Kelvyquayo wrote:
Quote:
Peaceful civil disobedience is an absolute foundation stone of democracy.
When has any form of civil disobedience changed any law or government that wasn't followed by armed uprisings or insurrections?
In Britain the right to own or trade slaves was taken away by a parliamentary vote, after a long civil campaign. I'm pretty sure they abolished slavery before America did.
Female sufferage. At various times starting from the late 1800s and over various issues. Right to vote. Right to refuse sex to your husband. Right to not be physically harmed by husband. Right to work. Right not to automatically be sacked upon marriage. Right to equal pay.
Previous to that, right to vote by all men, not just land owners. Pretty sure that one was done without violence.
Aboriginal sufferage in Australia. Right to be paid for work at all, that one was achieved by almost all Aborigines walking hundreds of miles off remote properties into the main cities, and refusing to go back to work until they were paid a wage. Right to enter white men's bars and resteraunts. 1964 right to vote. 1973 Right to keep any half-cast children instead of having the state automatically take them away and raise them in orphanages.
In 1836 the liberation of most of the population of Britain from the still existing Feudal laws. All British people were now free to travel away from the place that they lived in, without seeking the permission of their lord. All British people now did not need their lord's permission to marry who they wanted to marry.
There was a recent huge case in Eastern Europe where a series of huge public demonstrations and sit-ins got the ruling Communist government simply to resign, and hold democratic elections. Shame on me for not remembering which country.
I'm not exactly sure but I'm pretty sure that the hand over of India to it's own people from the British colonial owners proceeded without a major armed insurrection. The unhappy British masters certainly got trigger happy a few times in the face of mass disobedience and extreme protests, but from what I remember that case was an extended case of restraint from violence from the protesters towards the people they were protesting against. I might have that wrong, but I think that usually when it got violent, it was self-violence, not terrorism in taking out any other people. Lots of Indians on hunger strikes and starving themself to death in public places, that sort of thing.
Lastly, why do you think totalitarian governments of any stripe are so eager to outlaw gatherings in public of four or more unrelated people together? It's basically a marker law for totalitarian regimes. Any restrictions on the right to strike or to publicly demonstrate are a slippage away from democracy towards totalitarianism.
I do think you can ban demonstrations at funerals (or weddings and baptisms for that matter) without being undemocratic or infringing free speech. There are extreme cases where time and place ought to be taken into consideration, weddings and funerals being my pick, and some few things ought to be allowed to be sacred, even in a completely secular or atheistic society.
Edited, Dec 9th 2008 10:33pm by Aripyanfar