Cross Examination Questions:

When Gandhi led his nonviolent independence campaign which promoted civil disobedience
rather than violence, the Indian government was controlled by Great Britain and was not a
democracy. Since you are defending civil disobedience, and the only successful example you
have in your arsenal is MLK and the civil rights movement, how can the movement in India even
be considered as a plausible example for this argument?
Is following the law of the United States, or any country important in maintaining democratic
order?
If yes: It is no secret that many acts of civil disobedience promote breaking the law for the
greater good, while endangering other citizens in the process. Since the great leaders such as
MLK preached nonviolence, are the actions of the citizens involved in the protests justified if
they break the law?
If no: Since following the law of the land is unimportant, arent all forms of lawlessness
justified? How do you separate breaking the law that is acceptable, and breaking the law that
isnt acceptable?
Although you say civil disobedience is a gateway for the oppressed to achieve justice, there have
been multiple failures and dangers in the protests. For example, in 1989, a protest of over a
million people in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, was quickly dispersed when tanks of the People's
Liberation Army entered the square and troops began firing into the crowds. Hundreds were
killed and thousands were injured. As recently as June of 2009, demonstrations in Iran were
answered with violence when civilians protested against the election of incumbent president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In Georgia, peaceful demonstrations were answered with violence
when government forces used violent and excessive force to disperse a series of largely peaceful
demonstrations in the capital. Considering this information, do the benefits of civil disobedience
outweigh the negatives?