Harrison Zuchorski Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regis | 1 | Bronx Science IR | Caroline Shi |
|
|
| |
| all | 1 | all | all |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Regis | 1 | Opponent: Bronx Science IR | Judge: Caroline Shi AC - Changing Laws |
| all | 1 | Opponent: all | Judge: all contact info |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
1 - contact informationTournament: all | Round: 1 | Opponent: all | Judge: all | 1/13/22 |
SeptOct - Changing LawsTournament: Regis | Round: 1 | Opponent: Bronx Science IR | Judge: Caroline Shi Framework Resolution I affirm: civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. Value I value equality, meaning no one is treated worse than another no matter what they look like or what they identify as. Criterion since everyone deserves equal opportunity, my criterion is putting checks on government. We define putting checks on government as stopping unfair governmental actions RTPs I affirm: civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. Meriam Webster defines civil disobedience, abbreviated “CD,” as “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. Contention 1 My first contention is that CD stops oppressive government action by bringing attention to injustice through use of the media. This is true for two reasons. First media always covers the new and interesting stories and cases so this would catch the eye of the media and news. Second the media wants to show it supports the fight against injustice so it will be posted about or talked about. Repetto: Repetto, Elettra. Part of the editorial team of Rights! and MeltingpotEurope “Duty to disobey? A perspective on the new civil disobedience, between international actors and digital media” In European Master’s Degree In Human Rights and Democratisation, 2014-15. https://repository.gchumanrights.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11825/228/Repetto_2014ef80a22015.pdf?sequence=1andisAllowed=y BZ It is an illegal act performed by an agent, in general by a minority group4 , that wants to be heard by the majority that normally is out of reach and/or does not pay attention. But the act is directed also to gain the attention of the public opinion, to draw its interest on a certain issue. Indeed, that was the case for women’s and black people rights movements in the USA in the 1960s. Being the majority the entity in power, the one that represents the res publica, in the Latin sense of common thing, this communication cannot be, but public. As Brownlee says “we breach the law for the purpose of communicating our condemnation of a law or a policy5 .” Our act is public, not private, although it can be planned secretly. The minority expresses itself publicly since it has some requests, some complaints: it wants to be heard in order to obtain something, to start a change in the entire society. Being the disobedient agents a part of the community6 , gathered together as such and not simply as private individuals, and the recipients of the message the ones that run the system, any kind of communication between the two has to be, and is, naturally, in foro societatis. It is precisely the publicity of these acts that empowers people, and obliges those in power to somehow answer to the disobedients. They are clearly confronted with their deeds and they cannot escape from the public opinion in this way. The publicity of an act of civil disobedience is then the precondition for engaging in a dialogue with those we are confronting. We do publicly disobey so, to expose our complaints and wait for a political answer. Civil disobedience, precisely as a political act, once again has to occur then in the public space, be it physical or digital. This is the case of course, given that through civil disobedience actions, the aim of those that disobey, as moral agents, is to change partially the society, to change those aspects considered unjust and unfair not simply for a private interest. So, a civilly disobedient act is public not simply because it is performed in public, it is public in the first place because the very same relation between the two subjects, the challengers and the power holders, makes sense only in the public sphere where people are not simply individuals with their differences and idiosyncrasies, but rather agents endowed with certain rights and subjected to certain duties. This means that an act of civil disobedience is communicative by nature and consequently public given the subjects and the content of its claim. In addition to this, publicity serves another aim, namely letting people know about the movement, even more about the problems that pushed people signing petitions first and occupying the streets later. Publicity is then a way to inform people, to spread the news over something otherwise not necessarily discussed in a proper way or not at all, having at the same time the effect of advertising the movement. Greenpeace actions usually gain a lot of media attention, precisely for their being so creatively public. In fact Greenpeace “uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future7 .” Impact: People start standing up for this because others see it as right as well causing the government to be pressured into change. Neetz: Neetz, Michaela. Has masters of public policy “The Influence of Public and Media Attention on Policy: Applying the Issue-Attention Cycle to Radon in Canada” In the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, 2021. https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/13412/NEETZ-THESIS-2021.pdf?sequence=1andisAllowed=y BZ The policy window represents an opportunity for action, when the three streams can be brought into alignment. Policy windows generally open due to a change in the politics or problems stream, and as quickly as policy windows open, they also close. When an issue peaks in media and public attention it can open a policy window. The policy window may close when public attention fades and pressure on policymakers to act decreases or when the realization of cost diminishes political will to act. In June of 2014 when the CBC released an interactive radon risk potential map a policy window opened. The media brought attention to the issue of radon and presented the Health Canada data in a way which had not been done before. The presentation of the data as an interactive map made the data more readily interpreted by the public and policymakers, magnifying the indicators of this issue in the problems stream. The media push and subsequent rise in public attention opened the policy window, and increased pressure from the public on policy makers. This open window lead to further success of the National Radon Program to garner attention, especially when it came to building relationships with provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders (Kelley Bush, Interviews). Radon made it onto the government agenda however it did not ascend to the decision agenda. Although a policy window opened in 2014, no policy change was measured. The problems, politics, and policy streams were aligned at this time however it was not possible to identify a policy entrepreneur. The lack of a policy entrepreneur means that the streams may not have been coupled and could be a factor in the issue failing to reach the decision agenda. There are other reasons why the policy window may have closed, ending the opportunity for policy action. For example, there may have been a lack of policy options available in the policy stream (Kingdon 2003). In 2014 it was difficult to discern policy attention at the provincial and municipal level, while the National Radon Program was still working to raise awareness and build networks (Deepti Biljani, Kelley Bush, interviews). Furthermore, as the issue-attention cycle suggests, the decline in attention may have also signalled a decrease in public pressure on policy makers and a loss of political will to act. This kind of change in the politics stream also could have closed the policy window. Contention 2 Impact: laws can be reviewed and changed after the case of the oppressed is heard Under view | 1/13/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
1/13/22 | zuchorskib@harrisoncsdorg |
|