From Envirowiki

Non-violence is a paradigm upheld by many progessive/left theorists and activists, which argues that violence is never worth intentionally participating in, as possible good achieved through the intended outcome would be overshadowed by the bad of the violence itself. This thinking is often used as a basis for practical action, or non-violent direct action, where direct action on a certain issues is taken which involves other methods of gaining attention and support. These methods can include humor, emotive action, legal action, and blockading.

[edit] 1 history

• Ghandi and compatriots use mass non-violence to protest workers disempowerment and maltreatment.

[edit] 2 Debate

Within non-violence theory, the definition of "violence" is often argued about. There is generally no argument that physical violence is violence, however, there is huge debate about threatening behaviour. Is threatened physical violence violent in itself? If so, how serious, or close to the bone, does a threat have to be to be considered violent? Is the threat of damaging someone's wealth violent (ie. restricting them from working)?

Threats, while not physically violent, can, in certain cases, be severely mentally damaging. Mental violence could potentially have much worse impacts than physical violence - a bruise will heal in a week or so, but depression and other mental problems brought on by trauma can effectively destroy someone's life indefinitely. That said, it's rare that physical violence would not included some form of mental trauma as well.

The question is how threatening is an action? This is not an easy question to answer - many things may change the result - the receiver' past experiences, their preconceptions, other people's reactions at the time, or afterwards. As with any unknown, the best bet is generally to err on the side of caution.

Also, an action's perceived violence is often completely out of the control of the action-doers: a protest, for example, may no be considered particularly violent by some participants, but if it's reported by the media, then the media effectively control the perception of violence. This may make any internal organisers' view of violence null and void: If you don't want your action to be perceived as violence, you have to go with the reporter's conception of violence. The G20 protests in Melbourne, 2006, are a prime example of how this can go badly for the protesters.

[edit] 2.1 Property damage

Property damage is also an oft-discussed topic. Some consider property damage violence in and of itself, some consider it violent when it threatens, or implies violence, some consider it non-violent. There is a strong argument for property damage in some situations: If that property is intended to be used for violent/destructive purposes (ie, a bulldozer, or a war plane), is it not more violent to ignore that intention in not disable that property? If you don't disable or destroy that property, the violence that would result from it being used (death, habitat destruction) would far outweigh any violence or threat of violence inherent in the act of destroying the property in question.