This is what Democracy looks like
As rational individuals, we do certain things that are beneficial towards us as we are individuals who are self interested. We can also stand up for things we believe in since we have the right. In the film “This is what democracy looks like”, we witness non-violent protestors who are protesting against the WTO and are being stripped of their right of freedom of speech and freedom of association just because the state has a problem with the type of protest that is occurring. Non-violent protestors are being arrested during the WTO meeting without a causal reason. I will argue that the state did not follow the criminal justice system’s liberal principles properly and by looking at the actions of the state against the citizens, citizens were stripped of their liberty and rights. On one hand the citizens are
…show more content…
The media takes this news focuses on the protestor’s violence and showcases them as the ones creating a scene. The media then showcases police as the ones that have to deal with the situation by detaining citizens, thus making them look like the good guys. The mayor and chief police also take away from the citizen’s freedom by allocating a 7pm curfew and a 25 block ‘no protest zone’. So if individuals were to not follow the set curfew they can be detained even if they had nothing to do with the protest. Police started attacking citizens even before curfew, which stripped citizens more of their freedom and liberty to protest. Individuals who were leaving their office, and who were not apart of the protest were also taken to prison, even when they followed procedure. This proves that the actions taken were not a part of the due process system where we protect individuals but rather part of the crime control module where we screen out innocent people and get them into the
As for the protest of the WTO it was a prime example of how not to organize and conduct a protest. Although no individuals were seriously hurt or killed, property damage and the shut down of the city cost millions. On the first two days of what was supposed to be a three day meeting of the WTO they were prevented from meeting by the protesters.
(Common Sense) Then read what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence which states “These rights include the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government.” (Declaration of Independence) In both of these it states that they were doing what was in the best interest for the people.
democracy should mean more than the right to picket when you are really upset or
The night following Brown’s shooting, police dressed in riot gear came to break up an unruly crowd following a prayer vigil held in Brown’s memory. The following day, officers had to resort to using tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse a massive crowd at a local convenience store that had been burned down and looted earlier. On August 13, the local government instated a mandatory curfew due to the reoccurring violence from the preceding days. I don’t believe the protesters are justified in looting the stores in the area, however I do believe they are justified in protesting the local government on not providing justice for the situation. Whether Michael Brown fought the officer or not, he still had his hands up when Wilson’s gun was drawn. When someone’s hands are up in the air that usually means they are surrendering themselves from the situation. The autopsy shows that with the way the bullets hit his body, he was more than likely in a hands up position. This is the second time fatal violence against and unarmed black teenager has occurred, the first being Trayvon Martin. With the way that case turned out, it’s safe to infer that Wilson will face no justice for shooting Brown. Our government claims to “protect” us under law, however it fails to do its job. We aren’t honoring Michael through the violence and looting, but we are through the peaceful protests in order to gain justice for his
In our country’s history, Civil Disobedience has had positive effects upon legislation and societal norms. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states five basic forms of expression that are to be protected by the government: Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and Petition. The Founders, in essence, created a means by which the average citizen can achieve political and social change. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated in 1989 that, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”* When citizens speak out or
The pursuit of happiness may sometimes require a person to oppose laws that they find to be unjust. Freedom of speech is a protected right of all citizens of the United States, but there are times when people also have to take action to make their voices heard. As long as doing so does not encroach upon the legal rights of others, peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. As Henry David Thoreau states in his essay, Civil Disobedience,"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly." If a democracy is a government created by the people and for the people, when it fails to do this well, the people have a responsibility to point it out.
When the United States of America was first formed, its citizens had many new rights and freedoms that they did not have in their motherland. Today; however, citizens of the United States do not share as many rights as the first immigrants had. A freedom that individuals think has been stripped away from them is the freedom to protest. This freedom has been restricted over time by the government who has set many rules and regulations on protesting laws. However, in society today, many wonder whether or not these restrictions are justified or if they break the constitutional rights of being an American.
today, perhaps it could be justified. For one, President Donald John Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, which practically bans all foreign immigrants from residing nor entering the nation. America is what it is today because of its diversity. Yet, President Trump and a considerable number of people believe that the country should be of its natives instead of those who seek the privileges of its constitutions and hence potentially violates the Declaration of Independence, which says that all men have the right to seek asylum. Considering how the Declaration of Independence originated the U.S., it is ironic for the nation to limit it. Therefore, civil disobedience is required. As it is apprehended that the matter requires civil disobedience, the negotiation comes in; however, a president could be convinced, but not negotiated with his own nation, and thus this step is nullified. Moving on, the enactment of non-violent direct actions is legally safe from the nation’s military forces, but it could be met with a group of people, potentially possessive of deadly weapons, who support the Immigration Executive Order. As it could be life threatening to some extent, one should be ready to self-defend, but not retaliate to the extent where the other is harmed. Finally, launch coordinated systematic direct actions nationwide for the maximum effect. In doing so, President Trump would eventually have to nullify
William Faulkner once said, “Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” Injustice is an issue that infects society all around us. As a people, we have two choices: stand up or remain quiet. If one chooses to stand, there is a certain etiquette they must follow. Peaceful resistance can be monumental, inspirational, and historical. Unfortunately, there are some who do not know the difference between nonviolent and overly aggressive protest. Peaceful protesting will change society for the better. Human rights activists, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, sought to make a difference
Chenoweth seeks to explain why “nonviolent resistance often succeeds compared to violent resistance, and under what conditions nonviolence succeeds or fails”. In recent years, organized groups conducting civil disobedience have been successful using nonviolent tactics such as, “boycotts, strikes, protests, and organized noncooperation”, in order to challenge the current power they were facing.1 Some successful examples of regimes that have been removed from power in recent years are, “Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004-2005), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006)”.1 More recently in 2011 there were major uprising in both Egypt and Tunisia that were able to remove regimes that had been in power for decades, showing that nonviolence can work even if the regime has been in power for years.1
There are many things in this world that people have to decide for themselves. One major choice would be deciding to go against the government if they are believed to be in the wrong. Certain circumstances where opposing the government is okay are when they deny individual rights and when they can’t be trusted.
Not only does peaceful resistance positively affect a free society, it is the bedrock for its survival. When the Founding Fathers congregated to ratify the Bill of Rights, they considered those ten as unalienable because they were representative of the American people’s values. As questions about which rights are guaranteed constantly circulate, civil disobedience can be a critical reminder to lawmakers about which rights the public refuse to forfeit. In a country of such rich diversity, unanimous agreement is a profound rarity. Unrepresented citizens cannot always rely on their peers to represent the same values, and as the late Howard Zinn once stated: “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from the law; it is essential to it.” Civil disobedience grants a voice to the otherwise voiceless. Ideological minorities can voice their discontent by refusing to conform to policies that breach their moral compasses. Without civil disobedience, those unfavored ideologies would struggle to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
In y opinion peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society because the people got to know what they are dealing with in that they have rights .''When the bus filled up and no seats remained, the driver ordered four African Americans, including Parks, to clear their seats so that a white man could sit down. All but Parks acquiesced.Parks was arrested for her act of civil disobedience and convicted of violating the Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation in the South until 1965''.This show that she resented to getting off because that was not a free society that why people should resented to any right that they think it's wrong. another example is ''Security Agency programs that collect vast amounts of information about the telephone calls made by millions of Americans, as well as e-mails and other files of foreign targets and their American connections. For this, some, including my colleague John Cassidy, are hailing him as a hero and a whistle-blower.''This man is a hero even Dow adore say that he is not because he is showing
Around the world people take to the streets when they think there is an injustice in their country. Almost daily we can see images of protesters on TV, they are openly having their say. The United Nations recognised freedom of expression as a fundamental human right in its human rights declaration of 1948. Long before that though, during the French Revolution in 1789 freedom of speech was enshrined as a citizen’s basic right. But what does it actually mean, freedom of expression? It is the right to express your opinion publically, without fear of punishment. This liberty is understood as an essential part of a democratic society, and for this reason it has been bitterly contested in every society today. In democratic countries such as the US and in Europe freedom of expression is anchored in the constitution. According to the German constitution, everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his or her opinion by speech, in writing and in images. It also applies to the media, to newspapers as well as to TV and radio broadcasts. Censorship is prohibited in a democracy to prevent opinions and information from being manipulated, but freedom of expression is not guaranteed country. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes in particular suppress criticism; there are
In order to enforce it, however, ideal liberalism calls for mass action. This is due to the fact that the government holds power to execute administrative functions of a state, meaning that an individual has minimal bargaining power. All types of liberalism are founded on this aspect of democracy. Examples include classic liberalism and modern American liberalism. Classic liberalism is based on the limitation of state power. (Hansen 1). This type of liberalism recognizes the state as a powerful being and therefore a threat to individual freedom. On the other hand, modern American liberalism advocates for an advancement of social justice and the rights of individuals. (Hansen 1). The common factor between the two is the need for mass action to enforce them. Therefore, in order to protect the rights of individuals, people have to take it upon themselves to voice concern for violation and to address the risks to their