Civil Disobedience

Print

Civil disobedience has been very much in the news in the light of the G8/G20 Summit in Toronto. Concerns about civil disobedience prompted heavy security measures surrounding the summit. More than $930 million in federal government funding was allotted for security, and about $122 million of that was handed to the Toronto Police Service to keep order in the downtown area surrounding the summit. In the first few days of the summit an estimated 900 people were arrested. This represents the biggest mass arrests in Canada's history. Protests ranged from peaceful demonstrations to rampages that included damage to property. In the wake of violence police went on the offensive moving in on groups of seemingly peaceful protestors. Questions about when actions can be considered civil disobedience, as opposed to just plain lawlessness, as well as when civil disobedience is justifiable remain.

Civil disobedience can be defined as breaking the law out of obedience to a higher authority such as religion or morality. There are a number of things that distinguish civil disobedience from other acts of law-breaking. Generally an act of civil disobedience is used only if other means have failed and is aimed at publicizing and challenging what is seen as an injustice. Civil disobedience is usually non-violent and is undertaken openly. People involved in civil disobedience are not trying to hide what they are doing. Quite the opposite, they are trying to draw attention to what they see as an unjust law and are willing to submit to prosecution and punishment for breaking the law.

Civil disobedience has a long history in societies governed by the rule of law. Socrates argued that only just laws are worthy of being complied with. Henry Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. all practiced civil disobedience in response to what they saw as injustices in their societies such as slavery, colonial rule and racism.

Those who break the law in protest are still legally responsible for their actions. The fact that a person believes the law is wrong is no defence. One Canadian court made these comments about civil disobedience:

The consequences of breaking a law may be very serious. Penalties may include legal sanctions ranging from fines to even imprisonment. The penalties are the same as for any other time someone breaks the law. Those who participate may be left with a criminal record for their offence. Those who subject themselves to legal sanctions generally believe very strongly that their actions are morally correct.

Sometimes people who engage in civil disobedience are not initially breaking any law in gathering to protest something. However, the person, company or government affected by the actions can apply to court for an injunction if they feel the acts of civil disobedience are interfering with their legal rights. If a court has issued an injunction people must obey it or possibly face a charge for contempt of court. The police can get involved and arrest protestors. People charged with contempt of court can face fines and/or jail terms.

There is no agreement as to whether civil disobedience is a legitimate way to influence or change our laws. Some people believe that civil disobedience is a necessary part of a free and just society. Other people are opposed to acts of civil disobedience. They feel that these types of actions should never be tolerated. It is argued that breaking the law is always wrong even when one's intentions are good. It is thought that bad laws must be dealt with only by legal means even if it may take a long time to change and injustices may occur.

There are no easy answers to this debate. Some groups in society feel that civil disobedience is the only way to achieve positive change in some of our laws. It is quite likely that in a free democracy like Canada there will always be some acts of civil disobedience.