If, when there is civil disobedience, the laws and public order imposed are questioned.

Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary, when the imposed laws were dictated by the dictatorship and not democracy, and if they only benefit the oligarchy and the ruling group in damage to society, not respecting human rights.

If, when there is civil disobedience, the laws and public order imposed are questioned.

Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary, when the imposed laws were dictated by the dictatorship and not democracy, and if they only benefit the oligarchy and the ruling group in damage to society, not respecting human rights.

Probably yes, but how else are laws to evolve? Laws are written by people, and for sure no one can believe that they must be immutable? Sometimes, it does take civil disobedience to wake up the public, to make people think, to get the laws updated.

Of course, this is a delicate process. I would suggest that violent acts of civil disobedience will most likely backfire, and therefore should never be attempted. On the other hand, non-violent acts of civil diobedience have been shown to work quite well.

Some people become very sanctimonious about "breaking laws," as if laws are somehow divinely inspired. But come now. If I were the last person alive on the planet, would I wait for many minutes at a red light, before driving through the intersection? Heck no! I might look left and right, because you never know if there's that one other person on the road, but that's it.

Just an illustration. Laws are written by fallible people, based on a given set of assumptions. If the premises are wrong, chances are, the laws are too!

Of course YES, but with specific boundary conditions and NOT meaning violence.!

Regards, Emad

No because all the laws in the world were created by the God or the human being. So the laws must be respected from all persons. Of course the law might be changed according to the needs of the human beings.

Dear Colleagues, Good Day,

"Civil disobedience and the Rule of Law

When should we not comply with the law? For some, the answer to this question is easy. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust. There is, the argument goes, no reason to adhere to any law when that law is wrong. This is even the case in a modern democratic society where those making and enforcing the law supposedly have some sort of mandate of legitimacy. It would appear that any such law is made to be broken.

Against this view is the absolutist notion that the law is always to be obeyed without any question. In no circumstances can one take the law into their own hands. The only imperative is to act in accordance with lawful authority, regardless of the particular law and concerns about its source: there is nothing to be done but to do what you are told.

These extremes of order and disorder are invariably attractive to the unthinking. Both the shallow radical and the thuggish totalitarian do not need to think hard about any given situation; indeed, they do not need to think at all. But both ignore the "Rule of Law" and its crucial and precarious role in a liberal state.

The great left-wing historian E. P. Thompson pointed out that far from being necessarily an instrument of oppression, the Rule of Law can provide a great benefit for the weak and unfranchised. If all actions require a lawful basis, then those who otherwise would readily abuse power were also restrained by the law. It is not open for those with power to simply act as they will. Of course certain laws were unjust and unacceptable; but the general application of the principle that one should obey the law may protect the vulnerable from the knave and the fool.

In modern capitalism, the people most likely to casually disobey the law are actually not the "great unwashed" of student protesters and leftist activists. This is for the simple reason that a requisite of abusing power is to have power in the first place.

Instead, casual law-breakers are -- as the hacking, banking, and expenses scandals show -- often the very politicians, financiers, tabloid journalists, and police officers who routinely hold their fellow citizens to standards which they are not willing to meet themselves. They may talk of absolute adherence to the law, but they walk just like any superficial revolutionary. The powerful can be civilly disobedient, too.

The key problem with the Rule of Law in this country is not that, from time to time, protesters may stay in certain private and public spaces too long. It is rather that many with power feel -- or know -- they can get away with far worse abuses, from non-complying with financial regulations to bribing public officials. Indeed, the police officer happily using excessive force is as much a law-breaker as the aggravating trespasser, and his or her culpability is actually much worse because of the coercive force they are abusing.",...

Please, read the rest of the interesting article at:

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/02/law-rule-power-act-breaking

I guess not , isn't law meant to safeguard civilians ...

Even if it peaks , there are laws for actions to be taken .

Truth is, everything comes to necessity -no not a threat :)

Whatever the situation, yes I think so. The recent situation in Syria and Yemen are good example of that.

Dear Kirk, very interesting question, not easy to answer. In my opinion whenever the situation in some country reaches the climax in a negative way, the disobedience is necessary. This show the consciousness of the people that something is not right. However, there has to be a limit, there cannot be disobedience for every thing. Law has to be respected. For example, recently I heard I new on TV. It was about the employees of a firm, striking because the chief of the company was sent to prison. They said that they have been paid regularly. This is ridiculous . If their chief make things against the Law he has to face the Law.

Kind regards,

V. Janusheva

It does

It is a dangerous act, but applicable against dictators and occupation forces