Utopia, you are standing in it!

Greenpeace thugs today climbed aboard a Government science ship that will search for oil. Three Greenpeace activists have locked themselves to the mast with others secured to various areas on deck. They unfurled a banner reading: “Climb it Change” and intend to stay as long as possible.

https://twitter.com/gen_tweets1/status/668891794726256640

Greenpeace are keen to pass laws to save the environment but they’re more than happy to break laws they disagree with. I wonder if they extend that same courtesy to others they regard as less enlightened than them?

Greenpeace expects others to obey the laws for which Greenpeace lobbied. Why does Greenpeace think they can break laws that others secured through lawful, peaceful democratic action? Is some peaceful democratic action more equal than others? Why does Greenpeace think their vote counts more than mine?

The Greenpeace vandals who trespassed at Parliament a few months ago by climbing up to put signs down showed a flagrant disregard of the ample possible options for peaceful protest right outside. In their favour, they showed some sort of fidelity to law by later pleading guilty in court. That showed an acknowledgement that what they did was a criminal offence.

John Rawls makes the point that the purpose of civil disobedience is not to impose your will upon others but through your protest to implore them to reconsider their position and change the law or policy you are disputing.

Rawls argues that civil disobedience is never covert or secretive; it is only ever committed in public, openly, and with fair notice to legal authorities. Openness and publicity, even at the cost of having one’s protest frustrated, offers ways for the protesters to show their willingness to deal fairly with authorities. Rawls argues:

• for a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law being done (usually) with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government;
• that appeals to the sense of justice of the majority;
• which may be direct or indirect;
• within the bounds of fidelity to the law;
• whose protesters are willing to accept punishment; and
• although civil disobedience involves breaking the law, it is for moral rather than selfish reasons; the willingness to accept arrest is proof of the integrity of the act.

Rawls argues, and too many forget, that civil disobedience and dissent more generally contribute to the democratic exchange of ideas by forcing the dominant opinion to defend their views.

https://twitter.com/nzheraldvideo/status/668968510060564480

Legitimate non-violent direct action are publicity stunts to gain attention and provoke debate within the democratic framework, where we resolve our differences by trying to persuade each other and elections.

The civil disobedient is attempting to appeal to the “sense of justice” of the majority and a willingness to accept arrest is proof of the integrity of the act says Rawls:

…any interference with the civil liberties of others tends to obscure the civilly disobedient quality of one’s act.

Rawls argues that the use or threat of violence is incompatible with a reasoned appeal to fellow citizens to move them to change a law. The actions are not a means of coercing or frightening others into conforming to one’s wishes. That is a breach of the principles of a just society.

Too many acts of non-violent direct action aim to impose their will on others rather than peaceful protests designed to bring about democratic change in the laws or policies. That ‘might does not make right’ is fundamental to democracy and the rule of law. As United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said

The virtue of a democratic system [with a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech] is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so and to change their laws accordingly.

John Rawls’ view that fidelity to law and democratic change through trying to persuade each other is at the heart of civil disobedience reflects the difference between the liberal and the left-wing on democracy and social change as Jonathan Chait observed:

Liberals treat political rights as sacrosanct. The left treats social and economic justice as sacrosanct. The liberal vision of political rights requires being neutral about substance. To the left, this neutrality is a mere guise for maintaining existing privilege; debates about “rights” can only be resolved by defining which side represents the privileged class and which side represents the oppressed… Liberals believe that social justice can be advanced without giving up democratic rights and norms. The ends of social justice do not justify any and all means.

If you want to reform the world, do what we ordinary people have to do: change your vote, write to an MP, protest, donate to or even join a political party, or run for parliament.

https://twitter.com/siana_tweets/status/668927311928954880

The great strength of democracy is a small group of concerned and thoughtful citizens can band together and change things by mounting single issue campaigns or joining a political party and running for office and winning elections or influencing who wins.

Yesterday’s majority of the vote sooner or later and often sooner than they expect will break off into different minorities on the next big issue of the day. These newly formed minorities will use that same ability to band together as a minority to block vote to protect what they think is important and advance agendas they think are to be wider benefit despite the opinion of the current majority to the contrary. All reforms start as a minority viewpoint.

Indeed, it is a strength of democracy – small groups of concerned citizens banding together – is what is holding up legislating in many areas. It is not that minorities are powerless and individuals are voiceless. It is exactly the opposite.

Nothing stirs up the impassioned (and most other people as well) more than depriving them of their right to support or oppose what is important to them through political campaigns and at an election. The losing side, we all end up on the losing side at one time or another, are much more likely to accept an outcome if they had their say and simply lost the vote at the election or in Parliament.

Greenpeace should show fidelity to democracy by obeying the laws supported by others when they were in the majority. Yes, Greenpeace is in despair over oil exploration. Others rejoice in it but that clash of strong opinions is the nature of any important controversy.

Greenpeace wants to do is rob the winners of their honest democratic victory over the balance between oil exploration and other energy options. Greenpeace are also robbing themselves of a fair defeat.

A fair defeat flows from laws and policies secured through normal democratic means knowing that one day you may be in a majority. Only by respecting the will of the majority when you are in the minority do you have any right to expect future minorities to respect your honest democratic victories as the majority of some future day. Democratic majorities of patched together through give-and-take and the reality that even the most important policies may be reversed in the future.

Right now, the thuggery of Greenpeace is poisoning the democratic process. Greenpeace should respect the political process because democracy alone can produce compromises satisfying a sufficient mass of the electorate on deeply felt issues so as to not distort the remainder of the democratic process. Greenpeace owes New Zealand democracy better than what it is doing today