In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

"One cannot expect a regime to last if any citizen can at any time decide to defy its laws whenever his conscience moves him to do so. " (Reeb, Richard, May 19, 2006, Con 19) For this and many other reasons, I stand in firm negation of this resolution: "In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. " I present the following 4 points: I. Civil Disobedience erodes democracy II. There are Better Alternatives III. It Leads to violence and takes away others' rights IV. It can promote bad causes I offer the following definitions: DEMOCRACY: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation. ( Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition. ) CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: A group's refusal to obey a law because they believe the law is immoral. Wordnet. princeton. edu The act must be illegal, "predominately nonviolent," intended to rouse the notice of the community to the illegal action and for which those engaged are willing to accept punishment. (Gonzaga Law Review, 1997/98, XXpg. 19) APPROPRIATE: Consistent with prevailing or accepted standards or circumstances. (Houghton Mifflin company) JUSTICE: The quality of being just; fairness. American Heritage Dictionary MINORITY: The state of being a legal minor. I. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ERODES DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE IN A SOCIETY. "The idea of the "social contract" teaches that by living under a state we accept the benefits it brings us (for example protection, health care, education, etc. ) and by accepting these benefits we consent to its laws. If individuals placed their own values, whatever they are based upon, over the collective laws of the state, the state would dissolve and none of its benefits would be available to any of us. " (Mott, Richard, June 6, 2006, "Civil Disobedience," International Debate Education Association. Carver pg. 33. ) Just imagine for a moment a society where each individual decides which laws they should obey and which they should ignore. Your neighbor can decide it's unjust for you to have more money than him, so he breaks in your house and takes your money. Without law, this situation would occur constantly. Each individual would be out for himself or herself! You would have to be constantly vigilant about protecting your belongings and your loved ones, because without law, why not take whatever you want? Why not kill anyone who stands in your way? There are no consequences! This is anarchy, which is the "Absence of any form of political authority. " (dictionary. com) Winning a change in the law is worthless, if obtaining it has destroyed the ability of the state, its police and its courts to uphold any law, just or unjust. " (Mott, Richard, June 6, 2006. Carver pg. 24) II. THERE ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES THAN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE TO GET YOUR VOICE HEARD. There are legal means by which everyone can create change in a democracy, these legal methods allow the minority to be heard without having to break the laws that we have set for ourselves. Through the years, our courts have made decisions which have changed unjust laws. "Our legislatures have regularly met the changing times and changing needs of the society with consideration for the unalienable rights of all. Even the Federal and state constitutions have been amended. Our law has not only been a guardian of freedom, but the affirmative agent for freedom. " (Leibman, 2007, Carver, pg. 33) What are some other ways to get your voice heard? Here are five alternatives to Civil Disobedience: 1. The Media: Without the media's influence, civil disobedience would make no changes at all. So why not go straight to the media? If Rosa Parks had refused to move on the bus and no media covered the story, would change have happened? No. And there are many forms of media to get your point across. Send e-mails out and encourage them to be sent on to others. Videotape your issue and put it on You Tube. Start your own blog. Send letters to the editor. These are all effective ways to make change without threatening a democracy, as a whole. 2. Get a permit to have a parade, a rally or a demonstration. 3. Get a petition drive going! Send in the results to the media and to your legislator! 4. Everyone gets a voice when they vote for their representatives! 5. Sue the offending party and make a change within the courts. Civil Disobedience is an inappropriate and completely unnecessary weapon in a democracy. Why break the laws we made for ourselves, when so many other options are available in our society? Mott in 2006, "Most democracies also allow appeal to the courts against laws which are obviously unjust. If the law can be shown to be in conflict with the country's constitution or charter of rights, then courts can usually overturn it. People who are unhappy with such a law should take their struggle to the courts, rather than taking to the streets and undermining the rule of law itself. "Even if a particular cause is just, those promoting it should not break the law. By doing so they set an example of illegality and contempt for law and order which others, with less worthy causes or no cause at all, will follow. Winning a change in the law is worthless, if obtaining it has destroyed the ability of the state, its police and its courts to uphold any law, just or unjust. " (Mott, Richard, June 6, 2006. Carver pg. 24) III. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAN HURT OTHERS' SENSE OF JUSTICE. "Just as massive non-violent civil disobedience has been used to shutdown or suspend governmental or corporate operations, massive non-violent email assaults will shutdown government or corporate computer servers. . . There are already examples now in existence of the theory and the practice of electronic civil disobedience. . . (Wray, Stefan, 1998, Carver pg. 34) With Civil Disobedience, many people, including you, could be hurt. To vote pro, you would be saying all forms of civil disobedience promote justice, when, in fact, they do the opposite and hurt many citizens in a democracy. Many forms of Civil Disobedience can be very offensive, for example, a group of people sitting in on someone else's property. What if the people sitting in on this person's property are hurting his business. Isn't Civil Disobedience harming their sense justice? IV. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAN BE USED TO PROMOTE BAD CAUSES AND THE RESULTS HURT OTHER CITIZENS AND DISRUPT THEIR JUSTICE *Who says that Civil Disobedience is only used for purposes that promote basic rights? What one person says is a right that they have, another may say that it is immoral and wrong. (Quinn in 2007, Carver pg. 23) White supremacists could use Civil Disobedience to protest that they think slavery should be reinstated, Child pornographers could protest with graphic signs that child pornography should be legal. While these are despicable causes to most people, they are actual causes some people believe in and feel are morally right for them. Who can judge when it's okay to break the law? It's a slippery slope. Because it erodes a democracy and especially because there are alternative, legal methods to protest an injustice, I hope you will agree with us that Civil Disobedience IS NOT an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.