Dialogue: Non-violent direct action a tradition of jaywalkers

The sabotage of genetically modified potatoes at Lincoln University was for the greater good and showed a healthy disrespect for the law, writes LOGAN PETLEY*.

Last year, in the space of just three hours, 350 people passing a small portable table in central Wellington stopped and signed pledges to pull out genetically modified crops.

In the following weeks almost 3500 people pledged to take direct action against genetic modification. Occupations and ages ranged over the whole spectrum: retired dentists, courier drivers and young parents.

Each one of these people understood they were signing up to pull crops en masse, in broad daylight, and that they would quite possibly be arrested.

Why are people prepared to do this?

As early as 1998 concern about GM was rising. There were reports of experiments going wrong and independent scientists were outlining the huge risks. Ethical and legal concerns were mounting.

Typically, large numbers of New Zealanders responded. Ninety-three thousand called for a royal commission of inquiry into genetic modification. When the commission began work, more than 92 per cent of the 11,000 submissions opposed the release of GM organisms into the environment. Money was begged and borrowed to fly in independent geneticists to testify.

At the end of the process, the commission's conclusions were scientific and logical nonsense. The independent scientific advice was disregarded and informed public concern dismissed. In short, the democratic process failed.

Two days after the release of the report, hundreds started signing up for non-violent direct action. Typical of the response was one woman who wrote: "I never thought I'd break the law but we've tried everything. What choice do we have now?"

During the nuclear warship protests a friend was talking to a Japanese man about the way New Zealand had stood up to the world's greatest superpower. My friend asked: "Why do you think it happened here?"

"You Kiwis jaywalk," was the response.

And it's true. There is probably not a single adult New Zealander who has not broken the law.

There is at least one more reason New Zealanders respond so readily with spontaneous defiance. It is in our bones. Starting with the prophet Te Whiti, of Parihaka, this land has a long tradition of non-violent direct action.

Te Whiti and his people ploughed their messages into fields and peacefully blockaded roads. The campaign inspired Gandhi and 150 years later Te Whiti's stature continues to grow.

Later, non-violent direct action was used by women to get the vote, against apartheid, the Vietnam war and then, of course, for the nuclear-free legislation.

Each of these campaigns is now a matter of national pride. Even with the Springbok tour protests, which were infected with the issue of Sir Robert Muldoon's personality, you would be hard-pressed now to find someone who would bad-mouth the law-breakers, the "communists" and "extremists" who were such crucial agents for change.

Thoreau referred to non-violent activism as the "leaven" for the "lump". In terms of ecology, non-violent direct action is crucial to our survival.

This does not mean anyone who participates in non-violent direct action is automatically right. But it does mean we have to honour the spirit and principles, especially since New Zealand was the birthplace of such action.

For those who take part this means that non-violent direct action must be selfless and carried out for the greater good. It should not be indulged in by the hot-headed, by people for whom it is the easy option. Rather, it is for people who have exhausted all other avenues.

Our tradition is that non-violent direct action is taken in response to a threat, rather than being used as a threat, and that the force used must be more moral than physical.

In certain political climates it is best done openly, in daylight, so no evasion of responsibility can be construed.

Lastly, it has always worked best where it has appealed to common decency and humanity. The great danger is always that this will be prevented from happening by the labelling of the participants as violent and criminal. Everyone from Te Whiti onwards has had to overcome that.

Public relations firms know such smear tactics work, which is why they repeatedly try to associate non-violent activism with terrorism, even a peaceful anti-GM march of 10,000 people up Queen St. Worse, public relations firms know that since September 11 smear tactics work even better.

Incidents where property is damaged to prevent the release of GM organisms (as might or might not have happened at Lincoln) are easily labelled as violence or vandalism. But ethically they are no more an act of violence than smashing a car window to save a dying dog.

A society which fails to distinguish between non-violent direct action and criminal or terrorist action is in deep trouble. The media is crucial in this.

Without non-violent direct action we have no backstop against life-threatening technologies. New technologies are developing so fast and there is so much public relations money and corporate momentum behind them that it is difficult to stop or even postpone the release of them.

Which is why GM researchers and associated parties, who have ignored their peers' safety code - the precautionary principle - should not be surprised if they receive more setbacks like those that may have been suffered at Lincoln.

The direct action we have seen against GM so far will be nothing compared with what may happen if we do not find a conventional democratic resolution to this issue.

Unless the Government puts the brakes on releases of genetically modified organisms, widespread and large-scale direct action could take place within two years.

Before it comes to that, however, there is still much that can lawfully be done. We need high-quality public debate without name-calling and cliches. Scientists and research workers with concerns about GM need to find ways to speak out without losing their jobs.

Individual farmers, parents, health workers and others can initiate or support grassroots political action, such as the GE-Free Zone movement. Such community work has always been the foundation of non-violent direct action.

If that fails, it is worth noting that in England a judge acquitted a group of non-violent crop-pullers, ruling that they were acting for the greater good.

You don't have to agree with people who take direct action but why they do it is worth remembering.

* Logan Petley, an Auckland winemaker, is the spokesman for Greengloves, a group opposed to the release of GM organisms.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary