Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: I think that when it's an unjust law and how it affects one. I mean when you think about like Nelson Mandela. He broke the law so called because he "defied the laws of apartheid," which were about dehumanizing black Africans and to be [sure dehumanizing] but that mandated at the time. And I think somebody like Mandela had great courage and it takes great spiritual courage [inaudible] instead of saying this is unnecessarily and unjust. You are dehumanizing us in the process. Do not dehumanize yourself. So I'm going to break this and I will try to intervene with whatever means it takes, revolution. I am prepared to be seen as unpatriotic. I will do whatever I need to do to break this injustice and to bring justice and that's a powerful example, a powerful recent example, of when it is necessary to break the law, when the law only benefits one part of society.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: A very interesting question indeed. But then, it may become necessary to break the law when the law denies you the rights and access to life activity. This implies to the effect that if one is really in need of a particular thing which it is the rights to get, then one may break the law. But, this also comes – brings us to the many questions. Who makes this law? How are laws made? Is there enough consultation when this law was being made? Who makes the law for whom? And, who abides the law? So, it’s quite about all set of issues that needs to be brought on board, because mostly the law is almost made by the few, the people who are considered the intelligent. The law is made by those who don’t have the experience of the others. And, in that regard, you will find that this law is imaginizing other aspects.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: Well, when the law conflicts with basic human rights, with our basic human values, and it threatens our survival and safety, then we’ll have to break the law. And, quite a number of people do, quite a number of ordinary citizens do. I’ll give you an example. We have a government that would like to impose genetically modified crops on us. I come from Britain, and we have a very strong civil disobedience movement among ordinary citizens, little old ladies like me, they go into the fields and they pull up the crops, because we are not convinced they are safe or necessary. And, they actually do a lot of damage to our agriculture. So, we have no recourse, the government does not listen to the people. And, we have no recourse but to break the law. And I, as a scientist have taken part in defending people’s rights to object when the governments refuse to listen. I have done this in a number of different countries. I have acted as expert witness to say why their actions are justified.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: Well, there are plenty of laws that perpetuate injustices, and I think whenever you encounter such laws, it would be justifiable to break those laws. The final arbiter, I think, are forces, values, principles higher than codified laws. And when it becomes morally imperative to do so, or sometimes vitally imperative, to save lives, to save your own life, then you must do so.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: Well law, I mean, what is the law? You can, of course, break the law if you deeply, deeply are convinced that the rule that you are breaking is against all social, cultural and moral, ethical, whatever, rules that you feel to be the right ones. Of course you can break it. If you take responsibility for that, then just go ahead and do it. The question is, I guess, how willing are you to take responsibility for that and maybe to go to prison or to give your life for breaking the law. There are many good reasons to break the law. But for you personally, is it worth it? Of course, let's say if you are a torturer, and you think that the person who is telling you to torture another person is following the law, then, of course, it would be very good to step back and break that type of rule or law. But at the same time, I can understand if a person says – well, it's not worth it for me, because I'm lazy and I don't see why I should step out of society for that. So it's a very personal, individual decision that can definitely not be generalized.

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: A society dominated by legal norms is a reflexion of social development. A former principle "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" is almost forgotten. Nowadays the principle of all being equal under the law is in crisis due to inequality of laws. A world dominated by other laws is possible, a juster one and showing more solidarity.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: Law is created by human being and it is not perfect. Law is not created by god, so there are incomplete ones. Law cannot be absolute. If a large number of people think that it is right thing, it seems like offending against the law, however it is not. In Japan for example, when Jews were persecuted by Nazi, a diplomat signed to agree with the paper which indicates strictly not to exile them or stamp on their papers, but by the responsibility of Jews let them fly the country. There are people like that in this world. There are many cases that one offends again the law to save other people's lives and believe that human beings’ lives are more important than a law. More significant law would be created if law is created by a person who has a higher awareness of the world. Human being essentially has to live without law. To live with our own heart is venerable. Law-level people need a law to keep social discipline; however, the law will be not necessary in the world if the level of people increases.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: Before breaking the law you have to know about the law. Every country, they have their own system. Of course, when you see a law is being misused or they are using it for wrong purpose, of course, you can break the law. But you have to know, because it's very important that you have to know the system. And you can -- there are some laws that it doesn’t protect, maybe the citizens, maybe protect -- doesn’t protect politician, it doesn’t protect the drugs abuse and thing and women rights. So, you can break that, you have to know, you have to be clear, you have to be focused, you have to be really clear about it.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: It may be better, I would say, to not break the law but to amend the law. And that may be the long-term solutions out of this fix. Of course, human beings had many, many times broken; I would say perhaps when the laws are imposed on one set of people, by another set of people, perhaps, some people who are colonizing or occupying the country who impose some law or laws that are imposed by some dictators. Those are of course the easy ones, when we say, well, these laws are imposed by the dictator whose main concern has not me, my well being or the well being of the people. Or the laws are have been imposed by somebody from a different country who is not doing these things for the well being of all people but he’s doing it only for exploitation. Answer in those cases of course are easy but perhaps what we mean, what we should go into are laws which has set up in democratic societies, what do we be do there? There are many laws in democratic societies where we live right now. We are in democratic country. What do we do there when we often disagree with laws? I think it’s better in those situations to come up instead of everyone taking the law in their own hands, to think rationally which is very hard to do as an individual but it’s easier if we all try to remain open to the possibility of being wrong and discuss with each other and come up with a rational response to say this law perhaps is not the best, and we go ahead and generate a rational resistance to the law. A peaceful resistance rather than saying I'm just not willing to try. Then we start doing that thing of questioning our own desire not to obey, before we question the law itself and once we have them back, we go ahead and generate a very gentle and peaceful response. That’s the time that the laws can be replaced and changed but aren’t really broken.

by Mayank Mehta

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Michael E. Tigar: Matt, it doesn't say how old you are. You know, during the war in Vietnam which was a brutal and unjust war, the willingness of thousands of young American men to refuse to be inducted into the army, and therefore to confront the judicial system with necessity of dealing with that reality, was one of the major factors that turned public opinion and the opinion of judges, by the way, against the war. I litigated so called selective service draft cases all across the United States and all the way to the Supreme Court of United States and it was amazing to see how people's eyes opened because of the willingness of these brave young men and those who supported them to break the law. It is the willingness to break the law that provokes these important social changes. And so, when might it be - and you got a key word here - necessary. There is a doctrine in a criminal law and it's called, guess what, necessity. The people who sit in Wheeler Hall of the University California; the people who sit in Chancellor's offices in protest against abominable policies; the people who lie down in front of troop trains; the people who put themselves on the line are acting out this concept that sometimes it is necessary to break a rule of law in order to prevent a greater evil. And even though the law as personified by some judge or district attorney, winds up not agreeing, you know what? When you do it you’re going to get a chance to try your case to twelve people that is jurors, and you'll always therefore have the hope that a few of them are going to vote no, hang up the jury or they're going to acquit you altogether, as did that wonderful English jury in William Penn’s demonstration case back in the 17th century. So, study the background of so called creative lawbreaking and understand the power that it has. You know why Nelson Mandela got out of prison? Because during that fateful summer, non violent demonstrations shut the country down.

by Michael E. Tigar

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: Answertext will be available soon.

by Michael P. Totten

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Mohammed Arkoun: I would say in an aggressive manner that it is always necessary to think about transgressing the existing laws. Because the existing laws are the result of conflicts within each social group, from the smallest to the largest, from the most archaic to the most modern so here there is from the beginning the issue of the definition of the law ,that is, of the law managing order and disorder. The scandalous inequalities that result from the law and are imposed within a society. Therefore, it it always necessary to subvert the rules of the Law within a society. But think about this inteletuall subversion, cultural subversion. Not necessarily by demonstrations in the street and resorting to violence; This may happen, at it even happens moreover ,but a subversion that has not beem prepared and does not have the possibility to refer to a redefinition of the law shared bu a larger number of citizens of the world, within all the people of the world and well such a violent demonstration like a civil war does not succed to causes useless casualties. It other words, it should be given all its importance to intellectual subversion of all laa forms and I know a colleague in France, Mireille Dumas, professor at "College de France" who wrote a book about the imagining forces of Law, the new imagining forces of Law. That is an example of intellectual subversion.

by Mohammed Arkoun

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Mohau Pheko: I think that there -- let me give the example of the terrorism laws that are emerging in our country. In many parts of the world today, many anti-terrorism bills that are coming on to our parliaments, you will find that these anti-terrorism bills are actually there to curtail the civil liberties of people, they are there to curtail the freedom of expression, they are there to actually poke into the private affairs of people's ability to communicate freely, whether it is over the phone, whether it is in meetings, they are also there to chop down and cut down the right to protest, cut down and destroy the right to dissent and essentially depoliticize people, and I think that it is essential. In fact, these are the areas of what I call the areas that we need to trespass in and where we need to trespass on to certain laws, which destroy people's ability to dissent, to destroy people's abilities to protest and where for example people will privatize the right to water or privatize the right to healthcare and you create laws around these things, you [place] them into your constitutional processes. So, I think that when you curtail the people's right to dissent, people's right to protest, I think that it is essential that we break the law because I think that when you take away people's liberties, take away people's right to freedom of expression, we have to break those laws in order to create new forms of justice, new forms of resistance, new forms of restoring our society and I think it is fundamental.

by Mohau Pheko

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Monira Rahman: The people's empowerment -- when it is not promoting the human equality and equal rights, the law which is defending the particular group of people. The law that is [inequal]. And obviously we have to break those laws which is not promoting equality, not against discrimination and which is not giving the respect and opportunities for everyone; when it is promoting violence and corruption. So, in that case it is necessary to break that law. We are looking for the law which is promoting human rights and equality. The law which is promoting discrimination; we have to break that law. The law which is promoting violence and corruption; then we have to break the law. The law which is not for equal rights; we have to break that law.

by Monira Rahman

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Nadja Halilbegovich: I think it might be necessary to break the law when the law is unjust, unjust and when it goes against our humanity and our basic human rights and we can really feel that and we can feel that the law is restraining our inherent human rights. And the best example I could come up with in the past is Rosa Parks, this incredible woman who refused to give up a seat to a white man just because he was white. I think that law went against her sense of self, her sense of equality that she was just as worthy as anyone else. A white male or black male, it went against her sense of fairness in the world and of the truth of the fact that we are all equal, no matter what our race. And I think that’s a perfect example and I am sure there are so many examples of that and there will be examples of that in the future. So the law is there to serve us, to protect us, not to restrain and abuse us, to abuse us, our human rights and our basic dignity. So, when the law goes against the truth, the truth that we all can feel within our bodies, the truth that is the only truth and that’s right for us. Then it might be necessary to break it and to change it to make it more humane.

by Nadja Halilbegovich

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Neela Marikkar: Well, I think, when you are desperate, when you are desperate to save yourself, when you are desperate to save someone who is close to you, who you love. I think these are times when sometimes we have to make decisions that are difficult, and I think these are times when we might want to consider other options, and even if it means that we might have to risk breaking the law, if we are pushed to it, if things are that desperate, and you want to save yourself, or you want to save somebody who you love dearly, I think you could -- you would do it. I think that's the time when you would actually step out there and break the law.

by Neela Marikkar

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Oliviero Toscani: We’ve got the conscience and we know when the law is not the right – is not doing the right for us. So that’s the moment. And it is a great opportunity because if you break the law you might be also – be very useful also for a lot of other people. You could be a great example. Creativity; it is always subversive. It cannot be bad subversive. If you are creative, you belong to a revolutionary group. And of course when you are creative, you are not secure, you can’t be secure and be creative. So to break the law that mean that probably you’re looking for another system, another law and not the law but another project. So I think it is important to have the courage to break the law because that would bring further on our process of civilization. Every – you know, everybody who developed or carried on did break the law. And you have to have the courage to do so. And breaking the law mean that you bring society and you make it further on. I am talking about breaking a law innocent way, of course I’ve seen other example of breaking law who was a disaster, but I am not considering that. I am considering the fact that breaking the law could be and it is very important and positive.

by Oliviero Toscani

Sep 9, 2006 11:55:00 AM cite

Oscar Olivera: What is the law? The law is simply a written form according to a correspondence of powers that exist in society. The laws that just now are written in the world just are the law of the powerful, the law of the poor, the law of the international business companies, the law of the grand powerful governments that are oppressing the world. A law must be written, discussed, elaborated, approved by everybody, so that we can all observe it. That law that you are referring to is a law that we have to break, and that is already being broken in several nations, as in Bolivia, where these laws are also being overturned, quashed and infringed and furthermore we are present at the construction of new policies, of new ways of co-existence, that we are translating into laws in order to establish a downright human co-existence. And I hope that these laws can be broken in the north or in the country you live, with the force of the people going against the military and economic force.

by Oscar Olivera