1. If civil disobedience is a form of non-violent set of actions to contend the any policy or law by the existing political law maker, what makes it different with “social movement” that it leveraged by Luke Yates in “Rethinking Prefiguration: Alternatives, Micropolitics and Goals in Social Movements”. Is it different only because civil disobedience only responds to policy or law that has been legally enforced whereas social movement does not necessarily entail?
2. One of three conditions of the justification of civil disobedience is “other things equal, two minorities are similarly justified in resorting to civil disobedience if they have suffered for the same length of time from the same degree of injustice and if their equally sincere and normal political appeals have likewise been to no avail”.
Furthermore, he states that “One should note, however, that an injured minority is tempted to believe its claims as strong as those of any other; and therefore even if the reasons that different groups have for engaging in civil disobedience are not equally compelling, it is often wise to presume that their claims are indistinguishable.”
However, in many cases the rights of minorities being violated are very much not acknowledged by the majority; and therefore the minority must do sort of actions to spread the awareness to call for all the society to speak for the minorities’ rights. As long as it is under non-violent set of actions, could this awareness movement and this sort of civil disobedience of the minorities be justified as "civil disobedience"?