Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Conflicting messages about conflict [View all]
Conflicting messages about conflict: the “battle” against EnbridgeDirect Action
Many people are talking about the necessity for direct action. Direct action is one of those terms used by so many different groups, in so many different ways, that its real meaning has become blurred.
Direct action means taking action to directly stop, delay or disrupt an activity. Here are some basic examples:
Many people are talking about the necessity for direct action. Direct action is one of those terms used by so many different groups, in so many different ways, that its real meaning has become blurred.
Direct action means taking action to directly stop, delay or disrupt an activity. Here are some basic examples:
* A road block against logging trucks, and which effectively stops logging from occurring, is a form of direct action.
* A protest in a city street against logging is not a form of direct action, unless that protest manages to disrupt the offices of the logging corporation, for example.
* A banner drop is not a form of direct action, unless the banner disrupts or delays some type of activity.
*Standing on the side of a road with picket signs is not direct action, but standing in the road and blocking industrial machinery from reaching its destination is.
Civil Disobedience
The idea that we must use only “lawful means” is clearly impractical. If this were the case, only court cases, referendums and voting campaigns could be used to stop the pipelines. But the promises of civil disobedience emanating from many different sectors clearly show that many see the potential necessity of engaging in illegal means as well—civil disobedience.
In some ways, civil disobedience is similar to direct action. When Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, she took direct action and also engaged in a form of civil disobedience. She broke the law of racial segregation in the southern United States.
In other ways, however, civil disobedience is not a form of direct action. When hundreds of people were arrested in front of the White House in protest against the Keystone XL pipeline in August 2011, they engaged in civil disobedience, but they didn’t directly stop, disrupt or delay anything. That’s because it wasn’t a direct action, it was a protest.
The idea that we must use only “lawful means” is clearly impractical. If this were the case, only court cases, referendums and voting campaigns could be used to stop the pipelines. But the promises of civil disobedience emanating from many different sectors clearly show that many see the potential necessity of engaging in illegal means as well—civil disobedience.
In some ways, civil disobedience is similar to direct action. When Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, she took direct action and also engaged in a form of civil disobedience. She broke the law of racial segregation in the southern United States.
In other ways, however, civil disobedience is not a form of direct action. When hundreds of people were arrested in front of the White House in protest against the Keystone XL pipeline in August 2011, they engaged in civil disobedience, but they didn’t directly stop, disrupt or delay anything. That’s because it wasn’t a direct action, it was a protest.
More, (in proper context) at: http://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read