When Is Civil Disobedience Justified?

Breaking the law is a complex issue that sparks ongoing debates. While some argue that the law is absolute and must be respected, others contend that there are circumstances where breaking the law may be justified. This controversial topic raises questions about the legitimacy of laws, individual morality, and the role of civil disobedience in challenging unjust legislation.

Civil disobedience

One of the most well-known examples of civil disobedience is the campaign of civil disobedience by Black people and their allies in the southern states of the US against racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s. Led by figures such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, African-Americans entered restaurants, bars, and other public places from which they were excluded by law. Their campaign ultimately achieved significant advances for African-Americans, including the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Another example is the protest by feminist campaigners in the Republic of Ireland in 1971, a country where it was against the law to possess or use any form of contraception. A group of women took a train to Northern Ireland, where contraception was legal, bought contraceptives, and threw them into a crowd of supporters upon their return to Dublin. While they had accidentally bought aspirins instead of contraceptive pills, their intention to break the law was clear, and their act of civil disobedience drew attention to the absurdity of the law.

Morality vs. legality

Morality and legality are not always aligned. While some laws are widely considered moral, others are seen as fundamentally immoral. This raises the question of whether it is ever appropriate for individuals to break the law.

The Rule of Law

One perspective is that the rule of law is non-negotiable. Respect for the rule of law is a fundamental basis of a civilised society. If people are allowed to break the law, there will be no controls on behaviour and no one will be safe. This perspective holds that the law must be upheld in all circumstances, regardless of individual objections to specific laws. It argues that there are legal ways to challenge existing laws, such as through campaigning or legal appeals.

Legitimacy of the State

However, this perspective can be challenged when a state systematically excludes or oppresses a significant portion of its population, as in the case of apartheid in South Africa. In such situations, it could be argued that the state has forfeited its legitimacy, and with it, the need to respect its laws. For example, during the American civil rights movement, African Americans broke segregation laws through acts of civil disobedience, such as the bus boycott sparked by Rosa Parks. Similarly, in the Republic of Ireland in 1971, feminist campaigners broke the law by importing contraceptives to protest against the Catholic Church's influence on legislation. In both cases, breaking the law was seen as a necessary act of defiance against unjust and undemocratic systems.

Moral Responsibility

Breaking the law can also be justified on moral grounds. Individuals may feel a moral responsibility to disobey and actively oppose laws that are seen as immoral or unjust. For example, during World War II, members of the White Rose, a non-violent resistance group in Nazi Germany, broke several laws to oppose the regime's genocide of Jews. They followed their conscience, even when it conflicted with the laws imposed on them.

Pragmatic Considerations

When considering whether to break the law, there is also a pragmatic question to be addressed: will the action be counter-productive? Acts of civil disobedience can be powerful in gaining support for a cause, but they can also alienate potential supporters if they cause significant disruption or inconvenience.

In conclusion, while the rule of law is important for maintaining social order, there may be circumstances where breaking the law is justifiable. This could include situations where the state has lost its legitimacy, where laws are seen as immoral or unjust, or where other avenues for change have been exhausted. However, it is essential to carefully consider the potential consequences and the potential for counter-productive outcomes.

Apartheid South Africa

Whether or not it is ever appropriate for individuals to break the law is a complex question that has been explored in the context of Apartheid South Africa. Here is an analysis of this topic, focusing specifically on that period:

During the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa, individuals and groups engaged in civil disobedience and broke the law as part of their resistance. This included mass action, social movements, passive resistance, and even guerrilla warfare. The African National Congress (ANC), founded in 1912, became the primary force opposing Apartheid, initially using legal forms of protest before adopting more militant nonviolent direct action in the early 1950s. This shift towards civil disobedience was influenced by Gandhian ideas, which originated in South Africa when Gandhi was a lawyer there in 1906.

The Defiance Campaign of the early 1950s, led by the ANC, provides a clear example of individuals and groups breaking the law as a form of resistance. Protesters deliberately broke Apartheid laws, such as curfews, pass laws, and segregation in public facilities. They chose imprisonment over paying fines, burdening the government economically and using their court trials as a platform to voice their opposition to Apartheid. This campaign spread nationwide, with rural areas and small towns joining the urban centres in acts of defiance.

The ANC's nonviolent resistance was met with brutal repression from the government, including police violence, raids, and harsh sentences. This repression, however, only contributed to the growing momentum of the movement. As the ANC's nonviolent campaign failed to achieve the desired results, some within the organisation, including Nelson Mandela, called for an armed uprising. This led to the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe ("Spear of the Nation"), which carried out a series of bomb attacks on government facilities, transportation lines, power stations, and other civil infrastructure.

While the armed struggle failed to overthrow Apartheid, it further weakened the regime and created an opportunity for a grassroots nonviolent civil resistance movement, supported by international sanctions, to force the white government into negotiations. The mass action, combined with South Africa's growing international isolation and economic sanctions, ultimately led to the end of Apartheid with the country's first multiracial elections in 1994.

In conclusion, the case of Apartheid South Africa demonstrates that there are circumstances where breaking the law can be justified as a form of resistance against oppressive and unjust systems. However, it is important to recognise that such actions carry risks and may have unintended consequences. The struggle against Apartheid in South Africa showcases the complexities and challenges faced by individuals and groups when deciding whether or not to break the law in pursuit of a greater cause.

Climate activism

Breaking the law is a serious matter and is not something to be taken lightly. However, throughout history, there have been instances where individuals and groups have engaged in civil disobedience as a form of protest and a means to bring about social and political change. Climate activism is one such area where civil disobedience has been employed by activists to demand more urgent action from governments and corporations to address the climate crisis.

Civil disobedience is a powerful tool that has been used by social movements such as anti-war, civil rights, labour, and environmental campaigns. Climate activists have drawn inspiration from historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Rosa Parks, who utilised non-violent civil disobedience to challenge unjust laws and bring about change.

In recent years, climate activism has intensified as the world experiences more frequent and severe climate shocks, including heatwaves, floods, droughts, and wildfires. A notable example of a climate activism organisation is Extinction Rebellion, which has gained significant traction with its non-violent civil disobedience campaigns. Their tactics include blockades, sit-ins, and disruptions of business-as-usual activities to raise awareness about the urgency of the climate crisis.

Another group, Scientists Rebellion, formed by scientists inspired by Extinction Rebellion, has also gained prominence. They have participated in protests wearing white lab coats and disrupted events like the American Geophysical Union annual conference. These groups believe that conventional methods of advocacy are insufficient to address the scale and pace of the climate crisis, and thus, more radical actions are necessary.

Climate activists who engage in civil disobedience come from diverse backgrounds. Research suggests that they are predominantly female, highly educated, and middle-aged, with an average age of 52. Their motivations go beyond environmental concerns, as they also advocate for racial justice and addressing income and wealth inequality.

While breaking the law is generally unacceptable, the context of climate activism and the urgency of the climate crisis have driven individuals to engage in civil disobedience as a last resort to push for systemic change. It is important to note that those participating in civil disobedience within the climate movement are willing to face the legal consequences of their actions, demonstrating their commitment to their cause.

Democracy and the rule of law

The rule of law is one of the fundamental bases of a civilised society. It is a social phenomenon, an attempt to control human behaviour. However, the rule of law is not absolute, and there are times when it may be challenged and broken. This is particularly true in a democracy, where the law is made by the people, for the people. If a law is perceived as unjust, undemocratic, or immoral, individuals may take it upon themselves to break it as a form of protest or civil disobedience.

For example, in the case of apartheid South Africa, the Black majority were denied basic human rights and were systematically excluded from the democratic process. Protesting against these laws by burning their passbooks was illegal, but it could be argued that the apartheid government had forfeited its legitimacy, and with no ability to campaign for change, breaking the law was the only option. Similarly, in the American South in the 1950s and 1960s, racial segregation laws were challenged by civil rights activists like Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger, in an act of defiance that helped spark a decade-long campaign.

In a democracy, the rule of law should ideally be respected and upheld. However, when a law is seen as unjust or immoral, individuals may feel a moral responsibility to break it, even if it means facing consequences such as prison sentences. This was the case with the Irish feminist campaigners who, in a symbolic gesture, broke the law by importing contraceptives into the Republic of Ireland, where their use was illegal. They felt that only direct action would spark change, as none of the political parties were willing to challenge the power of the Catholic Church.

Breaking the law can be a powerful tool for change, but it is not without risks. While some may see it as a necessary act of rebellion against an unjust system, others may view it as a threat to the very fabric of society. The line between principle and pragmatism is a fine one, and each case must be considered on its own merits. When does the benefit of breaking an unjust law outweigh the potential harm? This is a question that individuals and societies must grapple with as they navigate the complex relationship between democracy and the rule of law.

Frequently asked questions