Occupy protests breaking law, but not undermining Hong Kong's rule of law
Michael C. Davis says while Occupy protesters are clearly breaking the law, they are arguably not undermining the rule of law through their peaceful civil disobedience campaign
A small group of lawyers has added to the chorus of establishment figures denouncing the Occupy movement as undermining the rule of law. Are they right?
As the protests stretch well into their second month, we are hearing increasing calls for them to end. Some of these are calls of prudence, suggesting withdrawal and alternative strategies to promote the protesters' cause. On the other side, officials and now a small group of establishment lawyers have accused protesters engaged in civil disobedience of undermining the rule of law.
Do protesters using civil disobedience to promote democracy and better secure Hong Kong's core values pose the risks to the rule of law that officials and pro-government lawyers claim?
It is important here to distinguish between breaking the law and undermining the rule of law. The non-violent protesters have clearly broken the law by not complying with the Public Order Ordinance and, further, by not clearing those areas covered by court orders. Both are purposeful law-breaking in furtherance of a non-violent civil disobedience campaign. We should bear in mind that civil disobedience by definition involves breaking the law in support of a higher ideal that is the aim of the civil disobedience campaign.
Some argue that the anti-Occupy demonstrators who physically attack protest sites are comparable, but these attacks appear to have been neither civil disobedience nor non-violent. Clearly, the scales shift heavily against any protesters on the street employing violence and the police would be duty-bound to protect other protesters from such violent attacks.
The police also have a duty to investigate fully the widely publicised alleged attack by a group of officers on an already subdued and handcuffed protester.