Conflicting messages about conflict
Conflicting messages about conflict: the “battle” against EnbridgeMany people are talking about the necessity for direct action. Direct action is one of those terms used by so many different groups, in so many different ways, that its real meaning has become blurred.
Direct action means taking action to directly stop, delay or disrupt an activity. Here are some basic examples:
* A road block against logging trucks, and which effectively stops logging from occurring, is a form of direct action.
* A protest in a city street against logging is not a form of direct action, unless that protest manages to disrupt the offices of the logging corporation, for example.
* A banner drop is not a form of direct action, unless the banner disrupts or delays some type of activity.
*Standing on the side of a road with picket signs is not direct action, but standing in the road and blocking industrial machinery from reaching its destination is.
The idea that we must use only “lawful means” is clearly impractical. If this were the case, only court cases, referendums and voting campaigns could be used to stop the pipelines. But the promises of civil disobedience emanating from many different sectors clearly show that many see the potential necessity of engaging in illegal means as well—civil disobedience.
In some ways, civil disobedience is similar to direct action. When Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, she took direct action and also engaged in a form of civil disobedience. She broke the law of racial segregation in the southern United States.
In other ways, however, civil disobedience is not a form of direct action. When hundreds of people were arrested in front of the White House in protest against the Keystone XL pipeline in August 2011, they engaged in civil disobedience, but they didn’t directly stop, disrupt or delay anything. That’s because it wasn’t a direct action, it was a protest.
More, (in proper context) at: http://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/
= new reply since forum marked as read
If, for example, creating a block to legal passage of trucks creates a hazard for the truck drivers and others on the roadways, said activists are liable for creating a hazard.
People need to really check what they're doing, if it endangers others then it's not righteous, it's not right, they shouldn't do it, doing so does more harm to the cause than good and it's just not right.
Thanks for the post and opportunity to discuss.
who is committed to stepping outside of the legal boundaries has most likely considered that they would be liable for any or all consequences. Nobody should ever be coerced into anything (or similarly framed up by the state).
However the notion of righteousness is a complicated issue. For instance, is it righteous that a (hypothetical) First Nation band caused the death of a trucker on a blockaded roadway. Of course not. But is it righteous that that same band has had their land spoiled, and children poisoned to satisfy the needs of industry? Did the needs of that tribe outweigh the life of that individual trucker, similarly do the needs of industry outweigh the rights of that band?
Does the risk of injury, outweigh the risk of doing nothing at all? Does getting bad press harm a movement more than being ignored entirely?
I think its safe to assume that industry has considered all options for any sort of endeavor to guarantee its desired success, so therefore its only reasonable to leave all options on the table for resistance, (even if, it is only to keep them guessing).