Love lost in the fight for democracy: Is Occupy still a non-violent civil disobedience movement?

Six weeks into its struggle for democracy, the once-carefully planned Occupy movement has grown and shifted in ways beyond the imagination of organisers. And that raises a question: is the protest still a civil disobedience campaign?

More than a year before Occupy kicked off, its founders discussed their plans, organised meetings and wrote articles on their thoughts for a civil disobedience campaign. They published a detailed "manual of disobedience" for protesters to follow.

"The ultimate aim of the campaign," the manual says, "is to establish a society embracing equality, tolerance, love and care. We fight against the unjust system, not individuals. We are not to destroy or humiliate law enforcers, rather we are to win over their understanding and respect. We need to avoid physical confrontation, and also avoid developing hatred in our hearts."

But just weeks into the campaign, protesters on Harcourt Road were shoving metal barricades against lines of police officers who pushed back. In Mong Kok, protesters surrounded officers and raised umbrellas to ward off pepper spray and batons.

Occupy Central leaders described the development as an "evolution of the struggle", but said that most protesters were following the basic guidelines of refusing to obey certain laws, but not provoking or resisting police.

Occupy opponents have used the chaotic scenes to justify their view that the campaign is a disruption of social order in the guise of civil disobedience.