Civil disobedience

February 28, 2003 11:53 AM

Civil disobedience ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS PLAN TO DISRUPT DAILY ACTIVITIES IF WAR BREAKS OUT--but, shush, don't let this news get out yet.
posted by Postroad (55 comments total)

Good. It will give the police a good reason to throw them in jail so wont have to look at some smelly college kid pretending he's living in 1968.

I'm not exactly in favor of a war but I'm not a fan of annoying idiots holding up signs that don't actually do anything towards solving a problem.
posted by bondcliff at 12:00 PM on February 28, 2003

IraqFilter
posted by Beholder at 12:04 PM on February 28, 2003

POLICE PLAN TO ARREST ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS IF DISRUPTIONS BREAKS OUT
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:13 PM on February 28, 2003

shhhh, the anti-war people won't know what hit them....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:14 PM on February 28, 2003

Please let them do something where I work that will shut us down for a day or two. I could use a day off.




OT: do we now have folks who have the job of going from thread to thread and label then as "NewFilter," "IraqFilter" and such? Catagorizing each post is nice (because sometimes I don't know when a post is "IraqFilter"), but wouldn't it be more helpful to put the label on the front page?
posted by tolkhan at 12:18 PM on February 28, 2003

proof that every culture has a cancer of idiocy gnawing away at itself.
posted by cachilders at 12:20 PM on February 28, 2003

Um, I don't know how things are in the bay area, but I live in DC, and apart from the police, the overly grumpy commuters would kick the asses of any protesters that tried to hold up their commute. You should see how mad people get at the tourists on the subway, and they're not even being slow on purpose...
posted by unreason at 12:20 PM on February 28, 2003

So...

Peaceful protest is wrong now?
posted by influx at 12:22 PM on February 28, 2003

Peaceful protest is wrong now?

It's not wrong to protest peacefully, but it is wrong to stop others from going about their business. Their techniques involve stopping people from being able to get to work, school, etc. In most cases these people being inconvenienced don't even have any real influence on Iraq policy. Many may not even be citizens. You have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to block other people from going where they want to go.
posted by unreason at 12:31 PM on February 28, 2003

Peaceful protest is wrong now?

It's not wrong, necessarily, but part of civil disobedience is that you know you're breaking the law, and you go to jail for it. Performing an illegal act as a protest doesn't make it legal, or unarrestable. If they want to do this, that's their business, but they should expect to see the inside of a cell.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:34 PM on February 28, 2003

If anyone wants to hear more details about what's going on in the Bay Area, contact me.
(danny|at|quasistoic.com)
posted by quasistoic at 12:36 PM on February 28, 2003

If its illegal for abortion protesters to block entrances to abortion clinics, I'd think its illegal for any protesters to block the entrances to any businesses.
posted by schlyer at 12:38 PM on February 28, 2003

~shrug~

It will be humans willing to put their freedom and livelihood on the line for their beliefs, versus police and military proxies cheered on by those who for some reason can't or don't "want to get involved" at the level of personal action. Many of these latter folks are merely the intellectual and moral descendants of those who delighted in police dogs mauling African Americans civil rights protestors in the streets of Birmingham.

Same as it ever was....
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:44 PM on February 28, 2003

Unfortunately, it is not illegal for abortion protesters to block entrances to clinics, not anymore.
posted by wsg at 12:46 PM on February 28, 2003

Here is a better link than the one above.
posted by wsg at 12:54 PM on February 28, 2003

unreason: if I understand the Constitution then citizens to have the right to assembly. At that point, after assembly, if they become a nuisance they can be arrested for various misdemeanors.

As for nuns pouring their own blood on military facilities. Well, everyone knows what a threat they are. It's understandable to lock them up for 30 years.

f_and_m: And don't forget the scattered others who, while not African American, were also mauled by those same dogs.
posted by ?! at 12:56 PM on February 28, 2003

Schlyer, FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994) law only protects:

• crisis pregnancy centers


• abortion clinics


• physicians' offices


• other reproductive health clinics


• churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other religious buildings

And wsg, you are wrong. FACE provides strict rules that prevent the blocking of clinics. FACE is the appropriate way to deal with protesters not RICO laws that would have put all protesters, regardless of views, in the same boat as the Mafia.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:00 PM on February 28, 2003

It seems to me that these actions that anti-war protestors plan on doing if war breaks out would be counterproductive. If they plan on sabotaging/disrupting military activities, that means the military won't be able to focus fully on Iraq and that might lead to increased casualties, both for the U.S. military and Iraqi civilians. Is that what they want to happen?
posted by gyc at 1:04 PM on February 28, 2003

Many of these latter folks are merely the intellectual and moral descendants of those who delighted in police dogs mauling African Americans civil rights protestors [sic] in the streets of Birmingham.

Intellectual and moral descendants, eh? So in other words, anyone that disagrees with you on the issue of Iraq is a raciest. It is amusing that people who have no real argument to back up their position always start to throw around things like the race card.

Yet again, Keith, you show your true colors.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:07 PM on February 28, 2003

The terminology if "war breaking out" bothers me.
It's as if war were getting the measles.
War won't "break out," it will be instigated and initiated by an unelected fraud and his minions.
I feel so very badly that we can't stop Duhbya from sending our young military off to die unnecessarily.
Damn imperialist!
How about we fight terrorism instead, huh?
posted by nofundy at 1:21 PM on February 28, 2003

And of course there is the unspoken reality of this sort of thing... they WANT to be arrested.

This sort of protest doesn't work because it is disruptive... this sort of protest is specifically intended to force a police response so they can start screaming about how repressed they are.

It's a good scam:

1) Plan on doing something illegal and disruptive
2) Go on about how you are willing to accept the consequences
3) Do something illegal and disruptive
4) Complain to anyone who will listen about the consequences

Nice deal.
posted by soulhuntre at 1:21 PM on February 28, 2003

or racist for that matter...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:23 PM on February 28, 2003

In Seattle, some yahoos blocked off the 520 bridge spanning Lake Washington (a critical and often traversed vein) in the middle of rush hour to "protest war".

What they didn't consider is that someone might be en route to a hospital for treatment, labor, or anything.

Fuckheads.

And I just can't wait to see more of that thoughtless ignorance perpetuated on society if war breaks out. Because, you know, the only way to counter the ignorance of war is with some goddamned loud-mouthed ignorance of your own.

Or so it seems.
posted by xmutex at 1:24 PM on February 28, 2003

Yet again, Keith, you show your true colors.

Steve, you're making me very nervous with all of these uncalled-for uses of my name. Haven't I warned you about the trademark lawyers and goons?
posted by COBRA! at 1:47 PM on February 28, 2003

Stupid protestors...don't they know that if you really want to have an impact you need to sit around and post on metafilter?
posted by iamck at 1:49 PM on February 28, 2003

The issue is not having an impact ... the issue is about having an impact that does something constructive or useful.

If a mob decides to close down the ability of others to live their lives every time it gets it's collective panties in a twist about something that doesn't sound a lot like freedom to me.
posted by soulhuntre at 2:35 PM on February 28, 2003

ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS PLAN TO DISRUPT DAILY ACTIVITIES IF WAR BREAKS OUT

I have it on good authority that they're already trying to do just that on a certain community weblog.
posted by 111 at 2:48 PM on February 28, 2003

I'm stunned that there are so many people on MetaFilter who do not respect the time-honored practice of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

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.

The lunch counter sit-ins were disruptive. They inconvenienced people. They adversely affected businesses. Would any of you complain to Dr. King, "you have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to block other people from going where they want to go?"

Can you not understand that there are larger issues at stake than whether you get to work on time? If you condemn the protesters, condemn them because you believe that going to war with Iraq is somehow worth killing thousands of innocent people. But to condemn peace protesters because they keep a bank from opening on time? Jesus, you'd think the 60's never happened. It's Nero-level decadence. Fiddling while Rome burns. It makes me want to gouge out my eyes.
posted by vraxoin at 3:02 PM on February 28, 2003

vraxoin: It wouldn't help. Trust me.

steve_at_linnwood: I completely agree. The people who f_and_m spoke of: the "intellectual and moral descendants of those who delighted in police dogs mauling African Americans civil rights protestors in the streets of Birmingham" aren't neccessarily racist.

Logically, we could only say they're the inbred descendants of those people. They have to be. Because no one will admit to being one of those people in the 60s. So they must have hid in the hills and bred together.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible.
posted by ?! at 3:07 PM on February 28, 2003

I have it on good authority that they're already trying to do just that on a certain community weblog.

This is true if your daily activities are disrupted by reading posts you don't agree with on Metafilter.

Still, this is sort of silly. Don't these protesters know that the war is already on? That the Gulf War never ended?
posted by moonbiter at 3:24 PM on February 28, 2003

In Seattle ... What they didn't consider is that someone might be en route to a hospital for treatment, labor, or anything.

And you know this how? If you research the blockade, you'll find that the people did consider what you mentioned. As there are hospitals on either side of Lake Washington in that area, it's unlikely that an ambulance would have been en route. Additionally, they apparently were prepared to let any ambulance through. If you want to complain about people being inconsiderate to ambulances, perhaps start with all the traffic I see every day that ignores sirens and nearby emergency vehicles.

And perhaps read the "Open Letter to the local anti-war community, from the 520 Blockade team"
posted by gluechunk at 3:25 PM on February 28, 2003

If you condemn the protesters, condemn them because you believe that going to war with Iraq is somehow worth killing thousands of innocent people. But to condemn peace protesters because they keep a bank from opening on time?
That is pretty binary isn't it? Why can't I be against the war and want to get to work on time? The association I make is that the people violating my rights are not all that different from the people they are protesting.
posted by thirteen at 3:27 PM on February 28, 2003

The terminology [o]f "war breaking out" bothers me.
It's as if war were getting the measles.
War won't "break out," it will be instigated and initiated by [some very bad people].

Good call. Language is used as frequently to hide truths as to reveal them (banal observation but no less true for that), and we don't notice that as often these days as we ought to, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:27 PM on February 28, 2003

I'm stunned that there are so many people on MetaFilter who do not respect the time-honored practice of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

King also went to jail. I've no real problem with people staging stunts like this, except insofar as it might impede emergency traffic (something irrelevant at lunch-counter sit-ins), but they should (and presumably do) expect to be jailed for breaking the law.

One difference though is that civil disobedience is at its most effective when the law being broken is itself the injustice. Classic civil disobedience is disobedience to an unjust law, where you accept the punishment to highlight how unjust the law is. That's not the case here, unless the people protesting somehow think that traffic regulations are unjust. Disobeying an irrelevant law or laws, or merely inconveniencing people, isn't really civil disobedience in my book, it's just trying to hold your city hostage to your views -- do what I say, or you'll be stuck in traffic all day.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:43 PM on February 28, 2003

Hey Steve.
Wake up.
Read the links wsg posted.
Take foot out of mouth.
posted by Espoo2 at 3:48 PM on February 28, 2003

this sort of protest is specifically intended to force a police response so they can start screaming about how repressed they are.

nice try. it's a shame that something this straightforward goes over the heads of so many, so easily. let's take it slow and easy and with small words:

the point of this and any other act of civil disobedience is to attract attention - whether some people can't get to work or some people get arrested, news will follow. the end that is achieved is that lots of people hear about the fact that lots of other people are against the war to the extent that they are willing to risk arrest and worse. some members of said tv/newspaper audience might then be inclined to find out why so many would go to such lengths, and as a result of informing themselves, might actually decide to take a side, or even take action.


Still, this is sort of silly. Don't these protesters know that the war is already on? That the Gulf War never ended?

Does that mean that Bush is being silly by bothering with the UN Security Council and all? Why isn't Baghdad being bombed already? Why have't we killed another half a million Iraq kids this year? Something new is going to happen, will it make you feel better if people call it a new "battle" instead?
posted by badstone at 4:07 PM on February 28, 2003

One difference though is that civil disobedience is at its most effective when the law being broken is itself the injustice.

You're right, that would be more effective. The problem is that it's difficult to disrupt a military action based on an administration's policy with such directness. I mean, it's pretty difficult to handcuff yourself to an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean when you're a barista from Seattle.

It was said elsewhere, but the point of this kind of civil disobedience is specifically do disrupt "business as usual" in order to demonstrate that the thing being protested is a status quo that cannot be tolerated.

Ironically, it's conservatives who seem to be bothered by these kinds of protests. Thoreau wrote "Civil Disobedience" partially to protest the Mexican-American War, which he believed was an affront to his libertarian views. He begins the essay with the quote, "The government governs best that governs least." Conservatives should be outraged that Bush & Co. want to spend their tax dollars fighting a war that in no way benefits taxpayers.
posted by vraxoin at 7:44 PM on February 28, 2003

The terminology [o]f "war breaking out" bothers me.
It's as if war were getting the measles.
War won't "break out," it will be instigated and initiated by [some very bad people].

Good call. Language is used as frequently to hide truths as to reveal them (banal observation but no less true for that), and we don't notice that as often these days as we ought to, I think.

For once, I agree with both of you. War is not an accident, it is made by human beings. Now, I may think this coming war was made entirely by Saddam Hussein and you may think it was made by GWB, but it definitely did not fall on our heads like a comet from the sky. Our language should reflect that.

Oh, and: ScreamAndFrothAtTheMouthAndHurlAdHominemInsultsFilter.

Hey, this is fun! Can I start labeling threads things like CuteWackyAnimalsFilter and BizarreToyBlimpStoryFilter?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:16 PM on February 28, 2003

Speaking of which, I learned tonight that if I were the god of the US federal budget and chose to eliminate the GW Bush #1 and #2 tax cut as well as the entire Iraq War, I could boost a number of Federal spending categories including a 20% raise in Veteran's benefits (a budget category currently being cut), begin a crash US energy self-sufficiency program, and increase a number of other domestic spending programs - and at the same time reduce the deficit to 30 billion dollars....But I'm working on a surplus. Paying back the national debt is a worthy idea, I think.
posted by troutfishing at 9:32 PM on February 28, 2003

The lunch counter sit-ins were disruptive. They inconvenienced people. They adversely affected businesses. Would any of you complain to Dr. King, "you have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to block other people from going where they want to go?"

Yes, in fact I would.

"the point of this and any other act of civil disobedience is to attract attention - whether some people can't get to work or some people get arrested, news will follow."

Of course it's to attract attention - the question is what TYPE of attention, and what to do with it? More and more commonly the actions seem specifically designed to force a police response that they can *spin* as repressive or brutal.
posted by soulhuntre at 10:38 PM on February 28, 2003

Well, if they wanted to do an effective protest, and actually do it in a way that actually has a real impact on the situation, how about they go volunteer to be a human shield for iraq? I mean, if enough americans decided they wanted to go over there and do that, it'd probably through a serious wrench into the whole situation, because man it'd look bad for us to be bombing our own citizens.

Course, it'd inconvenience the protestors to do that, not to mention put them at risk, so maybe it's just easier for them to inconvience a lot of people that really don't care about them instead.
posted by piper28 at 11:09 PM on February 28, 2003

Now, I may think this coming war was made entirely by Saddam Hussein and you may think it was made by GWB, but it definitely did not fall on our heads like a comet from the sky. Our language should reflect that.

Indeed. Indeed. I know of no one on the bleeding edge of the anti-war movement who believes anything so cut and dried. In fact I don't know anyone on the "bleeding edge" of any kind of anti-war organization at all. Everybody I've met and talked to (people who sit at my bar, for instance -- save one lady from Northern Idaho, to whom these issues of war were quite cut and dried -- not quite the impression any of the rightist pundits want well known: anything antiwar=myopic anything remotely pro-war=virtuous) are just normal Joes, confused, normal Joes. Hence our reluctance to war and our call to educate about just how we arrived at this morass.. It is out there you know. The truth.

Can I start labeling threads things like CuteWackyAnimalsFilter and BizarreToyBlimpStoryFilter?

Yes Slithy_Tove you can.
posted by crasspastor at 11:27 PM on February 28, 2003

how about they go volunteer to be a human shield for iraq? I mean, if enough americans decided they wanted to go over there and do that, it'd probably through a serious wrench into the whole situation, because man it'd look bad for us to be bombing our own citizens.

I've got an idea. A real solution.

As the cost of going to Iraq to be a human shield is sure to be prohibitive, why don't those civilian hawks form a little charity that raises money to send vociferous lefties to Iraq. You know, pays for all their shots, crash-courses 'em in local customs and language, gets 'em there safe and sends them on their way to be a human shield. Why not? It would work. It would be non-partisan and you could get people from both sides to see it's sense. Everybody's happy.

Then, depending on if this takes off or not, you'd get more and more western human shields over there, increasingly better able to protect the lives of worthless everyday Iraqis yet also fair game in a legal turkey shoot. See how it plays out, you know.
posted by crasspastor at 11:44 PM on February 28, 2003

Perhaps the Act Against War "got gridlock?" version of civil disobedience is the war protester's version of the administrations shock | and | awe | blitzkrieg strategy.

Shock and Awe is based on the impact of WWII assaults on Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Still, it doesn't seem Shock and Awe, for the massive number of civilian casualties it can create deployed in an urban setting, has a great record in the latter part of the 20th century.
posted by Dunvegan at 11:49 PM on February 28, 2003

I'm stunned that there are so many people on MetaFilter who do not respect the time-honored practice of civil disobedience ... Would any of you complain to Dr. King...?

Civil disobedience deserves no respect in itself. It is a tool. Do not respect the hammer; respect the wielder and the purpose for which it is being used. If they deserve it.

Are you really surprised that the anti-war protesters have not earned the level of respect that the civil rights movement and Dr. King enjoy?
posted by kindall at 9:14 AM on March 1, 2003

Are you really surprised that the anti-war protesters have not earned the level of respect that the civil rights movement and Dr. King enjoy?

I'm not convinced that Dr. King was all that popular during his activism or that anti-war protest is as universally dispised as the conservative pundits attempt to spin.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2003

or that anti-war protest is as universally dispised as the conservative pundits attempt to spin.

It may not be now, but start interfering with people's everyday lives by trying to shut things down, and believe me, I don't think the war is going to be the target of people's wrath.

Besides, you don't have to despise the anti-war protests to think they're a) stupid b) ineffective, and c) made up of a bunch of naive people. Despise is an awfully strong word.
posted by piper28 at 12:03 PM on March 1, 2003

...how about they go volunteer to be a human shield for iraq? I mean, if enough americans decided they wanted to go over there and do that, it'd probably through a serious wrench into the whole situation, because man it'd look bad for us to be bombing our own citizens.

Course, it'd inconvenience the protestors to do that, not to mention put them at risk...
posted by piper28 at 2:09 AM EST on March 1

I take you're unaware that there is a substantial and well-organized group of activists doing just that.
Google search (about 1660 results)
Iraq Peace Team

Feel free to question the movement's effectiveness, but minimal respect for those who are willing to put their lives on the line for their beliefs would be nice. I disagree with the war, but I don't go around calling individual soldiers "stupid," "ineffective," or "naive."
posted by hippugeek at 12:36 PM on March 1, 2003

We don't want to shield Iraqi army, say British

Fifteen volunteers from the first 200 shields are moving into a bunker at the South Baghdad Electricity Plant in an effort to deter attack by America and its allies. However some of the shields yesterday questioned Iraq's selection of the power plant, after discovering that it is situated next to an army base.

Nope. They're aren't naive at all. And at least one is bugging out.
posted by turbodog at 1:14 PM on March 1, 2003

Many of these latter folks are merely the intellectual and moral descendants of those who delighted in police dogs mauling African Americans civil rights protestors [sic] in the streets of Birmingham.

Intellectual and moral descendants, eh? So in other words, anyone that disagrees with you on the issue of Iraq is a raciest [sic].

Perhaps a better analogy would be that these folks are the intellectual descendants of those traitorous Tories who poo poo'd the Boston Tea Party as a horrible waste of perfectly fine tea.

One additional purpose of this kind of civil disobedience is to bring the cost of the war home. Average joes don't really grok the billions of tax dollars that are being flushed down the war toilet. It's even harder to sympathize with the thousands of Iraqi citizens that will be murdered in the Shock and Awe attack and even harder than that to sympathize with the tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts who have been drafted to fight a tyrant's war and who will be buried alive in their trenches by American tanks. After all, the only body bags that count are the American ones, right?

How the fuck else am I supposed to make you care about the war if none of this affects you?

Blockading streets and corporations sounds like pretty poetic backlash to me. The single occupant driver is complacent. The worship of consumerism is complacent in as that it's used as a replacement feel-good for the intellectual and moral growth that leads people to the selfless pursuit of justice instead of vengeance. If that's too much of a stretch for you, keep in mind that corporate political machinery was what got Bush Jr. in office in the first place. Those are the only constituents that Bush is out to please. Modern war is bad for business, and when the powers that be realize this, maybe they won't be so quick to start the next one.
posted by Skwirl at 3:48 PM on March 1, 2003

How the fuck else am I supposed to make you care about the war if none of this affects you?

Who the fuck are you, that your opinion that I should care about the war takes precedence over my apathy?
posted by kindall at 5:37 PM on March 1, 2003

Meanwhile in Iraq, anti-war "Human Shields" start saying, "Damn, they might actually drop bombs here!" and catch the first bus back to England.
posted by Plunge at 7:24 PM on March 1, 2003

Silly protesters. Actually caring.

Not like me, though; I'm cultured and worldly. You won't catch me caring about the lives of people I've never seen, nor will you find me giving alternatives to situations I don't like. I just hate it when the filthy hippy folk keep me from driving to go get my coffee.

Stupid people actually trying to make a difference. Pheh.

(Talk about myopia...)
posted by Coda at 7:27 PM on March 1, 2003

Silly protesters. Actually caring.

They're not silly for actually caring. They're silly for thinking that harassing others is a good way to make them care too.

Stupid people actually trying to make a difference.

The fact that they're trying to make a difference does not give them carte blanche for obnoxious behavior, or stupidity, which are often the same thing.
posted by kindall at 11:11 PM on March 1, 2003

Turbodog and Plunge, your links aren't working for me. I do agree that the shields allowing themselves to be manipulated into place by Saddam is naive. The intention was to protect civilian targets, including infrastructure and water supply facilities. I respect that intention immensely, though I question the strategy's effectiveness.

And as for some of the activists ("protestors" isn't quite the right word here) getting cold feet: What? You think no soldier ever wanted to go home? There are frightened and weak-willed people everywhere, including in the peace movement. The difference is that the activists are free to go.
posted by hippugeek at 1:49 AM on March 2, 2003