http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/government-shutdown-workers-sent-home Personally, I love civil disobedience, given the correct set of circumstances, and the correct actions, I believe it a democratic right. Furthermore I believe it to be a democratic check and balance. I personally hold these chaps in very high regard. The questions I ask are: 1. What do you feel about this act of civil disobedience? 2. How do you feel that it differs from the students who were pepper sprayer in the eyes at point blank range? 3. Should these old fellas have been pepper sprayer in the eyes at point blank range?
I am sure he is referring to the UC Davis incident. [video=youtube;rIccco4PRRk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIccco4PRRk[/video]
I am a huge fan of civil disobedience, even when I disagree with the political agenda of the activists. Anytime we don't act like sheep before the almighty government is reassuring to me. The use of pepper spray against nonviolent protesters is wrong. And no, the veterans shouldn't have been pepper sprayed either.
Better then cracking them with batons. Not sure why they couldn't cuff them altogether and dragged them out with a winch though. That would have been more effective. I think the students would get up and move themselves once they were rigged up. How would you have ejected them?
Civil disobedience is not a right. Free speech is. Civil disobedience may be useful and done for good, but it is not a right to break the law. Removing obstacles for vets who fought WW2 is common courtesy. It isn't really civil disobedience. They didn't block the use of the monument from normal operation. The government did not push back to eject them and they didn't resist. They impeded normal operations and were told to leave and resisted. They would only be ejected by force. No, if they wanted to enforce a dumb policy they should ask them to leave before using force. Just like in the UC Davis situation.
How do most cops remove people doing a sit-in? They grab them and haul them out. But that requires actual work I guess. And apparently the school felt he was out of line as well since he was relieved of duty. Personally, I would have just let them sit there and do their protest until they got bored and left. Why must everything be escalated?
I dont believe this can be considered civil disobedience, they did not go to the memorial specifically because it was closed. Their travel plans where well established before they were to know the memorial was to be closed. I also think the fact the memorial is dedicated to these people and the many who never came back is also a factor. It was also clear they were not intending any malice or protest through their visit. In fact I think a huge dose of common sense can be found here - the guys closing the memorial made exactly the right decision to allow access for exactly the right reasons. I do hope that all those involved had a great day, and enjoyed the experience as much as they'd hoped
if you watch te extended video they tried that for awhile. I agree though that is a first step. The university did it for PR reasons. The property owner wanted them ejected. It is up to them, not the trespassers. Don't be civlilly disobedient if you don't want to meet force. That is the point of doing what they do, otherwise speech and persuasion are legitimate means.
Do you think the old fellas should have been: cracking them with batons cuffed altogether and dragged them out with a winch ??
No, they are frailer and you can move them by wheeling them out if need be. No one wanted to though, unlike the university in this case. How else would you move them? I think even hipsters know the gig is up when the tow truck comes out. It is hyperbole, but I bet you it would work just fine. No spray, no batons. Otherwise those kids would have been able to hold themselves there indefinitely. Maybe you should ask why the school wanted them ejected?
So state sponsored violence is OK against non-violent citizens, if they are young? Moving people is only possible if they've been pepper sprayed in the yes first? Orrrr You agree with state sponsored violence, if the victims stand for an issue, which you oppose?
If necessary to enforce the law. Civil disobedience is done because the arrest brings attention to their cause. Those kids knew they were breaking it and their refusal to leave would invite force. In this case it worked. They had tried for a while with talk and breaking them up and moving them, but it didn't work. How many hours should they deal with people resisting arrest before using non lethal force to subdue them? Would a punch to the face have been better? A tackle? Kick? Or only two hand touch on white law breakers? when necessary to protect life and property, and only so much force as necessary. I don't know what they were supporting. When you break the law you get arrested. Fight your battle in court or in the public, but resisting arrest isn't smart if you don't want violence visited upon you. That is what cops do to criminals that don't comply. It is in the rule books.
