Dialogue Anyone?

In 2001, academics and non-violent NGO’s was invited to present their arguments against defensive political violence in the discussion forum of the now closed down Research Center on Political Violence and Sabotage (RCPS). This was before the terrible and totally unjustifiable attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Almost none wanted to participate.

This is noteworthy, because academics and supporters on non-violence often accuse militant activists of not being willing to follow the better argument in an open and free debate. They are accused of hiding from public view and avoiding dialogue. They are presented as not following the rules of democracy. But when critics of political violence were invited to participate in a dialogue with militant activists in our forum, almost none was interested in discussing the topic.

A few academics wrote some contributions that were to be published in a book about political violence. The book was postponed after 9/11. But they were published in the discussion forum. They generated absolutely no discussion. Some of Norway’s most respected researchers on terrorism, professor Tore Bjørgo and associate professor Jan Oskar Engene, refused to discuss defensive political violence. This was irresponsible. They knew that arguments in favour of militant operations was published on the Internet, so they should have taken time to refute them. But they avoided dialogue.

Ignoring an invitation to discuss defensive political violence will not stop militant operations. Andreas Winsnes, the founder of LAW, has written a thesis where he so far has refuted over 40 arguments against violence. If further arguments against militant operations are not presented, we will conclude that critics simply have run out of objections. Activists will then have very good reasons to believe that defensive political violence is legal according to the laws of self-defence and necessity. One of the legal criteria for using violence in self-defence is that the defender has rational reasons to believe that all the legal conditions for using physical force in self-defence are fulfilled. He or she must have a deep conviction that self-defence is legal. Therefore, we kindly ask legal professionals to present reasons why defensive political violence is not legal. As we all know, it is the duty of governments to inform the public of what is legal and what is not. But if no answer is forthcoming, we will draw the conclusion that militant operations can be justified in the kind of emergency situations discussed here.

Avoiding dialogue in this case is not smart. Capitalists and the public at large will not be happy if legal professionals and other academics had the chance to prevent militant operations but did almost nothing to refute arguments that justifies defensive political violence against multinational companies.

Refusing to follow logic and common sense ethics also gives a signal to terrorists that the ruling establishment is not really interested in letting the better arguments prevail. That is a very dangerous signal to give, so critics of violence will hopefully present their arguments against militant operations this time.

Please join our discussion forum.