civil law (was: Re: unitedskins.com ~ It's about time)

[Flint Jones <flint@mobtown.org>]

[: hacktivism :]

I have to wonder what kind of civil disobedience you approve of, since,
by definition it is a breach of civil law.  Blockading, tresspassing,
etc... been used by most political movements and are non-violent tactics.
To "draw the line" at such actions would have you renounce not only
Pro-Life protestors, but the Civil Rights movement, sit down strikes and
occupations, the "crossing the line" at the School of the Americans in
Fort Benning, etc...  the Electronic Disturbance Theater is breaking ciil
law because their virutal sit-ins could be regarded as a breach of civil
law and part of the same tradition of blockade.  Micropower (pirate) radio
is all a breach of civil law.

And none of this involves property destruction and other aspects of
nonviolent  direct action.And as long as the civil laws regard property as
more important than people, such tactics will also be outside of civil
law.  Further, causing not just property damage but economic harm in some
places is sufficent... SLAPS, libel, criminal syndicalism, even something
so benign as a Banner Drop can get you arrested.

Marching without a permit is enough to get you arrested.  They deny
permits not so much on the potential violnce of the group, but on a
variety of political factors.  What else would you expect?  Freedom of
Assembly? Ha! 

There is a seperation between Theory and Strategy.  Nazis and
Anti-fascists both march, chant and protest... because those are effective
tactics, regardless of the ideology behind them.  Anti-abortion advocates
blockade as does almost every other activist group.  Some
environmentalists and workers directly attack corporations property to
cause economic damage, it often works.  Speaking out against your
countries' policies (like conscription/drafting) while your at war can be
considered sedition.

You can draw the line at only being within the civil law, but most social
change and even the most rights that are enjoyed under civil law were won
through illegal means.  Sometimes, even violence against people was
involved... usually its the government attacking its own citizens first in
the name of "civil law".)

In the U.S. if you comply with civil law in most places your protest will
be limited to only when you can receive a permit where you won't
interfere with the flow of traffic of business, *some* kinds of
boycotts, letter writing, lobbying, voting and strikes approved by the
National Labor Relations Board (but still subject to having everyone
fired and replaced with scabs). A very limited set of tactics with limited
success.

What is moral, what is good, what is right... may be legal, it may not be.
But there is a morality that is stronger in many people than just what is
part of civil law.  Sometimes, they hold it to themselves in their
behavior... other times they feel they must act even if it is against
civil law.  What that morality is various from person to person, just as
civic laws vary.

An intersting moral dilema for you might be, given your support of a
woman's right to choose an abortion... if anti-abortion advocates managed
to bend civil law to their favor and make all aborition illegal, would you
aid a woman in committing that now illegal act?

Sometimes, you have to break the law... to do the right thing.

It seems, doing the right things these days requires an awful lot of law
breaking.  

Solid,
	Flint


[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]