The Stonewall Inn in 1969, where patrons and locals
did the righteous thing by fighting back against a
"lawful" police raid. (Creative Commons)
In a new comment to a column I wrote in May, "Uranium - 235" says the rough treatment that an Arizona preacher took during a stop at a Border Patrol checkpoint was justified because "[a] cop telling you to get out of your car *IS* a lawful order." And a commentator for a prominent socially conservative organization takes President Obama to task for celebrating the anniversary of gay resistance to a "lawful" raid in 1969. Such sentiments always leaves me scratching my head, because to decent people, whether a shocking government action is "lawful" is a relatively minor concern.
The word "lawful" seems to matter to a lot of people. Was a government act in compliance with the law? Does the law require you to do what a police officer says?
But "lawful" isn't synonymous with "righteous" or "good" or "reasonable."All it means is that the government in your neck of the woods followed its own procedures for authorizing its agents to do something. That something may be good and necessary, or it may be evil and arbitrary. "Lawful" is all about filing the right paperwork.
But the idea of "lawful gets glorified by people like Cliff Kincaid, who wrote a piece on the Website of the socially conservative Accuracy in Media criticizing President Obama for celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots. Kincaid makes much of the fact that, when the gay men and lesbians who fought back that day against yet another police raid on the Stonewall Inn, "[w]hat they did was attack the police when officers conducted a lawful raid."
Well, yes. Serving alcohol to known homosexuals was unlawful at the time. That gave the police plenty of ground for lawful raids that -- today -- we recognize as discriminatory and evil.
The incident that inspired "Uranium - 235" to comment falls into the same category. It took place at a roadblock set up miles from the border, at which Border Patrol agents stop and question people without suspicion of any wrongdoing, and ordered Pastor Steven Anderson from his car. It was all very lawful -- the government went through the formalities needed to authorize its agents to behave this way -- but many of us find the whole scenario utterly revolting.
Depending on where and when you are, "lawful" can mean being ordered to the back of the bus because of your skin color, or having your property confiscated by the government without compensation (as in Zimbabwe today) or seeing your religion banned (both Germany and Russia have done this in recent years). "Lawful" is just about procedure.
Psychologists have put a lot of hard work over the years into mapping our moral development as we grow from childhood, into adolescence and then into adulthood. Part of becoming an adult is getting beyond the idea that the law is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong. Adolescents think the law if the last word; adults understand that the law is always open to evaluation, and that good laws that respect individual rights should be obeyed, but bad laws that violate our rights should be opposed and defied.
So the emphasis put on "lawfulness" by Cliff Kincaid and "Uranium - 235" aren't signs of their good citizenship, but of their immaturity.
To say that an objectionable action is "lawful" is to enhance the wrongness, because it means the evil is systemic, not just a transgression committed by a rogue agent. If the brutalization of an innocent traveler or the targeting of sexual minorities is "lawful," the proper response is not to submit, but to resist more forcefully, because the enemy is the law itself.
email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
You might also enjoy these:
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Comments
I would point out that every action of the Final Solution as practiced by the Nazis was lawful. Not one act of murder or torture or genocide was illegal under German law.
So, the state worshippers keep telling us that the Nazis were right, after all, everything they did was lawful. I suppose when looked at like that, the rest of us were murderers for hanging the lawful sonsofbitches after the Nuremberg War Crimes trials.
To people who claim that our private resistance should "always remain within the limits of the law," I ask them whether they would have counseled Rosa Parks to SD&STFU? Don't forget, it was "lawful" at that time and place to throw Rosa off the bus.
A very good point. My touchstone is: "Is it moral?".
Celebrating and respecting "the law" is what those with no moral compass do. It is absolutely disgusting.
Bravo and well stated JDT.
Well said, Straightarrow. The historical drama "Conspiracy" shows how the men who designed and executed the Holocaust made sure to write the laws of the land to allow them to conduct the Final Solution "lawfully".
To throw a little MLK Jr. at you:
"...The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all.""
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson
It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislature to frame laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them.
Thomas Jefferson
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.
James Madison
This is why I have started to make the distinction between 'law' and 'legislation.' Law is law because it is permanent,immutable. Law is not written by men, it is written by God, or, if you don't believe in God, it is the inherent balance of natural forces. The laws of gravity, for instance, existed long before Issac Newton wrote them down. The law of supply and demand existed long before the study of economics. The negative rights to life, liberty and property existed long before governments - monarchies, republics, democracies, etc. came along to find ways to legitimize violations of those rights. Legislation is written by fallible men. It changes with the whims of man, and, in most cases, violates natural rights. I suppose we started calling man's dictates 'laws' back when kings were thought to be deities. I've stopped calling man's dictates laws. I've also stopped referring to government's thugs as law enforcement officers. They are legislation enforcement officers.
I have broken enough laws to put me in jail for over 10,000 years,but never a just law. The bad laws make criminals of moral men. Defense of "the law" is irrational and immoral.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!