1.

Can Violent protest be justified ,by Ben Burd, The Burd Report, November 2010
This issue has to be revisited in the light of the European experience. For those readers who haven't been
following the news the situation in the UK is a text book case of the law of "intended consequences". The back
story is simple, the UK had an election a few months ago and during that election the leader of the third party,
the Liberal-Democrats (Lib-Dems), publicly signed a pledge not to increase university tuition fees. The result of
the election was a 'hung-parliament' (minority parliament) and the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems formed a
coalition government (ConDems) and they pursued a course of action that will reduce public spending by 25%
over the next four years. As a result of the cuts university fees are now scheduled to triple almost immediately.
The students were outraged, the Lib-Dem guy said he had no choice and increases are now a political reality, and
he is branded as a liar of the highest order, especially when it has been shown that he intended to raise the fees
after the election even as he signed the pledge. Obviously the Students were upset and scheduled a mass protest
and demonstration. Last week they marched and ended up at the Cons Head Office. Some of the estimated
50,000 marchers ended up storming the place and trashed it. Inevitably the demands for punishing the offenders
were heard and condemnation from nearly all of the chattering classes were heard. In this statement the National
Union of Students thanked all who participated and condemned the actions of a minority that caused the damage.
But what else could they say and maintain credibility. But the question remains, as it always will, "How effective
is a peaceful demonstration in drawing attention to the issues?" Just imagine a time where the citizens of
Cobourg want to draw attention to something that the Town has done and the response of the Town was to tell
the organisors that they can demonstrate as much as they want but it has to take place in Donegan Park. This is
what occurs these days at the big demos we will let you have your demo but then render it totally useless. At
the G20 demo in Toronto even the 'designated peaceful area' was not immune from police action. So it any
wonder that some elements of demonstrations feel that violence is necessary. A better example of this dilemma is
one of a few years ago when the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty was calling actions on the issues of the day.
Participating in all of the usual methods of protest and advocacy: letters, petitions, face-to-faces with bureaucrats
and demos big demos, they were unable to make headway. Enough is enough some of the coalition said and
they jumped on a bus, entered Jim Flaherty's constituency office, occupied it and then tossed a sofa onto the
sidewalk. They were heard after that. Peaceful demos have little effect, haven't had for years (as a participant in a
"Day of Protest" march in the 70s in Ottawa where Trudeau happily disregarded a couple of hundred thousand it
was a spurning hard to take), witness any of the dozens of groups that appear on the Queen's Park Lawn on a
daily basis and try to make a point to the government of the day. Inject some violence into it, force the
authorities to spend some money on policing and somebody in power will respond. It will be interesting to see
how the authorities in the UK respond to the anticipated season of discontent.
2. The ethics of violent protest: Why violence cannot be tolerated, 26.12.2012., By Eyvana Bengochea,
Voxxi.com
I recently completed a research paper attempting to determine whether violent, borderline domestic terrorist
attacks like those of the anti-Vietnam War youth movement, the Weather Underground, were justified in the
pursuit of societal change. My research led me to the work of Franz Fanon who in The Wretched of the Earth
explained that for true freedom, the oppressed could only turn to violence to achieve change since the oppressors
themselves use violence to keep minorities subjected indefinitely. In theory, this seemed a dangerous mentality,
but when analyzed in practice it appeared to lead to greater societal good. I nearly concluded that in the case of
movements like the Underground or the Black Panthers violence was only justified since government agencies
were ignoring their peaceful protest, rapid change was needed to save lives and it basically worked. Logically,
violence appeared to work in these cases by shattering the passivity of citizenry that opens their eyes to the
injustices pervading society, forcing the government to listen. Malcolm Xs and the Black Panthers use of
violence stopped the government from postponing the racial solution and forced black civil rights to accelerate
weather or not society was prepared for the equality. Simultaneously, the effects of violent protest even appeared
to be long lasting like when the Reagan administration steered Reagan away from engaging American forces in
Central America warning him about a revival of Vietnam Syndrome, aka violent citizen uprisings. In other
words, I was almost convinced violence could create justice until the Connecticut school shooting occurred and

suddenly I realized I was terribly wrong. Believing that any form of violence is a justifiable form of retaliation
against injustice establishes a divisive, destructive, and ultimately damning precedent. I even realized the theory
I was almost so confident in formed one of the underlying problems within our society: in a world filled with
hatred, racism, sexism and widespread injustice, we can never let our thoughts, or our actions create an
environment where violence is viewed as justified. Its a logical fallacy, creating a never-ending cycle warned
against since Aeschyluss Orestia in Ancient Greek times. When violent protests become an accepted way to stop
an injustice, be it a horrific proxy war overseas or mentally deranged hatred toward your mother, as Gandhi
famously said, we leave everyone blind inflicting suffering on everyone. For a progressive society, we must
turn to those who triumphed through nonviolence and champion these heroes, chief among them Martin Luther
King, Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi. They should be exalted as role models. They teach that
non-violent acts of civil disobedience can always create the social unrest needed to fuel any palpable change in a
sustainable way that violence cannot. Nelson Mandela sat in prison for decades to change South Africa, yet his
societal alterations withstood the test of time because they were not dependent on fear-driven violence. These
heroes all championed what Thoreau coined: securing moral ends through moral means. Thoreaus theory was
that since there is no systemic way to punish nonviolence, it weakens his [the oppressors] morale and works on
his conscience. Thoreau, King and Gandhi agreed that all men had a right to revolution, especially when clear
injustice was executed on innocent citizens, but stressed that the only way to meet this moral need to stand up
and fight is armed with peaceful means. Violence takes on an energy of its own. Even in the cases when I
believed social good had been done, it actually caused unnecessary death and strife. There may or may not be an
explicit link between random, unexplainable acts of violence such as occurred in Connecticut and the violent
citizen-uprisings in American political history; but, there is a clear mentality associated with the widespread
violence in popular culture that seems to justify or condone violent behavior. To prevent others from falling into
the trap my research led me, we must emphasize the importance of peace, not only in protest but, more
importantly, with each other. We cannot depend on the government. The change starts with us. As the events in
Connecticut clearly scream out, it has to start now because, as Nelson Mandela said, We owe our children the
most vulnerable citizens in our society a life free of violence and fear.
From On Nonviolent Resistance by Mohandas K. Gandhi
There are two ways of countering injustice. One way is to smash the head of the man who perpetrates injustice
and to get your own head smashed in the process. All strong people in the world adopt this course. Everywhere
wars are fought and millions of people are killed. The consequence is not the progress of a nation but its
declinePride makes a victorious nation bad-tempered. It falls into luxurious ways of living. Then for a time, it
may be conceded, peace prevails. But after a short while, it comes more and more to be realized that the seeds of
war have not been destroyed but have become a thousand times more nourished and mighty. No country has ever
become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war. A nation does not rise that way; it only falls further.
In fact, what comes to it is defeat, not victory. And if, perchance, either our act or our purpose was ill-conceived,
it brings disaster to both belligerents. But through the other method of combating injustice, we alone suffer the
consequences of our mistakes, and the other side is wholly spared. This other method is satyagraha. One who
resorts to it does not have to break anothers head; he may merely have his own head broken. He has to be
prepared to die himself suffering all the pain. In opposing the atrocious laws of the Government of South Africa,
it was this method that we adopted. We made it clear to the said Government that we would never bow to its
outrageous laws. No clapping is possible without two hands to do it, and no quarrel without two persons to make
it. Similarly, no State is possible without two entities, the rulers and the ruled. You are our sovereign, our
Government, only so long as we consider ourselves your subjects. When we are not subjects, you are not the
sovereign either. So long as it is your endeavor to control us with justice and love we will let you do so. But if
you wish to strike at us from behind we cannot permit it. Whatever you do in other matters, you will have to ask
our opinion about the laws that concern us. If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and
without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statute books. We will never obey them.
Award us for what punishment you like, we will put up with it. Send us to prison and we will live there as in a
paradise. Ask us to mount the scaffold and we will do so laughing. Shower what sufferings you like upon us; we
will calmly endure all and not hurt a hair of your body. We will gladly die and will not so much as touch you.
But so long as there is yet life in these our bones, we will never comply with your arbitrary laws.