PROTEST V. REVOLT

Friends, the meaning of these words:

Protest: noun  (from dictionary.com)
1. an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid

Revolt:  verb (used without object)   (from dictionary.com) 

1. to break away from or rise against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; cast off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny:

Protests are necessary and can be effective if strategically applied. Protest is a  citizen's obligation to their community and each of us must decide for ourselves what tactics or methods to employ. It can be as simple as a phone call or letter to the target entity, or elaborate such as public rallies or marches.

Revolt can take a variety of forms also. Revolt is obviously a more extreme type of protest but do not assume it necessarily implies violent action. As the definition above explains, revolt is a challenge to authority and in some cases might involve actions contrary to law.

Personally, I am committed to non-violent action because of my commitment to community and peace. Violence is ineffective because it invites like reaction by authority and disparagement by the larger community. Non-violent protest can sometimes be challenging - especially when violence is introduced by the police authorities as is often the case.

You might have recognized at this point that protest or revolt exist on a continuum of action and that both can incur a risk of law violation depending upon circumstances. We have too many laws because authorities "need" tools to deal with us unruly - unruled citizens.

More Protest-Revolt possibilities This from the Albert Einstein Institution: 198 Methods of Nonviolent Protest

Also see: BDS the US Petition (Boycott, Divest, and Sanction)
People, organizations, and governments around the world, and people and organizations in the United States, need to stand up at long last and nonviolently resist the lawless behavior of the rogue U.S. government.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MLK Philosophy of Nonviolence

SIX PRINCIPLES OF NONVIOLENCE

• PRINCIPLE ONE: Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people.
• PRINCIPLE TWO: Nonviolence seeks... friendship and understanding.
• PRINCIPLE THREE: Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice not people.
• PRINCIPLE FOUR: Nonviolence holds that suffering can educate and transform.
• PRINCIPLE FIVE: Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate.
• PRINCIPLE SIX: Nonviolence believes that the universe is on the side of justice.

SIX STEPS OF NONVIOLENT SOCIAL CHANGE

• INFORMATION GATHERING
• EDUCATION
• PERSONAL COMMITMENT
• DISCUSSION/NEGOTIATION
• DIRECT ACTION
• RECONCILIATION

Be sure to visit the The King Center to read the explanatory details

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 3 2018

To The Editor

The Times Journal

Dear Editor,

When European colonizers arrived on the North American continent there were as many as ten million indigenous people here. This was their land - their home place. The newcomers called themselves “settlers” and employed the mythology of unoccupied spaces, undeserving savages, and white superiority to justify the horror we now recognize as genocide. They were not “settlers” - they were invaders.

The invaders, sponsored by church, state and financial interests, came for the wealth they could claim; minerals, land, and even the indigenous people themselves. Altruism was not in evidence – greed ruled the day. It should be no surprise that the indigenous people resisted, as was their right and responsibility to do. Their resistance continues to today. They struggle to protect their people, their lands, and the planet from environmental degradation caused by the invaders’ continuing exploitation of mineral resources.

But some things have changed it seems. Today the invaders are represented by corporations, artificial entities which have been anointed in their single-minded goal of amassing more wealth from the land and its occupants. Now, the nation we seem so unjustifiably proud of, and its occupants - that is us, are the victims of a new colonization, a corporate colonization. It would be poetic if not so terrible. The conquerors are now the conquered. The avarice and greed which brought Europeans to this part of the world has now turned on us and threatens to reduce the United States to third world status. We must resist. We have a responsibility to protect our communities, our young, and the planet from the environmental and social degradation the corporate occupation is causing.

How will you resist? Will you take part in the insurgency? Fortunately, there are many opportunities for citizens to revolt. The most easily applied resistance is the boycott. Discover which corporations fail to respect their workforce, damage the environment, or evade paying taxes, and do no further business with that corporation. Find the information you need at corporateaccountability.org, and search “itep.org top organization contributors” for a list of offending occupiers. At the top of my list is Amazon.

Discover which politicians are collaborators – to see who they work for search “opensecrets.org organization contributors.”

Resist, Defend, Revolt! Tell your friends and neighbors so they might do the same.

For more resistance ideas visit scfpg.blogspot.com and find “Protest v. Revolt” link at left.

Wayne Stinson

Summit, NY

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Criminal Defense of Necessity

The defense of necessity may apply when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency situation in order to prevent a greater harm from happening. In such circumstances, our legal system typically excuses the individual’s criminal act because it was justified, or finds that no criminal act has occurred. Although necessity may seem like a defense that would be commonly invoked by defendants seeking to avoid criminal charges, its application is limited by several important requirements:

• The defendant must reasonably have believed that there was an actual and specific threat that required immediate action
• The defendant must have had no realistic alternative to completing the criminal act
• The harm caused by the criminal act must not be greater than the harm avoided
• The defendant did not himself contribute to or cause the threat
  

Only if all of these requirements are met, will the defense of necessity be applicable. It is also important to note that in some jurisdictions, necessity is never a defense to the killing of another individual, no matter what threat they may present.  https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/necessity/

If your protest action violates the law in some way it might be possible to mount a necessity defense. While such claims have met with very limited success it is sometimes useful to introduce the argument.

necessity defense advance — Climate Defense Project. October 17, 2017

A judge in Spokane, WA has ruled that a climate activist may present evidence that his act of civil disobedience was motivated by the urgent need to address the climate crisis. Monday’s ruling comes in the wake of a similar ruling in a Minnesota case, making it the second time in a week that a court has allowed presentation of the “climate necessity defense” at a trial of a climate activist.  Activists and attorneys hailed the two decisions as a sign that courts are finally acknowledging the scale of the climate crisis — and the need for grassroots action to address it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------