Skip to main content

Why non-violent civil disobedience?

Inevitably there is always a lot of debate about the tactics of Extinction Rebellion. Of course as people concerned about the climate crisis this isn't what we want to be talking about - we want to be talking about the climate crisis and the government's inaction. We want to tell the truth about the mess we're in and for the government to start acting on the emergency. But it is also important to be as clear as possible about the tactics and the reason for them. I think it's important for both members of Extinction Rebellion and for the general public to be as clear as possible about why we do what we do.

Non-violent action must be rooted in a spiritual/moral foundation. It is based on the idea that there is right and there is wrong and it is the moral duty of everyone to do right and not to do wrong.

Non-violent action is based on the idea that there is a covenant between the citizen and the state, that both have certain rights and responsibilities to each other, the state promises to provide basic protections and the citizen promises to obey the law (the state promises to obey the law too). Both the citizen and the state have obligations to be moral. To do the right thing and not do the wrong thing.

Sometimes a citizen breaks this covenant. It's called breaking the law and it means you get arrested.

But sometimes the state breaks this covenant. There are times when the state is no longer behaving morally. They may be still obeying the law of the land, but they have broken a higher moral law. If you like, they have broken God's law.

When the state breaks this covenant it becomes the duty of the citizen to point out that the covenant has been broken. When the state is disobedient to the higher moral law the moral duty of the citizen (if possible) is to be be obedient to the higher moral law and disobedient to the state.

This is not something to be taken lightly. It's not something you can do just because you disagree with the state. You don't do it because you disagree with this particular policy or this particular law. You only do when you are convinced that the state is behaving so immorally that the covenant is well and truly broken. You only do it when you believe that the state is in such an immoral state that it is losing its legitimacy as a democratic state acting in covenant with its citizens.

Disobedience to the state is not always possible. You have to calculate survival into this. For some people acting in disobedience to the state will get you killed. This is an individual decision based on your position, your privilege, your reflections. The decision is not equal for all people. People have to do the best they can.

But for some with the position, the ability, the privilege, their conscience may lead them to break the law.

The intentional breaking of the law, non-violently, is a symbol that the covenant has been broken, and that the citizen no longer recognises that the state has moral legitimacy. In the tradition of the Hebrew prophets it allows someone to symbolically act out the broken covenant. It brings that state of moral crisis into the light for all to see.

Those of us, like me, part of Extinction Rebellion, are acting because we believe the British state is morally bankrupt, has lost moral legitimacy because it is essentially guilty of genocide. Indirectly, I'll grant you, and sort of by omission rather than by commission, but nevertheless guilty of genocide. The carbon emissions we have released into the atmosphere are killing people in India, Bangladesh, Mozambique, the Pacific Islands, and it's getting worse and worse every day. We have known this for decades, ignorance is no defence. By the British state refusing to urgently reduce carbon emissions it is saying that these lives do not matter, that it is prepared to let people die rather than change certain ways our technologies and economies operate.

By not acting on the climate crisis that is continually killing people the British state has lost moral legitimacy. So have lots of others of course, but I am a UK citizen so my covenant is with the British state, and that's where I'm going to act.

Last week I heard a commentator say "The Suffragettes had no vote, so they had to act directly. The civil rights movement in the States was made up of black people who had no vote, so they had to act directly. So if you do have the vote you shouldn't be doing this kind of thing, you should be just using your vote." I thought to myself - that's a good point actually. But then I thought some more. The problem with it is that the people suffering from the climate crisis, the citizens of Kiribati for example, do not have a vote in the UK, a country that for over 200 years has been one of the most polluting. Neither do those under 18 and those yet to be born. The democratic system of voting, because it is national and not international, has limited use in addressing global problems. Our system is of course caught up in centuries old colonialism that has, and continues to, work for "white civilisation" and against black and brown peoples. So direct action become legitimate because it is acting in solidarity with those who have no vote. 

Extinction Rebellion has not always said that clearly, because of course Extinction Rebellion is also shaped by white privilege and white supremacy (as is everything). This is something we need to work on a lot more. Extinction Rebellion must emphasise more strongly that it is acting in solidarity with people in the global south, that we are trying to act in solidarity with the victims of ecological genocide, and against the government that refuses to do what is needed to prevent it.

While the government refuses to act on the emergency that is creating ecological genocide it has broken the covenant, and is acting immorally. It is out of that belief that we believe the state is immoral that makes some of prepared to nonviolently rebel against the state as the appropriate moral action. While the state is acting immorally the moral action becomes acting against the state.


Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with