrant it.” I feel like Tatchell's reply is rather weak, as he leaves the circumstances he mentions rather vague, therefore they could be subjectively interpreted differently by everyone. He continues with his own examples of the peaceful protest against war in Syria, which was ineffective and the fact that Britain's government that's in power hasn't even received a majority of votes, so how can they represent the majority of the people? Grieve just continues warning us about how dangerous it would be if everyone would take the same approach as Tatchell proposed.
In my own opinion I feel like both Tatchell and Grieve have good arguments for and against the issue, and both have it backed by evidence and examples. However, I'd be more inclined to agree with Tatchell from this discussion. He only condones small breaches of law and offers more of a flexible approach, compared to Grieve, who considers the law as invisible chains or walls that we can't oppose, whatever the situation. Laws are supposed to be guidelines for people, not shackles that bind us forever. In the end we're all just people, we'll never by perfect nor will the laws we create be, it's up to us to consider all variables and make decisions based on that, even if they break the law slightly.
-Maxim Hajek
Maxim, I agree with a lot of what you said here. I concur that Tatchell and Grieve both support their arguments with suitable historical examples, and thus the reader’s stance on the subject is actively challenged. However, I tend to lean toward Grieve’s point of view, mainly because of the conflict between my beliefs and what you said in the last paragraph. There is a big generalization being made here, that laws should be considered as guidelines, which I am not completely on board with. The word “guideline” has a very similar meaning to recommendation, or a piece of advice, and it’s up to the individual to decide whether or not to respect it. I personally do not believe that law should be reduced to simple statements to consider, and especially during protest. The act of protesting against any given law or government decision should not give one the right to disregard all other laws. At that point, one is protesting against everything the government stands for, which can only escalate, and turn protest into glorification of breaking the law.
DeleteMy impression of the discussion was that Mr. Tatchell argued more convincingly. Admittedly, I might have been biased because I was leaning slightly towards his opinion before reading the text but his points simply stuck in my mind. Tatchell supports his view by stating that it is rooted in some of the basic principles of democracy, such as: “governments in democracies are supposed to reflect the public will” and “pressuring the government to change course is everyone’s democratic right” and we should fight for these ideas no matter what, which makes for a compelling argument.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue arises when we discuss whether civil disobedience is actually an effective application of democratic principles. While the two agreed on many topics, this one was left unresolved. After all, it is at the heart of the problem. Mr. Grieve says it is not effective because it is much more selfish and disruptive than helpful. He talks about risks and inconveniences, which are very reasonable considerations. Nevertheless, I was left with the impression that civil disobedience follows democratic principles and its negative effects are worth overcoming.
I personally don’t think that civil disobedience doesn’t really follow democratic principles.
DeleteThe freedom of one ends where the freedom of another begins. This is one of the basic democratic principles. Country is truly democratic if it’s laws protect the freedom of its citizens. Civil disobedience in a democracy thus usually results in stepping into another's freedom. Hence civil disobedience does not follow democratic principles in case that the country is truly democratic.
Within this debate, Tatchell and Grieve seem to agree on many points but the main disagreement is: In a democratic that country, peaceful civil disobedience is sometimes justified as a means of protesting. Tatchell, as a defender of disobedience, gave 3 circumstances at which it might be justified: (1) when governments break their election promises (2) when they ignore the wishes of the majority and (3) when they violate human rights. They seem to both agree on (3) But (1) and especially (2) is where their views differ. I personally stand on the side of Grieve, his arguments seemed much more compelling. From Tatchells arguments I can see why protesting might be important but I can’t really see how breaking the law would add any value to the protest.
ReplyDeleteI especially disagree with the circumstance (2) mentioned above. Sometimes leadership requires unpopular yet important decisions to be made. This can be especially seen in the current slovakia's lockdown situation which is arguably a complete failure simply due to the fact that our politicians are too afraid to pass unpopular policies. Majority opinions are not necessarily correct opinions; Grieve gave an even better example: decriminalization of homosexuality. People are biased and tend to not be that well informed, sometimes a little bit of strong leadership is just what they need.
Laws in democratic countries have the simple purpose of protecting civilians. Since we live in a web of interconnected causes and effects, even seemingly harmless disobedience can have a ripple effect that can and will at the least grossly inconvenience someone if not downright hurt them. The only time that I would consider disobedience necessary is when protesting the very law that you’re breaking.
The points you are making in your comment make sense. Protesting without breaking the law seems like the reasonable thing to do because there is no added value in criminal activity accompanying it. However, I must question this notion. Is there really no point in civil disobedience? In an ideal world a regular protest should be enough to show discontent with the government and make it reconsider its actions. In the real world this is not necessarily the case, which is where civil disobedience comes into play. As I understand it, it is a last resort tool to make our voices heard. It sends a message, which otherwise would have been ignored and that’s where the value of civil disobedience lies.
DeleteAnother view you mentioned, which I agree with, is that the majority opinion is not always correct and the government should challenge it when it isn’t. What I would point out here is that the same idea can be applied the other way around. Sometimes the actions of governments are so corrupt that citizens should challenge them. I maintain that civil disobedience is an effective way of doing just that. Whether its use in certain situations is justified or not is a topic for another debate.
From my point of view, Tatchell and Grieve seem to agree on quite a lot, differing mostly in the way they applied their outlook in their solutions. Although I can see Grieve’s point, based on the arguments presented, I would lean more towards Tatchell’s perspective.
ReplyDeleteGrieve argues that if dissatisfied, people should express their disagreement by voting for someone else in the next elections. To me, this seems like an inefficient solution to issues that need the immediate attention of the public and measures taken by the government. As Tatchell mentioned, some issues pose direct threats to our existence and fundamental rights, like for example the climate emergency. Therefore, some degree of disruption may be morally justified.
Where my opinion diverges with Tatchell’s opinion, is when he defends the right of Brexiteers to protest. Even though many times the cause behind a civil disobedience can be defensible, only their right to protest does not seem like a sufficient justification provided by Tatchell, since the Brits were the ones who voted for Brexit in the first place.
In addition, people should not exercise their right to disagree with the government by protesting every time they are malcontent with the government’s decisions. It is as Grieve says, that at any given time, there will always be many in disagreement with government policies. I completely agree that if everyone thought that this disagreement is enough justification for protesting, then we would end up in a dysfunctional society.
In my opinion, both Grieve and Tatchell presented very convincing arguments and it would be incredibly tough for me to fully reinforce only one of these points of view. Grieve proposes a solution that would be ineffective in many situations, while Tatchell only sustains non-radical declarations of disagreement for causes that need serious attention. Furthermore, I think that we should run out of all possible options that do not employ civil disobedience and protests before we decide to take such drastic measures. Having said that, I defend the right to protest and break the law, to some degree, if absolutely necessary and unavoidable. I also recognize that “absolutely necessary” can be interpreted vastly differently, and therefore, this is a rather risky position to defend.