Is there a role for civil disobedience in a democracy? Tough question, especially when you have to answer in Swedish. In short, I think there is. Most improvements to functioning democracies have come to us via civil disobedience campaigns: universal suffrage, civil rights, the end of apartheid…
That said, the difference between civil disobedience and criminality is that the former has to have a moral aim and use non-violent means. And that’s hard to pull off, actually.Så många fel förra gången! Jag är förvånad att ni förstådd vad jag ville säger. Men den här veckan kan jag mycket bättre svenska så det kommer at bli mycket lättare för oss alla.
Vad viktiga frågor vi har denna gång på fredagsfyran… Det är inte så lätt vara ironisk omkring sån filosofisk debatt.
Behövs civil olydnad/utomparlamentariska aktioner som ett komplement till demokratin? Vet du några exempel på “bra” aktioner?
Egentligen, ja. De flesta förbättringar i våra demokratier kom efter en fas av civil olydnad: rösträtt för kvinnor, rösträtt för svarta (i USA), oberoende för Indien, motstånd till apartheid i Sydafrika…
Problemet är hur vi ska skilja mellan civil olydnad och ren kriminalitet. Civil olydnad bör ha en moralisk bas, och bör vara ovåldsam (? Non-violent). Det är fortfarande möjligt att jag inte kommer överens med idéer, till exempel de av anti-globalister (som inte förstår att de kämpar för fattighet i tredje världen) men om de protesterar fredligt — avspärrar en G7 möte genom att sitta på vägen, till exempel — är det helt okej med mig. Vad jag håller inte med, självklart, är “reclaim the streets”-stil vandalismen som vi hade på Stureplan förre år.
Är vandalism mot privat egendom våld? Javisst, det är ekonomisk våld mot människor. Även om du anser att egendom är orättvis, kan du inte förneka att förstöra saker skadar människor. Personligen anser jag att egendom är en social tankeskapelse, men vilket är ett nödvändigt begrepp till en stabil modern civilisation.
Är vandalismen mot reklamer civil olydnad? Nej, det är bara intolerant. Reklam är också en form av yttrandefrihet. Om du håller inte med, får du protestera, eller köpa ditt eget reklam.
Vid vilket (om något) tillfälle skulle du själv kunna tänkas delta i en dylik aktion?
Mot officiella diskriminering mot invandrare, mot länkar mellan staten och kyrka, mot protektionism.
Har du själv varit civilt olydig?
Nej, bara kriminell. Det är svårt att vara civilt olydig.
Not sure this question is that controversial, regardless of the language. I suppose if I say ‘of course there’s a role for civil disobedience’ you then reply, ‘but doesn’t the majority rule’, to which I say that when we call ourselves democracies, we are using a very narrow term; in fact we’re more than democracies, because stable majority rule is not a mob but constrained by checks and balances, chief among them not just legal protection for minorities and loyal opposition parties, but also capacity for peaceful non-cooperation and protest that respects the rights of other citizens while demonstrating against perceived majority wrongs.
True, maybe trying to say that in Swedish was the daunting bit. But I do go on to say bit more: For example, that destruction of property is not justifiable even if you don’t believe in property because you are committing economic violence against people. And the question was prompted by the defacing here in Sweden of fashion posters where the girls are too pretty: I believe that commercial speech, being a form of free speech, should also be protected from vandalism. If you are oppressed by figures of beauty, then protest, or buy your own ad, or put up a poster nearby; don’t deface it.
Go read Thoreau and report back
I don’t think the fashion posters are generally defaced because “the girls are too pretty” but rather because the protester/vandal wants to make a statement about the way women are exposed in media. At least that was the case in Umeå, where the H&M posters were routinely vandalised every Christmas.
Right or wrong? I don’t think the freedom of speech argument is particularly relevant in this context, rather the general right to not have your property vandalised. But I tend to have stronger sympathy for people that want to change the world than for those that can afford to uglify cities the legal way… And destroying posters must be the mildest type of vandalism there is?
I don’t consider it a fundamental human right to be free from commercial speech in public spaces. Or is the problem that some of the commercial speech is offensive? If so, what is the standard for offense?
Does everybody get to decide for themselves? Should antisemites be allowed to deface a Synagogue meeting poster? Should vegetarians be allowed to tear down supermarket ads for meat? Should hunters be allowed to deface ads by Greenpeace? Etc…
I think a better solution is to place your objections next to the ad, in the press, or buy your own ad. The analogy is: Don’t burn books you don’t like; instead, write a book to explain why those books are wrong.
OK, so you’re not going to read Thoreau. Let me help you on one small point. Defacing posters put up by fashion companies has nothing to do with civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, as understood by everyone apart from you, is a kind of passive resistance against unjust laws or rules created by a government or ruling power. For Thoreau, it was a moral obligation of a citizen to oppose unjust laws. He was civilly disobedient by not paying taxes and derived his moral standards from the Constitution and the Bible.
The poster discussion isn’t stupid, but isn’t relevant either.
Ok, my use of the term civil disobedience was an attempt to approximate what the Swedish question was about: Literally, the terms used in Swedish were “civil disobedience/extraparliamentary action” and so I generalized a bit. But I think you’re being a bit strict in limiting your use of the term to the exact definition of Thoreau. Thoreau open the term a bit, will you?
Matthew– Not to belabor a point, but:
http://www.memefirst.com/000037.html
Ah blogging, the perils of having no thought go unpublished, twice.
That’s the second time you’ve pointed that out.
I would not waste time, energy and potentially complicate my civil status by engaging in vandalism. I would simply not transact business at stores with questionable advertising (in this case) practices. And, they will have to deal with unsold inventories.