The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What are the constituent parts of authority? > Comments

What are the constituent parts of authority? : Comments

By John Tomlinson, published 3/8/2006

We should remember the old demonstrators’ slogan, 'When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Once again Perseus really does himself and his argument a lot of damage, with;

“If the notion that, ‘if injustice becomes law then resistance becomes a duty’ then the farming community of Australia has every right to start making truck bombs and torching national parks.”

Perceived injustice and some level of resistance is one thing. Extremism is something else altogether. Let’s respect the notion of taking a principled stance against unjust laws or governance, but let’s be very careful not to overdo it or misapportion blame or cause innocent parties to be affected or cause different issues to be opened up or cause others to take action against a perceived injustice that has resulted directly from our action again a perceived injustice.

I hope the rural community, even those that may share some of Perseus’ concerns, resoundly condemn the notion of national park destruction or terrorist attacks on government or non rural people or whomever, even if they do feel strongly aggrieved about the vegetation management act, inequitable rural / urban expenditure, etc.

I went through the debate on tree-clearing legislation with Perseus on this forum a few months ago, in which it was shown just how misguided (but not entirely wrong) he is about injustices in this whole matter. But even so, if he feels that strongly about it, he should yell it from the rooftops and perhaps push the legal boundaries a bit…. but be very careful not to alienate those for whom he is working and not to draw opposition from those who could be on his side if he played it right.

So it does indeed raise a very interesting issue – one of just how much resistance becomes a duty when injustice or perceived injustice is imposed.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 6 August 2006 1:34:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non Violent Direct Action is opposite to "by stander apathy". While I agree with you Ludwig, for your views on not to alienate those you are working with... I think the issue here is to "engage" affirmatively but "not to use violence".

Structural Violence (the worse violence of all) impacts us all in different ways and comes from systematic processes, or is it autocratic sources on many levels and most certainly DOES require a civic "duty to resist".

I think there is a middle sail here and talking to Perseus whose views have quite some merrit is strategic.

From Cape York, especially in reference to the "Wild Rivers", and "CYPLUS" which are also economic issues are very hot... and I believe this is the kind of thing Perseus is discussing.

If the new sustainable development laws flooding the bush took into consideration "peoples life-quality" - by forcasting their needs for improved infrastructure - as the "whole sustainable plan" I know I'd feel better as I feel very uncomfortable in both camps at present.

A lot of these policies I believe in but the way they are impliemented is highly undesirable.

The article outlined the arguement of what happens when we use "force". I say A has power over B until B does something differently. You find however that to find B... you need people who are themselves (organised) and prepared to think through and do... something that deserves the resistance or change.

That is where I wish... we would be more able and willing in this society as a whole.
Posted by miacat, Sunday, 6 August 2006 5:01:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus

I have a better idea.

Farmers are up in arms over the very laws you mention, because they are DESTROYING the environment, by disallowing Woody Weed scrub from being removed and restoring the '1 tree every 100 meters or so, native grassland' which existed under ABORIGINAL stewardship for thousands of years. Providing feed for Roos and other animals.

My idea is direct all that anger at the Wilderness Society and in particular at Reece Turner.

Have a read of the transcript of this Sunday Program interview.

TOMMY RYAN:(Aboriginal Elder) They burned this bloody invasive scrub they've got here. It burnt all that and you got good feed coming back, and kangaroos, emus and all that come back and eat around it.

Yet Reece Turner can say:

REECE TURNER: It will be a real travesty if the government failed to deliver on its promise by ending land clearing to allow this issue of woody weeds to open up the biggest loophole to broad scale land clearing we can see.

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2039.asp

I urge everyone to write to them, and condemn them outright as 'eco terrorists'. ( I did)

http://www.wilderness.org.au/
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 6 August 2006 5:10:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I think the issue here is to ‘engage’ affirmatively but ‘not to use violence’.”

Agreed Miacat

Boazy, don’t be swayed by this one really dodgy article. All is not as it seems. The ‘invasion’ of woody scrub is not “destroying the environment”, it is the result of changed ecological factors, and it is just as natural (or perhaps more natural) than the balance that existed under Aboriginal fire-regime practices.

The Wilderness Society is NOT on the wrong track with this issue. How absurd can you get in calling them “eco terrorists”? It would indeed be an enormous travesty if this issue opened up a loophole to clearing large areas of “woody weeds”, which are in fact native species in their rightful place given the change in fire regime.

Anyway, that is way off subject here.

It does however open up a whole ‘nuther’ aspect to the “resistance becomes a duty when injustice is imposed” issue. And that is our ability to know what and what not to believe (ie what is injustice in the first place)… and to be able to have a realistic understanding the relative powers of each side of given debates to get their message across… and to be honest and forthright in their expression.

Even though lots of figures, supposed facts and quotes from various people are sometimes given, we have to be very wary as to just how balanced the presentation is, and what the motivations might be for biasing it one way or the other.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 6 August 2006 10:20:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a waste of such an important topic!

The injustice of enforcing authority is a painful issue indeed:
it begins from potty training and forcing innocent tender children to attend kindy, leaving scars for life.

But just as Tomlinson begins to tackle this painful issue, he gets completely side-tracked, discussing his off-topic political views and ranting about particular government policies which he opposes, such as the war in Iraq.

Fortunately, thank God, we have no conscription in Australia and nobody forces Mr. Tomlinson to join the fight in Iraq. Australians who fight in Iraq are adults that voluntarily agreed to serve the policies of the democratically-elected government of the day.

Yes, I fully agree that when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty, and therefore believe that the topic should receive more serious consideraion rather than be misused for unrelated ends.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 7 August 2006 6:20:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet “John's comments are touching, but naive and surprisingly unsophisticated for someone who is no longer a 19 year old undergraduate.”

Absolutely!

Oh in the middle of this insignificant piece of detritus we come across the words “In his deciding to go to war, he confused his role as our leading representative with that of our “absolute” ruler.”

The prattle of the impotent. The sour grapes of one of those who voted and were, thankfully for the rest of us, in the minority.

The problem with romantic socialists is the starting point of all issues is what would be, debatably, the goal.

The Idealistic socialist will start from the point of some ideal non-existent nirvana and work backwards from there.

The real world works like this, we are where we are, the way forward is determined as forward from where we are and not simply a straight line to where some socialist minded minority would drag us.

As for “If we were consistent, we would recognise that those we call terrorists and those we call servicemen and women are both killers.”

Several IRA targets in UK were too close to my home for comfort when I lived in the UK to want to forego the option of using military force against terrorists of any sort. John Tomlison’s drivel is dangerous because to follow it to any conclusion would deprive us of the right to sustain a defensive position against a committed and corrupt adversary.

So John, you might think that we should bend over and brace ourselves against determined and bloody terrorists but when they decide to act and blow up a supermarket or cinema, I trust you will give a care for the victims, especially if it is my partner or daughters who were going about their lawful business there.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:46:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy