Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Howard Olson wrote:
>
> > > Huh? The point of civil disobedience is not to get arrested. It is to
> > > protest against something. Whenever protestors are arrested this has the
> > > effect of shutting down the protest. Shutting them up so to speak. This
> > > is a form of "persecution".
> > >
> > > Harry Veeder
> >
> >         I agree, Harry. Anti-war protest, in particular,should not be
> > subject to arrest. I think the point was that you should be WILLING to be
> > arrested for cividl disobedience not that one OUGHT to be arrested. It is
> > clearly persxecution if you are arrested for demonstrating against the
> > mass-murder of war.
> >
> >                         Howard
> >
>
> Why should ANY sort of protestor be willing to be subject to arrest?
> Is arresting people a legitimate way, in a free and open society, of
> dealing with the conflict between the protestor the those who are the
> subject of prostest.
>
> In the case of anti-war protests, the government is the subject
> of protest so it would be very disturbing and antidemocratic for the
> government to silience the protestors by arresting. But why should
> protestors who are not directing their outrage at the government, but at
> another group in society, be subject to arrest? In other words why should
> private organizations be able have protestors arrested? There seems to be
> a double standard here.
>
> Harry

        I am not defending arrest. This whole conundrum goes back to
Thoreau and it indeed makes no sense. You'll get no argument from me.

                                Howard