In your own opinion, could breaking the law ever be justified?

During the French Revolution, more precisely during the reign of terrorists led by Robespierre the nuns were asked to leave the abbey from the government. They were also asked to publicly vow to the new Anti-Christian Republic

16 Carmelite nuns refused to swear. As a result, they became guillotines at Barrièrede Vincennes in Paris. They were buried in the common grave of Picpus Cemetery, the cross today represents the ruins of the 1,306 victims of the guillotine

So, if I provide all the information, do you think you can think that the violation is reasonable? Still if you think that compliance with the law is your civic obligation so far, please return to your television to enjoy your slavery. Since the definition of a free person is a person who can exercise his rights freely, slavery is defined as a person who obtains a right from them and serves another person. Before reaching the conclusion, do not tell how all of these laws are passed for our own interests. Ben Franklin said, "People who can abandon the freedom needed to get a little temporary safety should not be free or safe." If the Constitution is to protect people from the dangers of goodwill, that would be too difficult. "

Is it reasonable to break the law? Please imagine a world without courageous people who do not fight to seek rights without complying with the law. The world without Gandhi will be a world without independent India, Without Mandela Africa will have the advantage of white people, without NPA freefront Nepal will not have democracy. I think all these criminals' actions are good. Even if they violate various laws, this behavior is somewhat reasonable. Although the law aims to maintain order and protect rights, it is not necessarily rational, some are unfair for ethnic minorities, others are revolutionary. Some people just violate human rights. In this case, it may be necessary for the public to oppose it. Martin Luther King says as follows. The words the revolutionaries themselves speak represents the justice of resistance.

Historically, in your opinion, is civic compliance not effective in altering the law? Please explain the reason. Which law do you dispute or do you think violated the change? Explaining that legal violations are known to be unjustly humanitarian or moral is called "civil disobedience." All of us have right and wrong views, but the principles that guide this way of thinking are our moral compass. Many people may feel inequality or inequity in our society, but only a few people express their views about what they think is right. Some people do not recommend using citizen disobedience as a tool to be used for change. The logic is that it directly contradicts the democratic system of our country. Other people support peaceful protest actions or difficult unfair legislation. Technically it violates the law, but concerning unfair law it is necessary to express concern immediately.