4 ms·

Montreal did the same thing during student protests in 2012 [1]. It came along with another special law enacted to restrict protests[2]. Both were later contest

Montreal did the same thing during student protests in 2012 [1]. It came along with another special law enacted to restrict protests[2]. Both were later contested and dropped. In my opinion that was extremely unproductive. It galvanized protests even further and the most common chant became "la loi special on s'en calisse" (roughly "we don't give a shit about your special law") as we were defying it. In essence, it just eroded police and state authority for an entire generation. I still strongly feel that I don't have to follow laws that I find immoral or unethical. I am not sure this is good. [1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A8glement_P-6 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A8glement_P-6 [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_78_(Qu%C3%A9bec) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_78_(Qu%C3%A9bec)

ssalka 7y ago
> I still strongly feel that I don't have to follow laws that I find immoral or unethical. I am not sure this is good. I think that is definitely good. If everyone followed laws simply because "it's the law" then no one would ever think critically about whether those laws were morally justifiable or not, or if they did they would shrug it off because "breaking the law is wrong". But such questions are important to ask, and while it may be impractical for _everybody_ to do so, I'm glad there are people like me & you that pay attention to whether the law is actually making the world better or not. (obviously, determining whether a law is ethical or not can be very tricky; you can't just go around breaking laws because you don't agree with them - there needs to be e.g. clear moral ground indicating that there is some collective thought that the law is immoral/unethical)
- darawk 7y ago
  On the other hand, if everyone follows only the laws they think are moral, you're going to have to accept the civil disobedience of those that disagree with you as well.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - FroshKiller 7y ago
    You’ll have to accept it either way.
  - ssalka 7y ago
    Healthy part of a free society!
mikelyons 7y ago
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'good' If I was fearless I would lean more into what is called The Duty of Civil Disobedience.

ssalka 7y ago

> I still strongly feel that I don't have to follow laws that I find immoral or unethical. I am not sure this is good. I think that is definitely good. If everyone followed laws simply because "it's the law" then no one would ever think critically about whether those laws were morally justifiable or not, or if they did they would shrug it off because "breaking the law is wrong". But such questions are important to ask, and while it may be impractical for _everybody_ to do so, I'm glad there are people like me & you that pay attention to whether the law is actually making the world better or not. (obviously, determining whether a law is ethical or not can be very tricky; you can't just go around breaking laws because you don't agree with them - there needs to be e.g. clear moral ground indicating that there is some collective thought that the law is immoral/unethical)

darawk 7y ago
On the other hand, if everyone follows only the laws they think are moral, you're going to have to accept the civil disobedience of those that disagree with you as well.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- FroshKiller 7y ago
  You’ll have to accept it either way.
- ssalka 7y ago
  Healthy part of a free society!

mikelyons 7y ago

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'good' If I was fearless I would lean more into what is called The Duty of Civil Disobedience.