No they aren’t. But I suspect you aren’t British. In the US there are laws allowing civil disobedience and protest by law breaking. In the UK if you break a law, even if it is an unfair or bad law, it is a crime. First you campaign and change the law then you act in Britain. it is part of our heritage in the same way that civil disobedience is a part of the American heritage. it doesn’t mean all laws are right and just it means that you follow the laws even if you disagree with them. But if you disagree with them then you change them. If the law is unfair and the people have a problem it is overturned.
This prevents nut jobs breaking laws that are appropriate and so it is an important lesson to instil early on in life. (okay it really doesn’t as they are nutjobs, but the point is that you teach people to follow laws even if they disagree and then teach them how to fight and change laws that are inappropriate.) Does this not sound like a more sensible option than follow the laws you think are reasonable and break any that you dont?)
[quote=“theograce, post:110, topic:11315, full:true”]
So if a child went to an American school in full Klan robes they wouldn’t be turned away and it would be considered reasonable?[/quote]
That’s a good question. Could the students come to class in bikinis or speedos? What about a Westboro Baptist Church style t-shirt? Maybe the kids could vote? Maybe they could discuss the reasons why a person would want to dress in a way sure to alienate them from their fellow students? Maybe they could choose to simply ignore the person? It could be a good opportunity for the students to talk about these kinds of impulses in people and the best way to deal with them.
But like I posted above, if you want to restrict the ability of individuals to modify their appearance to their own liking, it’s up to you to demonstrate why this restriction is necessary. It would be reasonable to conclude that Klan attire would understandably be upsetting to large portions of the student body, and therefore, something to be restricted. I don’t know if I’d agree with it, depending on the population of the school, but, unlike restrictions on hair styles, it’s reasonable.
No, there aren’t. Civil disobedience is, by definition, refusal to obey a law. There aren’t any laws allowing you to break laws you disagree with.
[quote=“theograce, post:109, topic:11315, full:true”]…but the point is that you teach people to follow laws even if they disagree and then teach them how to fight and change laws that are inappropriate.) Does this not sound like a more sensible option than follow the laws you think are reasonable and break any that you dont?)
[/quote]
So, you’re saying that people shouldn’t have had homosexual relationships until it was legal? People shouldn’t have had relationships with people of other races until it was legal? People shouldn’t have read banned literature until it was unbanned?
Following all rules regardless of their reasonableness or sense of justice, is simply an encouragement to authoritarianism, and a sure way to live a very dull life.
Actually any action committed despite law to make such action illegal may be excused post facto by declaration that the law is unjust. The best way to over turn a law in the US is to break the law and then if found guilty to appeal to a higher court (and on up to the supreme court as necessary). This process makes the act of breaking a law (civil disobedience) legal where the law is found to be unjust.
No it isn’t it is a cultural difference. Rather than breaking a law and appealing the British system promotes advocacy to change the law in the first instance. Until then you should follow the law. Is resisting arrest acceptable if you are being arrested for a crime you are innocent of? A law may be unjust but if anyone may break it because they believe it to be unjust then it is not law. Fight the law but do so legally.
[quote=“theograce, post:113, topic:11315, full:true”]
Actually any action committed despite law to make such action illegal may be excused post facto by declaration that the law is unjust. The best way to over turn a law in the US is to break the law and then if found guilty to appeal to a higher court (and on up to the supreme court as necessary). This process makes the act of breaking a law (civil disobedience) legal where the law is found to be unjust.[/quote]
No, not really. When the act is committed, it’s illegal, until a high court rules that the broken law was unconstitutional.
Resisting arrest is never advisable. But you haven’t answered my questions. Should all the gay men and women who lived before homosexual activity was legal have abstained from romantic/sexual relationships with the same sex? Should slaves never have attempted to escape? Should people not have obtained and read banned literature?
Which was my exact point, an illegal act is subsequent to being broken deemed legal. Civil disobedience made legal.
Actually I did. If they broke the law then they have no right to ignore the consequences. it is not the right of individuals to decide what should or should not be legal. If the law is wrong it should be fought and changed and it is regrettable that any bad laws should exist in the first place, but if you break a law you cannot be excused the consequences because you believe it was inappropriate. Or do you believe people should only have to follow laws they think are legitimate? If a person believes that killing Muslims is acceptable and should not be illegal, should they be allowed to do it?
Is there a reason someone would wear KKK robes other than to be racist? Because there are definitely reasons to shave your head other than being a skinhead. Like maybe in support of a cancer charity.
So, a slave had no right to ignore the consequences of escaping? A homosexual had no right to try to avoid imprisonment for the crime of homosexuality?
Certainly, we can agree that it’s always been wrong to kill another person because of their beliefs, but it’s never been wrong to escape slavery or have homosexual relations?
Ah so it isn’t that people can disobey laws they think are wrong. it is that they can disobey laws YOU think are wrong? Well as you are the sole arbiter of which laws are right and wrong perhaps you should produce a list
Reminds me of the Golda Meir quote: when it was suggested to her to set a curfew for women because there had been an increase in rapes, her response was “Men are committing the rapes. Let them be put under curfew.”
A better analogy: An American school institutes a blanket no-exception ban on white robes due to concerns about the Klan. One day, a Sufi student from Instanbul dresses in the traditional garb of the Whirling Dervishes as part of a cultural demonstration. He is punished exactly the same way he would be for wearing Klan robes.
Nope. It’s bullshit. If the school complains about your kids’ haircut just generally, they should be told to fuck off. The fact that he did it specifically for charity means that everyone should tell them to fuck off. My mother told the school to fuck off when they complained about my hair, and I told them the same when they complained about my kid’s hair. It’s mindless pettifogging authoritarianism and a waste of everyone’s time. I have a skinhead by the way. Does that make me a nazi, or what?
So, then we can’t agree that it’s always been wrong to kill another person because of their beliefs, but it’s never been wrong to escape slavery or have homosexual relations? Really?
How do you infer from this that I believe I should be “sole arbiter of which laws are right and wrong.” Obviously I’m not the only person who believes that escaping slavery and having gay sex shouldn’t be illegal and laws prohibiting those activities should be defied. It’s not a radical position to take, really.
You’re arguing that homosexuals in, say, Iran, should petition their government if they want to change that law, instead of having intimate relations with people of the same sex. And if they are arrested for being homosexuals, they “cannot be excused the consequences” because they oppose the law.
You’re actually arguing that 12 year old girls in Yemen who are forced to marry against their will have “no right to ignore the consequences” of running away from such a marriage.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the value of obeying all laws.
No I am not. I am arguing that what is law in Britain should be respected. You cannot break that law and expect not to be held accountable because the law is unjust. If you have a problem there are avenues that can be pursued, they exist for a reason.
What you have said is that it is acceptable for people to break some but not all laws, that is you granting permission, You have corrected my possession so you clearly place yourself above me and the government in terms of right to dictate what should and should not be legal.
I notice you still make no account for your claim that a person can break a law if they feel it is unjust, you just argue that sometimes it is culturally acceptable to kill people.
And deciding that people don’t have to follows law they feel are unjust is a radical position, in fact it is normally held by criminals or anarchists, which puts you in poor company for “not a radical position”.
I never said that performing homosexual acts or leaving slavery are wrong, but if you want to make up my argument for me so that you don’t have to defend your own go ahead.
*No, I believe that is false. Though I will provide no evidence. I personally believe that a school should on no accounts influence a persons appearance through their choice of haircuts, even though uniforms, rules on makeup, jewellery and bags are common, even though behaviour is taught and methods of thinking are controlled I will draw the line at haircuts with no defence of my position. Some anecdotal and meaningless point. More opinion stated as fact.
