[Peace-discuss] New tactic?

[Jim Buell]

What Paul's suggesting here is civil disobedience, pure and simple. The 
first definition that Google popped up for me on that (from an anarchist 
site) reads:

>  The deliberate disobeying of law or government by citizens in order to 
> publicize or advance a political cause or argument. Civil disobedience 
> differs from crime or ordinary lawbreaking, in that those who carry it 
> out seek no personal advantage, nor do they expect to avoid the penalties 
> of disobedience. On the contrary, a part of the public character of what 
> they do depends on the government acting against them in response to 
> their disobedience. By breaking the law they seek to attract the 
> attention of both the government and other citizens.

So yes, part of the point of an action like Paul is suggesting is to "come 
onto ... private property and do ...anything period", deliberately courting 
arrest in the process. It's a time-honored tactic, and goes beyond 
protesting legally in public spaces as we do on Saturday afternoons. Martin 
Luther King and others deliberately engaged in nonviolent civil 
disobedience in the 1960s, and were willing to accept the consequences of 
those actions. (I've gotta reread "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," but as 
I recall it deals with just these issues, as does Thoreau.) I'll confess, 
I'm not personally ready to engage in civil disobedience, but I'm open to 
thinking about it, and if/when I do engage in it, I'll want to know that 
I'm part of a group that has discussed the tactic openly and at length, and 
has committed to supporting members who so engage themselves - all 
nonviolently, of course. I'm proud and reassured to know that some in AWARE 
have already engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience on matters that they 
believe are so important as to warrant it, e.g. the 85 Percent Coalition's 
courting of arrest in the Statehouse. Elsewhere, activists' efforts over 
the years to pour blood on missiles are intentional civil disobedience, as 
are trespasses onto military bases during demonstrations against the School 
of the Americas, etc. Beside these acts, leafletting at the local mall in 
defiance of a city ordinance or two, maybe even a state law, doesn't seem 
to entail much personal risk. (Of course, with Patriot 1 on the books and 
Patriot 2 in the works, who knows what a particularly zealous prosecutor 
might dream up?)

Paul's suggested action is entirely nonviolent and appears to be well 
targeted toward the messages we're trying to put out. But before AWARE 
considers signing on to it, I'd say we need as a group to come up with some 
legal opinions, and retain a lawyer or two (ideally on a pro bono basis), 
who'll commit to stepping in and helping us with the legal actions that 
participants would be deliberately courting. Several people have suggested 
in the last couple of AWARE meetings that we start looking for friendly 
attorneys, "just in case" - if anyone knows of one, this would be a great 
topic to have them drop by and talk about.

Ah, just found a relevant excerpt from King's letter (online at 
http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html ), though with some 
odd scan-induced typos - I doubt King originally wrote he was a "Brat" in a 
part of the letter not copied here, and "ace" in the first line is surely 
wrong :):

>I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no 
>sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid 
>segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law 
>must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. 
>I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is 
>unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to 
>arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality 
>expressing the highest respect for law.
>
>Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It 
>was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego 
>to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law 
>was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were 
>willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks 
>rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a 
>degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced 
>civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a 
>massive act of civil disobedience.
>
>We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 
>"legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 
>"illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. 
>Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have 
>aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist 
>country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are 
>suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's 
>antireligious laws.

peace,
Jim

At 10:04 AM 2/19/2003 -0600, pfmueth at ameritech.net wrote:
>At 5:47 AM -0800 2/19/03, Chuck Minne wrote:
>>
>>  pfmueth at pop.ameritech.net wrote:
>>Greetings,
>>I am on the radio Sundays during the aware meeting, so I
>>haven't attended much.
>>I did come by with the germ of a suggestion, which I hope can be
>>discussed at some point.
>>
>>I think that some very carefully thought out civil disobedience is in
>>order. I would propose that leafleting be done inside the malls. It
>>has been decided at the Supreme Court level that private property
>>trumps free speech, but that just shows how lousy things have gotten.
>>
>>If you feel that you can come on my private property and do anything you 
>>want, or anything period, then I do not want to be associated with you.
>>
>>
>This is the only reply I've gotten on or off the list, I presume it's not 
>a dominant sentiment. . .
>
>There is a legal argument called the greater good .. .
>
>One might present the case that violating property rights to talk to 
>fellow citizens about our military raining down "shock and awe" on another 
>nation killing mainly civilians might qualify as same.