The end never justifies the means
KURDS AND FINNS TRAMPLE CITIZENS’ CIVIL RIGHTS WHILE DEMONSTRATING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN HELSINKI
Just because you break the law with a group of people, doesn’t exonerate you or your fellow colleagues from the crime committed, no matter how noble your cause may be. Violating another’s civil rights is never a justifiable act.
Demonstration got out of hand in Helsinki center
Protesters defending Turkey’s Kurdish human rights, stopped traffic completely on Mannerheim street in Helsinki’s city center on Saturday afternoon.
According to witnesses, the protesters were behaving aggressively, as some of the motorists tried to continue their journey.
The protesters were jumping on top of cars and beating the hoods.
They also sought to stop the tram.
One woman did not dare to proceed with her own car, because she feared her car would be damaged. The protesters did not damage those vehicles that stayed in place.
The incident took place at around 15.30 in the afternoon. Plenty of police quickly arrived to the scene. According to the Helsinki police about 40-50 people showed up to protest.
Most of them were apparently Turkish Kurds, but there were also some Finns among the crowd.
NOTE: 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 physical intimidation 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,’”