I have been asked by Canadian peace officers regarding my position on using violence as a means of generating social change. In this entry, I will briefly outline my position on violence because it is an important topic.
Understand: not only should violence not be used in furtherance of political change, but it cannot be used to effect political change. I mean this quite literally: if the action is violent, it will not be effective at creating the desired change. The work will not be secure.
This is so because violence is inherently unlawful. Violence is, by it’s very definition, a violation of the law. The question is not whether or not violence should be used, but rather, what exactly constitutes violence given the social context of the situation.
For example, if someone smashes you with a tennis racket unprovoked, physically restraining them is not violent. However, in the absence of being assaulted with the tennis racket, such actions would be unreasonable, and therefore, violent.
Thus we see that the primary test in determining whether something is violent is one of proportionality. What is reasonable is not violent, despite the amount of force used, and what is violent must, by definition, exceed the limits of proportionality.
In the court of law, the operating mind of the person is weighted and measured as to the reasonableness of their actions. The mentality (mensus) that resides most closely to the will of God will always win in the end.
An accused person is not guilty unless they themselves harbour a guilty mentality (nemo reus est nisi mens sit rea).
In the same line of thought, criminal activity cannot be solved by committing crimes of a greater severity. Peace cannot be achieved through warfare. And a fire cannot be tamed by fanning the flames.