Who will come for us?
Follow-up to First they came for the terrorists… from Dan Goodman @ Warwick
I wrote an entry on civil liberties intending to spark off a debate about what we ought to do if current trends continued to the point where we could no longer uphold the law in good conscience. Unsurprisingly, the subsequent comments and debate got sidetracked into an amusing if rather pointless spat between those who believe the government is doing right and those who don't. This entry is for debate on the questions I asked, which I repeat below.
As I said before, we haven't yet reached this point [where we could no longer uphold the law in good conscience], but we need to think about two things: how do we know when we have reached this point? and what are the acceptable forms of illegal resistance? The no2id campaign lies on the boundary between legality and illegality; it clearly contradicts the spirit of the law if not the letter.
I haven't yet reached a position on these questions, and I would be interested in debate and opinions. I can imagine that some might argue that certain forms of illegal protest are already justified. For example, protesting outside parliament without written permission (which is now illegal). But I doubt that anyone but some very diehard revolutionists would argue that armed insurrection is justified. I suspect that a complete exploration of these issues would require an understanding of the nature of collaboration. Why do ostensibly good people go along with things they know are wrong? What can be done about it? A simple question along these lines which continually perplexes me is: why does the Labour party go along with what Tony Blair wants even though he is quite clearly a Tory? (Tories, please don't be offended by this, I say this only for rhetorical effect.)
27 Apr 2006 05:09
| 
Tags: Civil Liberties Politics
| 
Comments (7)
| 
Report a problem
7 comments by 1 or more people
[Skip to the latest comment]One problem, as I see it, is that the courts have become too immersed in the letter of the law rather than the spirit. This means that they are not only liable to enforce law that they feel is silly (but is the printed law) but also to allow the use of loopholes in the law for better or for worse. In years gone by (quite recently, too) judges appeared to consider themselves the conscience of the people, handing out common sense judgements and sometimes challenging the government on issues that judges thought the legislature had got plain wrong. Now, it is enough just to be a judge.
27 Apr 2006, 09:44
Heh, not surprised this entry didn't get as many comments as the first. :–D
Richard, I don't feel I know enough to be able to pass any comment on that. It's seems to be true that the government passes legislation with the intent to use it deceptively (applying the letter rather than the spirit). That's what made the Leg and Reg bill so frightening.
28 Apr 2006, 15:12
Good question… I'm thinking about it.
29 Apr 2006, 13:49
Brian Barder
The moment you start to debate which laws you are morally obliged to obey and which you are entitled to break (because you don't agree with them), you open a Pandora's box. The only possible rule in a democracy (which, despite everything, we still unquestionably are) is that if you disapprove of a law, you work to get it changed — and in the meantime you obey it. End of story.
Brian
link
05 Jun 2006, 10:45
Brian, I'm not saying we should just disobey any law we don't agree with. And I agree that it opens a great big Pandora's box of worms, but I think your formulation is either too limited or maybe ambiguous. For example, in South Africa during Apartheid I think you would be justified in disobeying the law. OK, so maybe we can say that this wasn't a democracy. But Apartheid was instated legally, so you'd be fighting against a democratic decision (of sorts). Even if you say it wasn't a democracy, that leaves you with the question: what constitutes a democracy? I think things like freedom of the press, right to jury trial, etc. are all essential aspects of democracy, as well as voting. If we lost these, I think we could have a good case for disobeying laws. Like I said, I don't think we've reached this point yet, or anything like it. But for the first time, I find myself wondering how I would know when we did reach this point.
05 Jun 2006, 14:51
Brian Barder
Dan, As you recognise, my qualification 'in a democracy' is crucial. The difficulty of defining a democracy doesn't prevent us from knowing what is a democracy (e.g. Britain) and what isn't (e.g. South Africa under apartheid). Of course there'll always be borderline cases where there's room for argument, but in general the rule is valid. Even in badly flawed democracies the right course is generally to obey even bad laws and work to change them by peaceful and legal means, unless it's absolutely clear that peaceful change is impossible.
Brian
05 Jun 2006, 17:40
No, the difficulty in defining a democracy doesn't stop us from distinguishing Britain and SA under Apartheid, but I think there is a valid question in borderline cases. At exactly what point in the history of Apartheid did it go from being right to obey the law to being right to fight it? Is it necessary to wait until things get very bad before doing anything?
Now it might be that the current movement towards antidemocratic, authoritarian government, particularly in the US and UK, will soon come to an end, and that things will then get better. I dearly hope so. But if it doesn't, and I'm talking relatively long term here, then I want to know what I have to do and when. I think it pays to think about these things well in advance, rather than having to do so in haste when the time comes.
06 Jun 2006, 00:39
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.