Femen radicals cut down a cross
I haven’t a problem with Femen’s right to voice opposition to Catholicism, especially not towards Islam, nor towards atheism, capitalism, socialism, or any form of government statism in general, or anything else that might tick them off. My problem is with anyone who believes that ”because their cause is just, whatever they do in the pursuit of their cause, automatically trumps the civil rights of others”.
Anyone who destroys or even violates the private property of others, even public property for that matter, regardless of the organization they and their targets belong to, violates the law, while thumbing their noses at the civil society and deserve condemnation. As much as I am for the stopping of Islamization of Western society, you do not use thuggish tactics, destroy public property, violate the private grounds of individuals, or groups of individuals, in order to express a grievance, just or not. Period.
Even the Catholic girls in this video commit a gross error in judgement, in their invading the private spaces of Femen, to unroll their banner for their movement because their upset with Femen’s anti-Catholic activities. Femen has itself to blame in part for what transpired on their own property, since they made it known that they accept the invasion of private property, even the destruction of it. But ultimately, the Catholic girls, as innocent as their motives were, sticking up for themselves, were wrong in what they did.
Here’s the video Vlad put up and it deserves watching and mulling over the ethical and moral questions.
AYN RAND ON “CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE”
Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.
But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.
The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.
The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physicalintimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.
Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.
“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”