Jump to content

Talk:Manifesto of the 343

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

I highly doubt the signers of this manifesto had abortions precisely so as to get the law changed. Had they done so, THEN I would agree with calling this an instance of civil disobedience.

Of course, the argument here hinges on whether we are refering to civil disobedience in layman's terms or not. If contributors want to help give this encyclopedia more credibility, I refer them to Kimberley Brownlee's excellent article on civil disobedience: "Features of a paradigm Case of Civil Disobedience" in Res Publica Vol. 10, no. 4, pg 337-351

I argue the Manifesto of the 343 meets only one of Brownlee's two criteria, that of communication. Had, say, de Beauvoir, undergone an abortion with the express purpose of communicating her objections to French law, then the second criterion (conscientiousness) would have been met.

I presume that the manifesto itself is the proof of their commitment, admitting to the crime and facing the punishments that come with it. Your point is more like saying that in order to truly stand against assisted suicide laws one must either commit suicide or assist another in committing suicide. WookMuff (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WookMuff, civil disobedience can either be direct or indirect. I quote from Rawls' Theory of Justice:

"if the government enacts a vague and harsh statute against treason, it would not be appropiate to commit treason as a way of objecting to it, and in any event, the penalty might be far more than one should reasonably be ready to accept." (section 55)

While there is disagreement as to whether civil disobedience is necessarily nonviolent or public, the *disobedient* aspect is conceptually necessary i.e., acts of civil disobedience are acts that are contrary to the law.

Writing up and distributing a manifesto in which you stand by your criminal actions was *not* illegal under French law. Had the feminists marched without a demonstration permit, *then* we'd be dealing with a case of civil disobedience. Writing a manifesto, publishing a pamphlet, or buying advertisement in a newspaper is not an illegal act per se. This is protest, I agree, but it certainly is not civil disobedience.

-- Federico, 14:22, 23 March, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.242.171 (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can one not argue that a politically motivated act that subjects one to arrest and prosecution and that is taken in defiance of that risk is civil disobedience, whether or not the act itself would be the direct nexus for the arrest? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The abortions were not politically motivated and the act of making one's abortion history public is not illegal. There are many paradigm cases of civil disobedience to choose from; I do not think this is one of them. -- Federico 17:50, 25th of March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.110.179 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct and correct, and yet neither point in your first sentence contradicts anything I said and you didn't answer my question. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree with the definition, then. See, I don't think the Manifesto of the 343 should could as an instance of civil disobedience despite the fact that it could very well have led to the arrest of the 343.

Example: Greenpeace covertly sabotages a chemical plant. Months later, the members of Greenpeace issue a communique in which they claim responsibility and state the political reasons for their actions. Would their issuing of the communique be considered an act of civil disobedience? According to me, and to the relevant literature I have read on the subject, no, it would not. If there is a case of civil disobedience here, it is the act of sabotage that took place, not the publicity of the act. - Federico, 13:27 (UTC), 28th of March, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.242.191 (talk)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manifesto of the 343. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto of the 363

[edit]

Is there a relation between the titles of these two manifestos? Presumably the earlier influenced the way the French public saw the latter..? Or perhaps this is a common naming format in French politics. — HTGS (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Catégorie:Signataire_du_Manifeste_des_343

[edit]

FR only:

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manifesto_of_the_343&oldid=1254879270"