3 ms·
There's two schools of thought to civil disobedience. The first holds that one must surrender oneself to the authorities to distinguish civil disobedience from
by mantap 7y ago
There's two schools of thought to civil disobedience. The first holds that one must surrender oneself to the authorities to distinguish civil disobedience from pure criminality. But the other holds that one should not surrender or plead guilty so as not to legitimize an unjust system.
- baryphonic 7y agoThough I clearly am biased in favor of the former interpretation since it is IMO the most persuasive, her actions fail both. Any advocacy on her own behalf in front of the court (with the exception of genuinely extreme treatment like torture) would constitute legitimizing the proceedings. Under the latter interpretation, her only response would be to remain completely silent and refuse to cooperate at all. If we wanted evidence that she was trying to refuse the legitimacy of the court, we could see if she, for example, refused physically to move when summoned before a court, refused to say anything when addressed by the judge or any other officer of the court or refuse to file court proceedings. She might even refuse to eat or take some other drastic action. Instead, we see court pleadings, which all but imply that she respects the legitimacy of the court, just not its decision toward her.
- cannabis_sam 7y ago>She might even refuse to eat or take some other drastic action. Like attempted suicide?
- shakna 7y ago> She might even refuse to eat or take some other drastic action. Instead, we see court pleadings, which all but imply that she respects the legitimacy of the court, just not its decision toward her. No, she attempted suicide, more than once. Drastic action was taken along with the legal team attempting to do their jobs.
- yipbub 7y agoThat does not follow. Court pleadings only imply she recognises the power over the court over her.