We were asked to share this piece. This may not represent the views of everyone in NAC.
During any uprising – or really, any meaningful opposition to unjust, systemic actions from the government – there is categorical separation between the “good” protester and “bad” protester. The good ones are the ones that walk calmly, hold signs, and avoid causing any disruption or damage, either to property or people. The “bad” ones are those who would dare to cause material disruption, break the windows of corporate banks, weapons manufacturers, or become in any way militant in their opposition to injustice and oppression.
This piece is not for the purpose of defending a position on or advocating for violent or nonviolent civil disobedience. The singular purpose is to explain and assert these points:
1) If nonviolent civil disobedience, in which no person or property was harmed, is repressed and criminalized by the state, there is little choice for those who seek justice other than to escalate, and (subsequently),
2) If you do not want to see a complete eradication of resistance, or a “violent” escalation of tactics by those who will not tolerate injustice tolerated by law, you must help defend our collective rights to protest and resist in “nonviolent” ways.
There is an eternal conversation about what “violence” actually means, and whether or not it extends beyond a person’s self and body, and onto material property, either private or public, and when it becomes self-defense. The general definition is “the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force”. We make no aim to clarify this distinction, but would assert that there is a general consensus among those who possess or defend private property that civil disobedience is only acceptable, ethically and legally, as long as it does not cause property damage.
If you believe it is always wrong to disobey a law, under any circumstances, there will most likely be no insight or perspective gained from the arguments that follow.
If you believe that violence is always the right and necessary thing to do in the face of injustice, the argument that follows may somewhat frustrate you.
If you find yourself uncertain or wavering about what is justifiable and under what circumstances, and have a preference for order even in the face of egregious and unjust conditions, this was written for you.
_________
In the realm of resistance to unjust laws and actions taken by the state, there has always been a diversity of tactics.
There are those who believe that damaging and/or destroying property is justified if its in service of protecting something greater, such as people or the land. The Earth Liberation Front was an example of this. In the 90s, they took action to(among other things) destroy facilities that participated in the clear-cutting of old growth forests, valuing ancient trees, which are integral to wildlife habitats, indigenous culture, and the health of the air and climate, over that of buildings and machinery bent on their destruction. During these years, groups such as the ELF took many actions to interrupt corporate extraction and violence against the earth and its inhabitants, and to deteriorate the profit motives through destruction of property. Clear-cutting of old growth forests and the building of oil and gas pipelines on indigenous lands were/are just a few areas of focus for eco-activist groups. The decades that followed were marked by intensive legal action from the US government against the radical environmental movement, an era now referred to as the green scare.