Musings of Ivan Cauchi, a global citizen of Maltese descent
Monday, April 10, 2017
Is breaking the law justifiable? -- Il-ksur tal-liġi ġustifikabbli?
- no title specified
A few weeks ago, the new secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, appeared on the national Australian scene. She seems to intend breathing new life into the cause of industrial relations in Australia.
Nevertheless, it was a declaration made during an interview on a leading journalist protram, 7.30 Report on the ABC, that thrust this personality front and centre of the country's political and social scene. McManus stated“I believe in the rule of law when the law is fair and the law is right. But when it's unjust I don't think there is a problem with breaking it.”1
The background to this statement are the dozens of carses where the Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union has been taken to court accused of industrial action deemed against the law.
This statement brought an immediate and negative reaction from several prominent persons, especially government ministers like Christopher Pyne, minister for defence industry, who described it as “anarcho-Marxist claptrap” and Eric Abetz, senator and ex-Liberal minister, who stated that after democratic parliaments enact laws, these “must be obeyed by all - no ifs, no buts”.2
No ifs, no buts? Just a minute.
I have to admit when I heard McManus' statement on the 7.30 Report, I was a bit taken aback, as one of the principles I've tried to follow is to do the right thing, stay in the line like everybody else, obey traffic regulations, act like a good citizen etc. So, my first reaction for what I heard was also negative.
But then I started to think, what would Jesus do? Or better, what did he do during his own life?
We know what he thought of the rule, then the law in the time of the Jews, not to carry out work on the holy day (the Sabbath), a law variations of which have been incorporated in the law of many countries around the world and still in place today. He didn't admonish his hungry apostles cutting wheat on a Sabbath,3and did not refrain from healing a crippled woman bent double just because it was a Sabbath.4This was breaking the Jewish law, which Jesus felt was necessary in the circumstances.
In today's eyes, perhaps more important was what he did in the temple, when he felt angry with the commercialisation he saw around him. We know he made a whip from cords, and used it to chase away the sellers and overturn tables,5 an arguably violent act. If living today, he would probably be accused of threats and assault, disturbing the public peace, acts aggravated by premeditation.
We also shouldn't forget his dry response, full of meaning on the civil obligation of taxes, saying we need to “render to Caesar the things that are of Caesar, and to God the things that are God's”.6I see such an exhortation telling Jesus' followers to obey the laws of the land, assuming they are morally acceptable.
In times closer to today, it's good to recall social and political progress that were achieved only after campaigns full of breaches of unjust laws. One example is allowing women to vote, a step forward that occurred at the start of the twentieth century after a campaign by women called sufragettes, from the word 'suffrage' (which means both the right to vote as well as a form of prayer). Incidentally, Australia was the first country to legislate to permit this federally in 1902.7
The arbitrary injustice of the situation then, where women were denied this right, can be clear from an anecdote from the state of Victoria. There, an electoral law passed in 1863 had given voting rights to all persons, a reference to those having property. So in the local elections of 1864, there were some women having property who turned up to vote. The next year, in 1864, this law was amended to exclude women!
In Australia, the campaign for women's right to vote was pacific, and so it also began in Britain, but this didn't take long to change nature after frustration at the lack of change. In the end, buildings were torched, violence was made, hunger strikes, women ended up in jail etc until voting rights were given in 1918.8I do acknowledge there is a debate about whether non-pacific methods used in the UK actually helped this right be achieved, however it ensured that this issue had a high profile and was not forgotten.
Another well known example of change not occurring without law breaking was the fight led by Gandhi for the independence of India from the UK. Gandhi decided to start the campaign for independence by breaking a British law prohibiting Indians from making salt, to force them to buy it from the British (today you would hardly believe the existence of ridiculous laws such as these).
In 1930, Gandhi was the first person to publicly gather a grain of salt, and therefore breaking the law, and he was emulated by thousands more, so much so that the British arrested some 60,000.9Although Gandhi's methods, known as civil disobedience, are non-violent, they in fact include the breaking of laws deemed unjust. As we know, this campaign resulted with independence to India in 1947 and, due to other sectoral, religious and political reasons, for the deaths of countless people, including the assassination of Gandhi himself.
I don't see any moral problem with breaking a law deemed unjust, in principle. The revered Martin Luther King, from jail wrote that one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.10
I know that this position is subjective. Nevertheless, this does not mean one can claim to feel free from any responsibility, due to an objection to a particular law. If one feels morally justified to break a law, his actions also need to be morally consistent. He does need to keep in mind that his actions have consequences, not only to himself but to others as well, and while fighting for his rights he does need to minimise damage caused to others and their property.
Perhaps a bit surprising has been the completely negative reaction to the McManus' declaration by the Labor Party, led by the ex-union leader Bill Shorten, who said that bad laws need to be changed, not broken. Ideally that would be the case, but is there no nuance, no qualification? Did the advances made by workers and minorities in countries around the world come about just by discussion? Did the people in power and with social privilege, those making laws and regulations primarily to preserve and grow their own wealth and influence, leading today for 1% of the population to accumulate as much wealth as the other 99%,11watch out for the poor and the downtrodden out of the goodness of their heart, at once after receiving some petition sent through the mail? Hasn't history taught us anything?
------------------------
Ftit ġimgħat ilu, tfaċċat fuq ix-xena nazzjonali Awstraljana segretarja ġdida tal-għaqda ta' unjins Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, li jidher li beħsiebha tagħti nifs ġdid lill-kawża tar-relazzjonijiet industrijali fl-Awstralja.
Madankollu, kienet stqarrija tagħha waqt intervista fuq programm ewlieni ġurnalistiku, 7.30 Report fuq l-ABC, li tefgħet lil dan il-persunaġġ ta' interess fuq quddiem nettfix-xena politika u soċjali tal-pajjiż. McManus stqarret li temmen li għandna nimxu mal-liġi fejn din hija ekwa u ġusta, imma fejn din hija inġusta ma tara l-ebda problema li l-liġi tinkiser.12
L-isfond ta' din l-istqarrija huma l-għexieren ta' każijiet fejn l-unjin CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union) ttella' l-qorti akkużat li ħa azzjoni industrijali meqjusa kontra l-liġi.
L-istqarrija ġabet reazzjoni immedjata u negattiva minn diversi persunaġġi prominenti, speċjalment ministri tal-gvern bħal Christopher Pyne, ministru għall-industrija tad-difiża, li ddeskriva din l-istqarrija bħala 'ħmerija anarkista Marxista' u Eric Abetz, senatur u ex-ministru Liberali, li qal li wara li parlament demokratiku jgħaddi l-liġijiet, dawn 'iridu jiġu obduti minn kulħadd - mingħajr kwalifiċi jew eċċezzjonijiet'.13
Mingħajr kwalifiċi jew eċċezzjonijiet? Sekonda waħda.
Jien nammetti li meta kont smajt l-istqarrija ta' McManus fuq 7.30 Report, inħsadt ftit, għax wieħed mill-prinċipji f'ħajti li ppruvajt insegwi f'ħajti kien li nagħmel dak li hu suppost li jsir, noqgħod fil-kju bħal ħaddieħor, nobdi r-regolamenti tat-traffiku, naġixxi ta' ċittadin tajjeb eċċ. Għalhekk, l-ewwel reazzjoni tiegħi għal dak li smajt kienet ukoll negattiva.
Imma imbagħad qgħadt naħseb ftit, kieku Ġesù x'kien jagħmel? Jew aħjar, f'ħajtu x'għamel?
Nafu kif ittratta r-regola, jew dakinhar il-liġi fi żmien il-Lhud, li ma jsirx xogħol fil-ġurnata mqaddsa (is-Sibt), liġi li varjazzjonijiet tagħha ġew inkorporati fil-liġijiet ta' ħafna pajjiżi u għadhom fis-seħħ sal-lum. Ma widdibx lill-appostli li kienu bil-ġuħ u qatgħu l-qamħ meta kienu bil-ġuħ fis-Sibt,14uma qagħadx lura milli jfejjaq lil mara mħattba nhar ta' Sibt15. Dak kien ksur tal-liġi Lhudija, li Ġesù ħass li kellha titwarrab fiċ-ċirkostanzi.
Forsi fl-għajnejn tal-lum, iktar importanti dak li għamel fit-tempju, meta ħassu rrabjat għall-kummerċjalizzazzjoni li ra quddiemu. Nafu li għamel frosta minn kordi, u użah biex ikeċċi lill-bejjiegħa u jaqleb l-imwejjed,16 att ta' ċerta vjolenza. Kieku għex illum kien probabbilment jiġi akkużat b'theddidt u taħbit (assault), li ddisturba l-paċi pubblika u li għamel dan kollu bi premeditazzjoni.
Ma rridux ninsew ukoll it-tweġiba xotta imma mimlija sinjifikat fuq l-obbligu ċivili tat-taxxa, fejn qal li għandna “nagħtu lil Ċesri dak li hu ta' Ċesri, u lil Alla dak li hu ta' Alla”.17 Din l-eżortazzjoni naraha li tgħid lis-segwaċi ta' Ġesu biex jobdu l-liġijiet tal-pajjiż, sakemm huwa moralment aċċettabbli.
Fi żminijiet eqreb lil tal-lum, tajjeb li niftakru f'avvanzi soċjali u politiċi li nkisbu biss wara kampanji ta' ksur ta' liġijiet li kienu nġusti. Eżempji huma l-vot għan-nisa, avvanz li seħħ fil-bidu tas-seklu għoxrin wara kampanja min-nisa msejħa sufragettes, mill-kelma suffraġju (li tfisser kemm id-dritt għall-vot kif ukoll it-talb). Inċidentalment, l-Awstralja kien l-ewwel pajjiż li lleġisla biex jippermetti dan fuq livell federali fl-1902.18
L-inġustizzja arbitrarja tas-sitwazzjoni dakinhar, fejn in-nisa kienu mċaħħda minn dan id-dritt, jista' jidher ċar minn aneddotu mill-istat ta' Victoria. Hemmhekk, liġi elettorali li għaddiet fl-1863 kienet tagħti d-dritt tal-vot lill-persuni kollha, riferenza għal dawk kollha li kellhom il-proprjeta. Għalhekk, fl-elezzjoni lokali tal-1864, kien hemm nisa li kellhom il-proprjeta u għalhekk marru biex jivvutaw. Is-sena ta' wara, fl-1865, din il-liġi ġiet amendata biex teskludi lin-nisa!
Fl-Awstralja, l-kampanja għall-vot tan-nisa kienet paċifika, u hekk ukoll bdiet fl-Ingilterra, imma ma damitx biex tinbidel in-natura tagħha wara l-frustrazzjoni ta' nuqqas ta' bidla meħtieġa. Fil-fatt, inħaraq il-bini, saret vjolenza, strajkijiet tal-ġuħ, nisa spiċċaw il-ħabs eċċ sakemm id-dritt tal-vot ingħata fl-1918.19 Nirrikonoxxi li hemm dibattitu jekk il-metodi mhux paċifiċi li ntużaw fir-Renju Unit għenux biex dan id-dritt ingħata, madankollu kien żgurat li l-kwistjoni kellha profil għoli u ma ntesietx.
Eżempju ieħor ċelebri ta' bidla li ma ġietx mingħajr ksur tal-liġi kienet l-ġlieda mmexxija minn Gandhi għall-indipendenza tal-Indja mir-Renju Unit. Gandhi ddeċieda li jibda l-kampanja tal-indipendenza ta' pajjiżu bi ksur ta' liġi Ingliża li kienet tipprojbixxi lill-Indjani milli jagħmlu l-melħ, biex jisfurzawhom jixtruh mingħand l-Ingliżi (illum lanqas jitwemmnu liġijiet ridikoli bħal dawn).
Fl-1930, Gandhi kien l-ewwel wieħed li pubblikament ġabar melħa, u għalhekk kiser il-liġi, u bħalu għamlu eluf oħra, tant li l-Ingliżi arrestaw xi 60,000 ruħ.20 Għalkemm il-metodi ta' Gandhi, magħrufa bħala diżubbidjenza ċivili, huma mhux vjolenti, fil-fatt kienu jinkludu l-ksur ta' liġijiet meqjusin inġusti. Bħal ma nafu, din il-kampanja wasslet għall-indipendenza tal-Indja fl-1947 u - minħabba raġunijiet settorali, reliġjużi u politiċi oħra - għall-imwiet ta' ħafna nies, inkluż l-assassinju ta' Gandhi nnifsu.
Jien ma nara l-ebda problema morali bi ksur tal-liġi li tiġi meqjusa inġusta, fil-prinċipju. Il-mibki Martin Luther King, mill-ħabs kiteb li liġijiet morali inġusti għandhom jiġu opponuti attivament u paċifikament.21
Naf li pożizzjoni bħal din hija suġġettiva għall-aħħar. B'danakollu, dan ma jfissirx li wieħed jista' jgħid li jħoss ruħu maħlul minn kull responsabbiltà, minħabba l-oġġezzjoni tiegħu għal xi liġi partikulari. Jekk wieħed se jikser xi liġi li jħossu moralment ġustifikat li jagħmel, l-azzjonijiet tiegħu jridu jkunu wkoll konsistenti mal-morali. Irid iżomm quddiem għajnejh li dawn l-azzjonijiet li jieħu dejjem għandhom il-konsegwenzi tagħhom, kemm lejh u lejn ħaddieħor, u filwaqt li jiġġieled għad-drittijiet tiegħu jrid ukoll jimminimizza l-ħsara lill-persuni oħra u l-proprjetà tagħhom.
Forsi b'xi ftit sorpriżakienet ir-reazzjoni kompletament negattiva tal-Partit Laburista għall-istqarrija ta' McManus, li biex tagħqad imexxih Bill Shorten, ex-mexxej trejdunjonista, li stqarr li hu jemmen li l-liġijiet ħżiena iridu jiġu mibdula, mhux miksura. Veru li hu hekk idealment, imma m'hemmx kif u x'fatta? L-avvanzi li għamlu l-ħaddiema u l-minoranzi fil-pajjiżi ta' madwar id-dinja ġew bil-kliem biss? Il-forzi tat-tmexxija u tal-privileġġ soċjali, dawk li l-liġijiet u r-regolamenti jsiru primarjament biex isostnu u jkattru l-ġid u l-influenza tagħhom, li wasslu llum biex 1% tal-popolazzjoni tad-dinja akkumulawġid daqs id-99% l-oħra,22 ħasbu fl-imgħakkes u fil-fqir mit-tjubija ta' qalbhom, mallewwel wara xi petizzjoni li ntbagħtet bil-posta? Mela l-istorja m'għallmitna xejn?
No comments:
Post a Comment