Okay, two stories:
Recently around where I live a family was deported due to VISA problems. They had fully integrated with the community they lived in. Their daughter had even got married. Hundreds of people signed a petition and tried to prevent them being thrown out. They failed. The family admitted afterwards that they could easily have dissapeared up north and escaped deportation, but thought they would have a better chance staying wthin the boundaries of the law.
After a long campaign of intimidation a farm that bred guinea pigs for animal research agreed to stop doing so at the end of the year. Protestors had threatened them, thier family and thier friends, and had desecrated a family grave and stolen the remains within. The family had little choice but to give in.
The point of this is that it seems more and more that legitimate protest doesn't get anyone anywhere, whereas illegal activity (including intimidation, vandalism etc) seems to be very effective.
I'm just interested to know what people think about this. Do you think that if legitimate protests were more effective, then people would be less likely to resort to illegal activities? Any other similar stories?
The thing is wen u operate within the confinments of a 'legal' form of protest its easier to be put down and ignored however the illegal kind gets more attention and chances are its more radical therefore more effective...for example wen the israeli army tried to get settlers to leave they protested however were defeated....most legal protests are token ones...an effective method of passing a message.
In theory it'd right to say yes if legitimate protests worked then there would be no illegal ones....but the fact of the matter is we may never know
Well lets wait and see, when those violent protestors for the closure of the guinea pigs for animal research and there families get cancer or other disease and that thier actions has increased the time of the research for that area....who will have the last laugh!!!
Animal activists, no-matter what they say, are simply terrorists.
One must remember that the law is based on economics and eclecticism rather than some overriding ethical principle.
I don't consider the law to have any bearing on morality. I will not bother trying to follow it except if it agrees with my own morality or that the penalties etc possible are too great. The second point is a bit cowardly I am forced to admit, but the strength of the state is bloody terrifying.
So if I was in a situation where unlawful activity seemed my only solution, roll it on...
The law no longer has anything significant to say about what is right or good. Most laws these days are put together ad hoc, vary (without inconsistant ones being repealed) on the 'ideology' of the government of the day and concentrate on upholding the interests of certain groups of society (not always the elite).