Well in the UK theres a law about being incontrol of your vehicle, no mobile phones, no smoking, nothing that means you dont have your full attention on the road 😖
Police caught a girl eating an apple at the wheel and fined her £100 or something, she refused to pay it and they took her to court many times 😬 Eventually spending £10000 of taxpayers money and the girls punishment was..........£60 fine
The African American Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights Movement, Vietnam War Protesting (and most war protesting in general), Gay Rights Movement.....
you name the topic, and chances are there has been civil unrest about it. There is nothing wrong with fighting for what you believe in, as long as your fighting peacefully to attain your goal. Although in the eyes of authority figures, civil unrest and disobediance is a crime, it's only because it threatens the power they have over the oppressed.
History has been one long struggle between the classes, and it's always the middle-to-lower class, blue collar, hard working people that are walked all over. Drafting, segregation, racial profiling....it's all there, with no end in sight...not within my lifetime anyways. The upper class "suits", the victims of priviledge, call the shots.
Civil unrest begins when we have had enough.
*fight war not wars*
I disagree, BF brought up a good point, it is still disobedience no? If people just decide to conform the law to their views and beliefs, would this not lead to anarchy, would then others not try to change the law based on their views?
That is why I wanted to use a modern example, I mean in today's society, specially in North America for example, are people not treated more fairly than ever before?
Everyone breaks the law (people j-walk, speed, litter, etc). These people do this knowing that what they are doing could, in theory, get them arrested and/or fined. They do it anyways because they feel that the chance of them getting caught or in trouble for their particular action is minimal. However, should they get caught doing one of those things,t hey should not complain about it, it was their choice to break a law, and they should accept the consequences.
So then obviously the law is not as sacred as some are arguing. You can say that by people breaking a law they don't believe in for a cause they are still wrong because it's against the law, but how is that any different than someone j-walking or speeding if they know it's illegal? By breaking a law this either means you simply don't have the self restraint to comply to the law, or you don't agree with that. So how is people fighting for civil rights leading us to anarchy any more than casual speeding or jaywalking? Sure one of the issues is much bigger than the other but they are both people making their own rules and deliberately breaking a law they acknowledge.
Originally posted by BackFire
People who knowingly break the law should not complain when action is brought upon them, just because they're doing it "civily".Too quote Maddox - "Civil Disobedience is still disobedience."
Maddox is often right, but he's wrong about this one... True civil disobedience includes accepting whatever punishment that you are dealt for any illegal activities. The idea being that people will realize how unjust being punished for whatever it is was. If you resist punishment, you are not practicing civil disobedience.
Originally posted by BackFireI know you didn't, I think silver tears did. And what would you say is the appropriate consequence for Rosa Parks not getting out of her seat? I agree that people shouldn't complain when they get the appropriate consequences of their actions, but the law isn't always right about what the appropriate consequences are. If everyone just abides by all the laws, including laws we find unfair or unjust then those laws will never be improved.
I never said that it is leading to anarchy, merely that if someone breaks any law knowingly, they have no right to complain when they are given the appropriate consequences.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I know you didn't, I think silver tears did. And what would you say is the appropriate consequence for Rosa Parks not getting out of her seat? I agree that people shouldn't complain when they get the appropriate consequences of their actions, but the law isn't always right about what the appropriate consequences are. If everyone just abides by all the laws, including laws we find unfair or unjust then those laws will never be improved.
Well, at that time she should have gotten whatever the consequence is for breaking that law. Not saying it's right, or fair, but she knowingly broke the law, and as such she deserved the penalty for that time.
There are ways to try to change laws other then blatantly breaking them, in fact, breaking laws is probably the worst way to try to make a point about them being unjust, it just makes you look dumb for purposely breaking a law.