Civil Disobedience in an Unjust Society

When Hong Kong was handed over from Britain to China in 1997, Beijing promised that Hongkongers would popularly elect their Chief Executive by 2007. In 2007, Beijing failed to deliver on their promise, delaying popular election until 2017. In the end, they did not keep their promise.


In 2013, a Hong Kong University Law Professor named Benny Tai proposed a civil disobedience plan based on MLK’s example and John Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Essentially, Professor Tai held that Hongkongers met the first two conditions Rawls sets out in Section 57. Their principle of equal liberty had been violated, and they had exhausted their legislative means of redress. For this reason, Tai believed that they needed to resort to civil disobedience. 


Since they could not literally violate the bad law, the law keeping them from choosing their candidates, Tai planned an illegal occupation of roads. It was called Occupy Central. Central is a bustling international business hub in Hong Kong. Tai’s plan was to appeal to the conscience of Hongkongers and the international community in order to put pressure on Beijing.

The occupation failed. The reason it failed actually supports Rawls’ theory as Hong Kong is not a near-just society (Section 55). It is not governed by democracy; it is governed by Beijing. In order for Rawls’ theory to apply, you need a democratic conscience to appeal to. The Chinese Communist Party has no democratic conscience. They show no mercy when dealing with dissenters. Hong Kong seemed like a near-just society as the people enjoyed a considerable level of freedom, but in the end, it was not.


During my gap year, I interviewed Professor Tai. He used to condemn violent protest in Hong Kong. He has since changed his view. Essentially, Hong Kong has reached a point where justice is at odds with the existing system itself, which means revolutionary action is justified.


If anyone is interested, I attached a clip of Tai explaining why his initial condemnation of the Fishball Revolution, a violent protest movement, was wrong. I also attached a clip of former Lingnan University Professor James Rice explaining some of the ideas I explore in this post.


Benny Tai:

https://youtu.be/dkAJoSG-sWo?t=1417


James Rice:

https://youtu.be/dkAJoSG-sWo?t=955

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more