OperationGreenRights - (n) Right to dissent #DeclarationChan

(n) Right to dissent: the declaration of human and citizen's rights of 1789 protects the right of resistance to oppression. The states, however, since the beginning have critically limited this right mainly for protect more the right to property and safety.
The states have to extend the legislation about the right to dissent for protecting it more.

n1) Peaceful dissent:
n1.1) Right to demonstrator's dissent: every demonstration of dissent that doesn't hit physically the people or irreparably individual properties has to be considered peaceful. Individual properties are the ones every human being enjoy thanks to the right of existance, like an house. Hit physically another human being isn't peaceful dissent, but it is break a private house's glass during a demonstration. A broken glass isn't irreparable. About that, we remember the fight of E. Punkhurst 's suffragists who during the demonstration threw stones on private citizen's houses. Burn, raid, devastate houses would bring  an irreparable damage and would be a violent action.
The states must guarantee the funds necessary for a quick and suitable compensation of the "victims" of nonviolent dissent demonstrations. The ones who do these actions haven't to be persecuted. The mentioned principle should be applied to not individuals properties, shops, banks, street furniture, building sites etc.: who protest peacefully against these buildings haven't to be prosecuted and the people in charge of these last have to enjoy a quick and suitable compensation. We think the states must protect every way of peaceful dissent even in the above mentioned case.
n1.2) Right to occupation: the occupation of public or private ground, if the ground isn't inhabited, isn't a threat to the right to life of anyone and it isn't a irreparable damage. The right to occupation even of abandoned private houses, then, must be protected and who occupates haven't to be accused. The right to sit-in, flashmob and to roadblock are under this right and are already included in Guatemala's constitution.
n1.3) Right to online demonstration: the temporary suspension of a site's service or the spread of its databases hasn't to be considered  a violent action and it don't produce an irreparable damage. For this reason, ddos, deface and any other technique that means a demonstration of dissent online has to be considered lawful. Computer tools of dissent are like a virtual flashmob. The violation of databases causes light and temporary damages for the employees of the broken agency but it allows to concretely solve the industrial secret and state secret problems, providing knowledge to every human being. By this reasons the violation of a database hasn't to be considered as a violent action but it helps the growth of common knowledge. We can consider the violation of databases like the boardings that environmentalist ships do against fishing boats, these can bring some temporary discomfort, but haven't to be considered illegal.
n2) Violent dissent. If authorites endanger the others' safety and so hit the right to life of who express dissent, it should be legal for him/her denfends his/herself using violence. This is the case of several demonstration where the law enforcements attack the protesters. If the protester gets hitted he/she has the right to react. For make easier the enjoying of this right we ask that law enforcements take the streets unarmed; This is a fillip for make protester unarmed too. The uniform's pad worn by the law enforcements during demonstration can absorb the blows taken by the bare hands avoiding any damage for the law enforcements members.
So it's right ask that during demonstations, law enforcements unarmed members only do interposition without react against assault because it's guaranteed the safety of them.
We demand also that during demonstrations they have to be considerated as simple citizens and not officials because if a protester react to an official assault it incurs in the crime of assault to an official and this break the protester's right to violent dissent. The mentioned basis belong to the Proclamation of slave's emancipation that Abram Lincoln wrote in 1863 where it's asked the slaves to abstain from any violence unless their safety wasn't threated. It's clear that the right to violent dissent is lawful if there's a direct threat to the human being's safety.