By Lawrence Landskroner

When an individual believes a law or system of laws to be onerous in that it is contrary to his moral values and/or individual rights, he has two choices: he may abide by the law until it can be changed, or he may refuse to obey it. Such disobedience may be either peaceful or violent, and may be taken by an individual separately or as part of a group action. For instance, today we are experiencing the effect of group action in the bloodshed and disobedience prevalent throughout the African and South American countries.

Such violent type of disobedience has found little support in the U.S.A. Apart from the rising up of the disenfranchised groups, e.g., the marches in Alabama, it has been customary in this country for civil disobedience to take place in a non-violent form.

One particular act of civil disobedience by an American has become so celebrated that it is almost legendary. Henry Thoreau's refusal to pay his taxes was no mean, cheap evasion of his responsibilities, but an act of individual defiance against a government that was using his taxes to wages an unjust war against Mexico. Needless to say, Thoreau was quickly jailed.

Must a citizen, even for a moment, resign his conscience to government? Certainly not. Thoreau stated we should amend first and subject afterwards for it is not as desirable to cultivate respect for the law so much as to cultivate respect for that which is right. It' is undisputed that unjust laws exist. The issue is whether we should disobey these laws or try to amend them.

Under a government such as ours, people tend to believe they should continue to obey unjust laws until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. The remedy of disobedience, Americans feel, is worse than any evil an unjust law may create. It is the fault of government that people think this way.

In deciding whether to disobey the law or to try to amend it, it is important to realize than an attempt to amend the law requires a lot of persuasiveness and a great deal of time. The effect of such efforts are usually not realized during one's own lifetime. Therefore immediate relief from unjust laws necessitates disobedience to those laws. Unless men and women are willing to act they are beyond to become passive recipients of orders even of those orders, which are morally repulsive.

Some people say that an individual is powerless that any effort he makes to change laws is a waste of his time. Such an attitude only serves to discourage men and women from taking positive steps in changing laws they find to be immoral. The proper attitude to foster in people's minds is that foster in people's minds is that individuals do have power. A man is powerless only when his feelings are unshared and he does not arouse any response from his fellow citizens.

History abounds with examples of disgruntled individuals gathering forces to defy the law. Look at Lenin in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to be convinced that an individual is not powerless. Here we are talking about using violence to effect change. The advantages of using violence is that a quick and determinative change of unjust laws can be brought about. Although nonviolent means take considerably longer their effects are more pervasive and long lasting. Look at Nixon's activities in the Watergate scandal. Through nonviolent means a United States presidents was removed from office. Unfortunately, however, the scandal also led to the decline of the respect for government that Americans once held. From the smallest school child to the most honored and respected police officer, government has become an institution viewed with suspicion.

We are fortunate in that our democratic form of government provides an outlet for discontent. Freedom of speech, the right to vote and all of out First Amendment rights guarantee us the opportunity to voice our grievance. Only as a last resort should violent means be utilized. However, where state institutions are based in favor of large corporations and where government discriminates against the individual it is not only the right but the dut of the common man to take over such a government. For when government displays favoritism, government is no longer by the people of the people. It becomes an uncontrollable mass dictating and channeling the lives of its citizenry. Such a government is the very antithesis of democracy and any laws promulgated by such a government in no way represent the will of the populace.

The foregoing argument has been advance by Harold Laski. Laski contends that the will of the populace must be paramount in any government. The will of the sovereign, be a king or president must never be absolute. Americans have put Laski's words to practice in declaring that no man is above just law. However, what is a just law? That question is for each man to decide through his own conscience and if he should find the law is unjust he is not only morally justified but legally authorized to disobey it.

How can we resolve the apparent conflict between encouraging obedience to the laws and at the same time condoning disobedience to laws one may find unjust?

I am not able to answer that question: I can only offer to you the hope that those who resort to disobedience carefully weigh and balance the consequences of their decision. That they be sincere in their discontent, and that they use non-violent forms of disobedience.

As police officers you should be concerned with the morality of the laws you are commissioned to enforce. It is unfortunate that these very laws in Ohio favor the private over the public sector. I am referring specifically to the rights accorded union members employed in private over the public sector. I am referring specifically to the rights accorded union members employed in private industry as opposed to members employed as police officers, school teachers, fire fighters and government workers.

As your lawyers for the State Fraternal Order of Police it is our contention that the Constitution of the United States mandates that men must receive equal protection under the law.

This means police officers should have the same rights accorded union employees in the private sector. We recognize this discrepancy and realize that policemen must be given these rights. How else can a police officer attempt to enforce the law when that same law tends to discriminate against him?