aGENT Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmusrhoEPyU&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Not a bad post, even though I respect Wetcoaster as one of the most reasonable and intelligent users in these boards... It's just wrong, as you said, that we turn to existing laws in order to explain why the protesters are wrong. If the laws don't serve the people, laws need to be changed (except some unchangeable principles of course). If freedom of speech for corporations is included in current legislation, there is a way to change that without violating the very principle of freedom of speech itself. ... And why the hate on people who put up tents? They have done more already to help a literally screwed country out of the swamp than most people could imagine at first. Isn't it enough success when a movement can change the paradigms of discourse worldwide? The first step is to put the problems on the agenda, and that has been done in an impressive manner! The second step is to solve the problems. Even if they don't succeed in that, it was definitely worth the try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 This video speaks to me loudly as it always has. I thought it was appropriate in some way to be included amongst the points, counterpoints and support and critiques of the spirit, substance and action of the Occupy Movement, on Wall Street and around the world. I thought maybe it might speak to some here as well, even if it doesn't speak as poignantly to them, as it does to me, about what it is that many are actually railing and raging against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 As I recall, my post was: Were there any names mentioned? No..... Did I quote any post of yours when I made that post? No....... Did I make any reference to your occupation or personal attack comments about you personally? No.......... If commenting about obvious disdain for any authority is a personal attack.......well.........have at 'er. I feel no need to make redundant posts regarding this issue when someone else has already very eloquently and adequately posted what I wanted to say. Unlike some others in this thread...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I am not questioning the right to protest - I am questioning the content and the ignorance of the consequences of civil disobedience. It seems that many do not grasp the basic concepts of protest and civil disobedience. It would behoove many posters and protesters to educate themselves on what civil disobedience means and its consequences. One should at the very least read On Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) which is a seminal essay by American Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849 in response to US policies regarding slavery and the Mexican-American War - it is the starting point for the modern concept of civil disobedience. Ghandi would adopt the phrase "Civil Resistance" to describe his opposition to British rule of India. Ghandi would write in 1907: Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. He was one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced. At the time of the abolition of slavery movement, he wrote his famous essay "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience". He went to gaol for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable. And Dr. Martin Luther King traced his philosophy of civil disobedience and his actions in the American civil rights movement to Thoreau as King noted in his autobiography: During my student days I read Henry David Thoreau's essay On Civil Disobedience for the first time. Here, in this courageous New Englander's refusal to pay his taxes and his choice of jail rather than support a war that would spread slavery's territory into Mexico, I made my first contact with the theory of nonviolent resistance. Fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system, I was so deeply moved that I re-read the work several times. I became convinced that non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. The teachings of Thoreau came alive in our civil rights movement; indeed, they are more alive than ever before. Whether expressed in a sit-in at lunch counters, a freedom ride into Mississippi, a peaceful protest in Albany, Georgia, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, these are outgrowths of Thoreau's insistence that evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice. Ronald Dworkin is one of the leading modern philosophers on civil disobedience (as well as scholar of constitutional law). This type action by the Occupy movement fits within Dworkin's third category of civil disobedience: "Policy-based" civil disobedience occurs when a person breaks the law in order to change a policy (s)he believes is dangerously wrong. Dworkin's first two categories of civil disobedience: "Integrity-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys a law he feels is immoral, as in the case of northerners disobeying the fugitive slave laws by refusing to turn over escaped slaves to authorities. Thoreau would fit here. "Justice-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys laws in order to lay claim to some right denied to him, as when blacks illegally protested during the Civil Rights Movement. The point of civil disobedience is if you intentionally break the civil law (including breaching the peace) you are liable for the consequences. While the motive of a civil disobedient may well be praiseworthy (or not), nevertheless it is criminal intent (aka mens rea) that governs the state reaction to the criminal act (aka actus reus). You do not get to say "I disagree with the government and my motives are pure so there should be no consequences." That seems to be the fundamental disconnect for many in the Occupy movement and in particular the Occupy Vancouver protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I am not questioning the right to protest - I am questioning the content and the ignorance of the consequences of civil disobedience. It seems that many do not grasp the basic concepts of protest and civil disobedience. It would behoove many posters and protesters to educate themselves on what civil disobedience means and its consequences. One should at the very least read On Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) which is a seminal essay by American Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849 in response to US policies regarding slavery and the Mexican-American War - it is the starting point for the modern concept of civil disobedience. Ghandi would adopt the phrase "Civil Resistance" to describe his opposition to British rule of India. Ghandi would write in 1907: Thoreau was a great writer, philosopher, poet, and withal a most practical man, that is, he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself. He was one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced. At the time of the abolition of slavery movement, he wrote his famous essay "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience". He went to gaol for the sake of his principles and suffering humanity. His essay has, therefore, been sanctified by suffering. Moreover, it is written for all time. Its incisive logic is unanswerable. And Dr. Martin Luther King traced his philosophy of civil disobedience and his actions in the American civil rights movement to Thoreau as King noted in his autobiography: During my student days I read Henry David Thoreau's essay On Civil Disobedience for the first time. Here, in this courageous New Englander's refusal to pay his taxes and his choice of jail rather than support a war that would spread slavery's territory into Mexico, I made my first contact with the theory of nonviolent resistance. Fascinated by the idea of refusing to cooperate with an evil system, I was so deeply moved that I re-read the work several times. I became convinced that non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. The teachings of Thoreau came alive in our civil rights movement; indeed, they are more alive than ever before. Whether expressed in a sit-in at lunch counters, a freedom ride into Mississippi, a peaceful protest in Albany, Georgia, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, these are outgrowths of Thoreau's insistence that evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice. Ronald Dworkin is one of the leading modern philosophers on civil disobedience (as well as scholar of constitutional law). This type action by the Occupy movement fits within Dworkin's third category of civil disobedience: "Policy-based" civil disobedience occurs when a person breaks the law in order to change a policy (s)he believes is dangerously wrong. Dworkin's first two categories of civil disobedience: "Integrity-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys a law he feels is immoral, as in the case of northerners disobeying the fugitive slave laws by refusing to turn over escaped slaves to authorities. Thoreau would fit here. "Justice-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys laws in order to lay claim to some right denied to him, as when blacks illegally protested during the Civil Rights Movement. The point of civil disobedience is if you intentionally break the civil law (including breaching the peace) you are liable for the consequences. While the motive of a civil disobedient may well be praiseworthy (or not), nevertheless it is criminal intent (aka mens rea) that governs the state reaction to the criminal act (aka actus reus). You do not get to say "I disagree with the government and my motives are pure so there should be no consequences." That seems to be the fundamental disconnect for many in the Occupy movement and in particular the Occupy Vancouver protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 And what of those protesters standing peacefully being struck with batons, kicked, beaten and maced by police? I have no doubt that there are indeed $%#@ disturbers of epic proportions at many if not all Occupy movements. This sort of happening is a magnet for their ilk. That does not however give police or mayors the right to trample forcefully on the other peaceful protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 And what of those protesters standing peacefully being struck with batons, kicked, beaten and maced by police? I have no doubt that there are indeed $%#@ disturbers of epic proportions at many if not all Occupy movements. This sort of happening is a magnet for their ilk. That does not however give police or mayors the right to trample forcefully on the other peaceful protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 The problem you face is associating with these persons who are prepared to engage in "tumultuous and violent conduct" or "disorderly conduct" and you get caught up in police action. The courts have been clear that the police do not have to carefully assess the individual actions of each member of the assembly... and that would be impractical. Per the New York Penal Code: § 240.10 Unlawful assembly. A person is guilty of unlawful assembly when he assembles with four or more other persons for the purpose of engaging or preparing to engage with them in tumultuous and violent conduct likely to cause public alarm, or when, being present at an assembly which either has or develops such purpose, he remains there with intent to advance that purpose. Unlawful assembly is a class B misdemeanor. § 240.20 Disorderly conduct. A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof: 1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or 2. He makes unreasonable noise; or 3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or 4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or 5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or 6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or 7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose. Disorderly conduct is a violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German_Canucks_Supporter Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 The problem you face is associating with these persons who are prepared to engage in "tumultuous and violent conduct" or "disorderly conduct" and you get caught up in police action. The courts have been clear that the police do not have to carefully assess the individual actions of each member of the assembly... and that would be impractical. Per the New York Penal Code: § 240.10 Unlawful assembly. A person is guilty of unlawful assembly when he assembles with four or more other persons for the purpose of engaging or preparing to engage with them in tumultuous and violent conduct likely to cause public alarm, or when, being present at an assembly which either has or develops such purpose, he remains there with intent to advance that purpose. Unlawful assembly is a class B misdemeanor. § 240.20 Disorderly conduct. A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof: 1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or 2. He makes unreasonable noise; or 3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or 4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or 5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or 6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or 7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose. Disorderly conduct is a violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Again... all well and good but you can't seriously be defending corporate funded, police brutality on peaceful citizens because there are a 5 people to 100 actually causing trouble? Can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I do not accept your basic premise that this is "corporate funded, police brutality on peaceful citizens". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 So, just because it is technically lawful to cover an 84 year old woman's face with pepper spray, you refuse to discuss questions of appropriateness and hide behind some obviously stupid paragraphs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I do not accept your basic premise that this is "corporate funded, police brutality on peaceful citizens". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 As I noted if you get yourself caught up with people who are being subject to police action, that is a risk that you take. Now if police went into the crowd, extracted said woman (assuming she was not committing an offence individually) and the pepper sprayed her, I would have a problem. However when you get caught up in police actions involving a breach or apprhended breach of the peace, that is something else again. Surely it has not escaped your notice that I am not a proponent of of failing to hold police to account for wrongful actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I do not accept your basic premise that this is "corporate funded, police brutality on peaceful citizens". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbridled_id Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Who are the candidates the "occupiers" are putting up in 2012 to enact the "change" they ramble on about ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Who are the candidates the "occupiers" are putting up in 2012 to enact the "change" they ramble on about ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbridled_id Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 What specific candidates are the movement putting up for the 2012 elections ? Simple question cartman can you answer it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.