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

[Phil Stinard]

Hi Carl,

I'm in basic agreement with much of what you say in your reply.  I'll 
comment on the differences below:

>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: The War on Dissent Gets Creepy
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Message-ID: <c27a47f7.7f46ec9a.81e9400 at expms1.cites.uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Phil--
>
>I think our disagreement is illustrated by your penultimate
>sentence: "if I were caught [violating the Fugitive Slave
>Law], I'd pay the consequences, and I'd accept that."  I infer
>that you would "accept it" in the sense that you think you
>would be morally obliged to do so, and I don't think you
>would.  If you were caught smuggling Jews out of occupied
>Europe during WWII, would you accept that you were morally
>obliged to pay the consequences?  What's the difference?

People committing acts of civil disobedience must be aware of the laws they 
are breaking and be willing to accept the consequences.  Submitting to the 
punishment in a dignified manner can be as effective as the act of 
disobedience itself.  This was the case with many of the actions during the 
civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60's (e. g. filling up the jails with 
peaceful demonstrators and thereby overburdening the system).

Let me make another distinction.  In the case of the Fugitive Slave Law, the 
reason for violating the law is to oppose slavery.  There is a clear 
connection between the law being violated, and the greater moral cause.  In 
the case of spraypainting, the connection with opposing the war is less 
obvious.

>Civil disobedience is a political tactic, and it has been
>erroneously reinterpreted as a moral imperative.

I differ with you here.  I would perform civil disobedience only to fulfill 
a moral purpose.  I wouldn't do it as a political tactic.  For instance, 
would you perform civil disobedience to support a political candidate?

>The goal of someone who chooses CD is publicity.  S/he
>publicly breaks a law in order to say to the community at
>large that his/her punishment is unjust -- to say, "Look,
>they're making me suffer for doing something I shouldn't be
>punished for doing" (e.g., integrating a business).

I agree with you on that last statement, but your next one didn't make sense 
to me:

>Civil
>disobedience in secret would be pointless; breaking an unjust
>law in secret is a good idea.

If you break an unjust law in secret, you might be doing some good, but 
you're not edifying anyone.  In the case of the Fugitive Slave Law, it's 
good to free slaves, but if you let others know what you're doing, you can 
encourage others to do the same.  Of course you would try to avoid getting 
caught, but when you are caught, you could make a dignified public appeal 
against slavery.

>Pace Wikipedia, all non-violent disobedience isn't CD: only
>non-violent disobedience that seeks to make a political point.
>And of course AWARE's monthly actions on Main Street are not
>CD; they would be, if we blocked traffic -- or occupied a
>congressman's office --  in order to protest the war.  There
>are those in the anti-war movement like Cindy Sheehan who say
>we should be doing exactly that.

I can agree with that, except I would do it to make a moral point, not a 
political point.  The moral point can suggest political remedies (e. g. laws 
prohibiting discrimination).

>Incidentally, we might think about the politics that make
>spray-painting a wall a *felony*.  My guess is that
>legislatures pass that sort of law in order to "fight gangs"
>-- i.e., it's part of the suppression of lower-class groups
>who use tagging as a form of public assertion.  It's something
>like the arrest of of people distributing anti-war newspapers
>during the Vietnam War on the charge of "littering"...

Here is where I strongly disagree with you.  I don't view gang grafitti as a 
public expression of the longings and desires of a suppressed lower class 
group.  Gangs aren't spokespeople for the oppressed, they're crime 
organizations whose activities result iin the death of our youth.  People 
kill each other over territorial disputes--grafitti are a manifestation of 
the territorial battle.  Former gang members will tell you that themselves.

If Mr. Ferner was caught in a legal battle over how to fight gangs, I would 
hope that his charges would be reduced to misdemeanors since he clearly 
wasn't involved in gang activity, but if gangs are the accepted spokespeople 
for suppressed lower class groups, we live in a sick society.  I know people 
who are running for their lives from these "spokespeople."

--Phil


>--CGE
>
>---- Original message ----
> >Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:26:32 -0600
> >From: "Phil Stinard" <pstinard at hotmail.com>
> >Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: The War on Dissent Gets Creepy
> >To: galliher at uiuc.edu, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >
> >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.
> >