[Peace-discuss] RE: The War on Dissent Gets Creepy

[Phil Stinard]

Hi Carl,

The law in question is spraypainting or vandalizing public property.  I 
don't hold it equivalent to a fugitive slave law.  I checked out civil 
disobedience in the Wikipedia, and the definition is "the active refusal to 
obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying 
power without resorting to physical violence" 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience).  It's not illegal to 
oppose the war, and I don't feel that by carrying a sign, he would have been 
committing civil disobedience, because there would have been no opportunity 
to be arrested.  Are the monthly actions on Main Street civil disobedience, 
or are they protests?  I would make the argument that they are not civil 
disobedience.  If you feel differently, I'll respect that.  I think it 
weakens what others have done in the past, though.

I think that it was unclear from the article exactly what Mr. Ferner was 
protesting, and your reply confirms it.  You refer to "an anxious attempt to 
assert that the system that contains an unjust law is itself just and must 
be supported."  I'm not anxious about it, but you imply that the unjust law 
is the law against spraypainting on public property (point of disagreement), 
when I thought that the injustice is the war in Iraq (point of agreement).  
You see the problem, right?  The issue is no longer the war, it's 
spraypainting on bridges.

Getting back to the fugitive slave law, of course if I were freeing slaves, 
I'd avoid getting caught, so that I would have the freedom to continue 
freeing slaves.  But if I were caught, I'd pay the consequences, and I'd 
accept that.  Mr. Ferner went into his situation without an understanding of 
civil disobedience or what he was doing.

--Phil


>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>To: Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com>, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: The War on Dissent Gets Creepy
>Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:46:24 -0600
>
>I don't think the moral requirement implied by the statement,
>"Civil disobedience is about taking a moral stand AND paying
>the consequences for your actions," really exists.  It sounds
>like an anxious attempt to assert that the system that
>contains an unjust law is itself just and must be supported.
>
>On the contrary, unjust laws should be resisted -- prudently.
>We once had a Fugitive Slave Law in this country.  Would it
>have been appropriate -- even morally necessary -- to turn
>oneself in and "pay the consequences for your actions" after
>smuggling an escaped slave into Canada?  --CGE
>
>
>---- Original message ----
> >Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:11:46 -0600
> >From: "Phil Stinard" <pstinard at hotmail.com>
> >Subject: [Peace-discuss] RE: The War on Dissent Gets Creepy
> >To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >
> >I think it's creepy that someone thinks they can deface
>(spraypaint) public
> >property and not have to clean it up.  Vandalism isn't
>appropriate behavior.
> >Civil disobedience is about taking a moral stand AND paying
>the consequences
> >for your actions.  That's why it's disobedience--it's against
>the law, and
> >there are consequences to be paid.  If one is not willing to
>pay the
> >consequences, I would question their sincerity.  Mr. Ferner
>defended himself
> >by writing:
> >
> >>The most important mistake I made on New Year's Day was not
>that I painted
> >>"Troops Out Now" on overpasses, it was choosing a form of civil
> >>disobedience
> >>not many people are comfortable adopting.
> >
> >I would reply to Mr. Ferner by saying that his biggest
>mistake is not
> >understanding the meaning of civil disobedience.  Instead of
>focusing on
> >opposition to the war, his actions have focused attention on
>the legality of
> >graffiti and his efforts to beat fines and jail time.  How
>much nobler he
> >would have been had he said, "I know that spraying my message
>on the
> >overpass is against the law, not because of my message, but
>because of my
> >method.  But, I feel so strongly about the war that I felt I
>had to do it.
> >I will pay the consequences for my actions."
> >
> >--Phil