9 Theses: The Right to Rebellion


The right to rebellion is neither decided by city courts, district courts or the Supreme Court. This is also a principle viewpoint in the trial against Rebellion (Denmark) on December 3 and 7, January 8 and 15, 2010. Judgement will fall on February 8.


History has been driven by peoples’ resistance and change throughout the centuries on all our continents. All change has been created through conflict, from the times of slavery to our own days.


The American Declaration of Independence was written by insurgents against British colonial power in 1776, a declaration of “unalienable rights”—among these the rights “to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. And the right to resistance against every regime that violates these rights: “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted after World War 11, accentuates:
”Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

These are declarations created through a hard-won history, which Rebellion (Denmark) determinedly will defend.


This is a history that continues. The anti-colonialism armed struggles of the 1960s and 70s created the desire to recognise liberation movements’ rights to fight for independence.

The supplemental protocol of the Geneva Convention, in 1977, legalizes “armed conflicts” when people are “fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination”.


The Geneva Convention’s humanitarian International Law regulates conduct when armed struggle occurs — not “terror legislation”.

In Palestine, resistance against Israeli occupation is conditioned by the 1977 Geneva Convention supplement. Organized resistance groups, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), can lawfully conduct armed struggle against an occupying force.

In Colombia, an internal armed conflict continues between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian government. This is also subject to the Geneva Convention, especially due to FARC’s maintenance of significant geographical control in Colombia.

International Law also contains a prohibition against terrorism but defines this more narrowly than “terror legislation”. The humanitarian International Law considers not each and every civilian death a terrorist action. Civilian losses are considered as an often unavoidable result in connection with attacks upon legal military objectives.


This reality is disputed by “terror legislation”, a law passed by the Danish parliament in June 2002 amidst the “panic” arising from the attack upon New York’s twin towers.

Democratic rights are increasingly viewed as hindrances to combat “terrorism”. Legitimate resistance forms are stamped as terrorist. In the name of the “global war against terror”, oppressive states seek to attire themselves with new international legitimacy. In many countries, state terrorism is the most pressing and fatal threat against the population’s life and welfare.

”Terror legislation” makes it punishable to support domestic or foreign organisations, either materially or by other means, if they are stamped as “terrorist”. Classification of organisations as “terrorist” is characterised by arbitrariness, especially through the secret and uncritical cooperation between intelligence and counter-intelligence services.

Rebellion (Denmark) challenges the political paradigm, upon which the so-called “global war against terror” is founded. It ostracises social and political movements from international political dialogue, a dialogue that is a premise for a political solution to those conflicts, which movements are a part of.


A repeal of terror legislation will result in returning to history’s reality. Peoples’ rebellion is an historic fact and in certain circumstances a necessity, a necessity that occurs when all other action forms are suppressed and inaccessible. Public support to such movements is denied in current legislation perspective and affected by prosecution.


The essentiality of resistance is not limited to the “distant world”. It applies to Europe, to the European Union. Climate change is increasingly decisive to history and conflict. The wave of refugees and forced immigration is rising day by day.

The creation of a “European fortress” rises as a reaction against change. A neo-fascistic dimension marches forth in many countries. In fascism’s time reaction was too divided and too late.


Civil disobedience is an increasing necessity. Through it the world will also create new dimensions in humanity’s attempts to define their lives and future, including “nature’s rights”: an acknowledgement of humans’ necessary dependence and responsibility here on earth.

  • Translated from the Danish by Ron Ridenour.
  • Patrick Mac Manus is with Foreningen Oprør (Rebellion) located in Denmark. He is author of Den tilkæmpede historie - fabler og fortællinger (Published by Arbejderen, 2009). Read other articles by Patrick, or visit Patrick's website.

    3 comments on this article so far ...

    Comments RSS feed

    1. bozh said on November 30th, 2009 at 9:59am #

      Declarations, such as the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are meaningless, or rather, each person obtains diferent instruction from them of how to behave.
      And the anarchical rule and lawlessness that resulted from these verbal brilliancies prove it.
      In whatever meanings of those decalarations US acted since 1776, evidence tells us that the indigenes and slaves were excluded from these rights.

      But even poor americans and its soldiers are suffering in spite of these brilliancies. Question arises, had US ever been so anarchical or gangster-like as now?
      I say, yes. It hadn’t changed an iota. If my view is correct, insurgents never ever needed to rise against british. Insurgents simple wanted the taxes to go to them.
      After all, people in n.zealand, auatralia, and canada did not revolt against the monarchy and are now better off than many people i US.
      And are widening the plutocratic rule just like US had been doing for centuries. tnx

    2. Annie Ladysmith said on December 1st, 2009 at 12:31am #

      It is essential to the NWO that anti-“terror” laws are written into the coming world constitution. This has to be accepted by all partisipating
      countries at the Copenhagen extravaganza in order to bring all people everywhere under the control of the global elite ‘beastocrats’.

      This state of affairs is the exact opposite of government by the people, the beastocrats do not like the people and will not tolerate ANY form of rebellion. Even thinking about it will put one on their terror-suspect watch list (No joke, they can read our brain waves) which in turn will put you in a FEMA camp. They are hideous monsters and they are perched and preened ready to snatch their prey, humans are their prey. Your immortal souls are at stake (no laughing matter), DO NOT TAKE THEIR MARK!

    3. Don Hawkins said on December 1st, 2009 at 3:39am #

      Annie do you really think to stay the same is what’s going to happen? Change is on the way and so far a few might be able to stay the same sort of. Take a look at the World the real World working well is it. No rules just right? Well in a few years there will be no order maybe for a few sort of you know a gated community with there own policy force paid policy force perks like food and water. The plans the policy in Copenhagen does little to change anything and the path is freedom for only a few to destroy the human race while enjoying the perks. Granted for only a few loss of money power to give this a real try and they don’t like that idea destruction of the human race is well just better that way. Tax carbon return the money back to the people the people who live in the real World sort of as best they can in all this strangeness that seems never ending from a few and taxing carbon is only one change a few more are needed if we wish to survive and remember some a few think it’s better they survive and the rest sorry just better this way, please.