Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Tania Bruguera: I think that there will be [inaudible] a society against the law when the people understand to [inaudible], I think that when the people understand [inaudible] the power [inaudible] they understand [inaudible] the power to change the things is that they will understand, they will see how in a society as something even natural the fact to face the law and to try to change it. I think that this will happen [inaudible] when you understand the society as an organization and an organization in which the people can influence and can influence in its [inaudible]. I think that of course [inaudible] some political organizations create a whole regulative system and that [inaudible] a whole regulative system of repression that [inaudible] of course [inaudible] but when they understand that it´s the legislative body they answer the necesstities of the moment and not a group of laws which they create for two hundred, three hundred years that [inaudible] no longer are appropriate for the new characteristics of the society. I think that it would also be easier to understand that the law [inaudible] as a way of demonstrating [inaudible] a way in which [inaudible] the people can demonstrate or the individual persons can demonstrate and show the inappropriate thing or the [inaudible] can be a certain law of [inaudible] emergency if it would be interesting that [inaudible] with the system of autoregulation in a society and if see that the law is [inaudible] the people and from this point on analise the possibilities or not, you know, that this law [inaudible].

by Tania Bruguera

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Tavis Smiley: When might it be necessary to break the law? When the law is unjust. When the law is racist. When the law is wrong. Just because something is a law does not make it right. There are many examples. History is replete with examples of laws that have passed as — or been imposed as public policy, and yet they are as wrong as the day is long. It was wrong for an African American to vote in America years ago. It was wrong for an African American to read years ago. It was wrong—these things were laws, and not just for African Americans but indeed so many other persons of color and women could not vote. And so there are all kinds over the years that have been placed on the books that are quite frankly wrong. So when might it be necessary to break the law? When the law is unjust. When the law is unfair. When the law is wrong. Now there are consequences that come with breaking the law, but you’ve got to be committed—you’ve got to be committed enough to the cause of justice and equality to break laws in the face of the kind of recrimination, in the face of the kind of punishment that will come for your believing, what you believe.

by Tavis Smiley

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Tegla Loroupe: Answertext will be available soon.

by Tegla Loroupe

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Thenmozhi Soundararajan: I think it’s a question of conscience. When a law is unjust, I think it is very much an act of justice to actually break that law. When I look at immigration, when I look at the criminalization of young people, I see all laws that are unjust that need to be broken as acts of conscience and acts of integrity. I think that what I believe is that no human being is illegal. If you have to actually break laws to be able to feed your family, to be able to support - to feed your family, to be able to achieve a better life, then it’s okay to break that law. Because those laws were not made - they weren’t made for self-determination of our peoples, and I think that’s an important juncture for us to break.

by Thenmozhi Soundararajan

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Tu Weiming: Law is a mechanism of control. It is necessary to keep social solidarity, harmony with legal constraint. However, if these legal constraints are imposed by an oppressive or dictatorial country as mechanism of control, it is very-very important for the citizens in general to raise challenging questions to that legal system. In many traditional societies, legal systems are not protections of rights, but a mechanism of social control. As a result, it is absolutely necessary for people to raise challenging questions or to put into practice that the laws that are oppressive ought to be changed. For example, during the Vietnam War, a large group of the most brilliant young people in the United States not only could [inaudible] the various kinds of rules and regulations governing their behavior but abandoned some of these ideas and challenged some of these ideas. We do have the mechanism of evoking the spirit of constitution against laws that are outmoded, laws that are oppressive, laws that do not contribute to social stability or social harmony. In this sense, that laws that are unequally implemented will have to be challenged, abandoned, overcome, destroyed. And in the Chinese institution, laws are considered as minimum conditions for social harmony, but they are never sufficient for the development of a civilized society. Civilized society with sense of shame and participation will have to be cultivated by certain idea of civility and certain idea of personal wealth – personal worth. So, in this sense that law often will have to be broken.

by Tu Weiming

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Udi Aloni: [more in another language] In Judaism there is something, sometimes in order to worship God we should break his own law. I think there are many times that we should break the law. And I think the question raised first time in Antigone that should she break the law of the not to bury her brothers and keep. It's so difficult to have a real deep conversation with all this noise here. But I think that we should think about Antigone as the first story that’s when it's the time to break the law. When the law of God, whatever God, I mean our conscious it's stronger than the law of the state. From Israel for me it's very simple. When they call you today to serve in the army, this army it's not a defense army, but an army of occupation, we should break the law. We should go to jail and said, "No, we are not joining this army." But this is not the answer I really want to give. I want to speak about really the essence, the fundamental question in that in God or in Judaism there are stories like that. There is a story in the Bible about a guy who act against the law but by that he really saved the law. And I think those are very, very important question because if we know that there are places that we have the right to break the law, we can in the big term, protect the law. But it's hard, it's hard to speak of it in this kind of environment. So let's try finalize. When they call you to serve in the army and your part in occupation you should say, "No." And if you go to jail, be proud that you went to jail. And the question of Antigone, it's always that you should be ready to take a personal responsibility while your breaking the law. And know that it's a real hard decision. It's not obvious. You have to be, you have to have the conviction. And one would ask me but if everyone would break the law, but not everyone breaks the law. Usually the right wing break the law and we try to keep without conviction.

by Udi Aloni

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Valentina Melnikova: If a law breaks human rights, is a threat to life of a human being or to his human dignity he might break it. I would like to draw attention of everybody to the fact that it is possible to do in any legislation. It is the case of extreme necessity when breaking the law a man averts more serious harm which could be done to him or other persons. The Union of Soldiers’ Mothers Committees in Russia doesn’t always follow the law strictly but I have to say that we use those gaps in Russian international legislation which indicate the priority of human rights: the right to live, the right to human dignity, the right of non-use of tortures or ill-treatment for him. And based on these spaces of the right we continue to protect people though they sometimes reproach us with not following the law strictly and even with encouraging soldiers to desertion. But if a soldier does it to save his life we believe that his action is completely in accordance to the fundamental nature of the law, of the human right to live.

by Valentina Melnikova

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Vesna Pesic: Answertext will be available soon.

by Vesna Pesic

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Viviana Figueroa: Well, when it becomes necessary to break a law is when this law reflects interests which are not the interests [inaudible] of the people, interests which can really be in contrast to the existence of a specific people or it is [inaudible] profound to keep one´s culture and identity. In these moments there will be built reasons to break the law, that the law has to be a reflection of the cultural diversity, of the respect for the world, of the no affectation, of the nonviolence of the specific rights of the native peoples or of other peoples; this is what the law has to be, the law has to be the order to avoid conflicts, the law really has to be the expression of the cultural diversity of the countries, it has to be the expression of the consideration of interests, of respect, of the garanty of fulfilment and respect of these rights [inaudible] and in fact the law can not, in these cases [inaudible] a situation of having to break the law. But if the law doesn´t fulfill these principles [inaudible] conflicts, and more conflicts, and more conflicts therefore the law in legal systems has to be respectful of the specific rights, of the specific features, of the cultures, of the cultural diversity in the world.

by Viviana Figueroa

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Wim Wenders: It is necessary to break the law when the law is in breach of human rights. But it's easily said, do you know that song, “I fought the law and the law won?” I hope it will not keep anybody from trying. If you see that the law is hurting people, you have the right to act. May be to try to change that law or to act on your own or with other people. In the history of mankind, some of the bravest people were people who fought against laws and not always the law won. -- Go for it. We have to dare to, because too often we see that the laws of human rights are indeed broken and we have to react.

by Wim Wenders

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Yungchen Lhamo: Answertext will be available soon.

by Yungchen Lhamo