# data[].attributes.body
I disagree, i think if a law in unjust on any way it is allowed to be broken as law isnt meant to be exclusive to one people. For example Rosa Parks broke her city that required racial segregation on public buses towards African Americans. She broke the law and was arrested for it because she, rightly, belived that she was equal to all the other people on the bus.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree and think that if a law is unjust then there is no reason why it shouldn't be broken, for example Ghandi and all the other non-Europeans had to have a name tag, which caused a divide and separated them I'm an unnecessary and unjust way. So Ghandi 'eliminated this difference' by burning the name tags, and even when the police beat him for it he carried on showing resilience and fighting for what he believed in because he knew that this was an unjust law. Therefore it is acceptable to break the law if it is unjust and segregating people unnecessarily.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the statement as I think that if law is in place that is unjust there is cause for it to be broken. For example Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years after he stood up for what he believed in. At the time it was not seen like this and people thought that he was trying to sabotage the South African government by joining the African National Congress in 1942, fighting against the apartheid. The fact that he is remembered today as someone to follow and represents equality, fairness and freedom shows that it can be acceptable to break laws, especially if they are unjust.

# data[].attributes.body
I also disagree with this statement as in some cases it can be acceptable to break the law, even if the laws are there to protect us. An example of this would be Malala Yousafzai who stood up for women's right to education. On October 9th 2012 she was shot in the head with one singe bullet by a Taliban, for standing up for what she believed in. This is an example that is still remembered till this day as she has had a great impact on many others.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement as sometimes it’s acceptable to break the law in order to get a positive outcome. An example of this would be Martin Luther king who led the civil rights movement in the 1950s he played a major role in ending the legal segregation of African American citizens. This example is well know to this day which shows it is sometimes necessary to break unjust laws.

# data[].attributes.body
 
Hasan
Hasan
I would have to disagree with the above statement due to the past in which the 

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement, if there are unjust laws in place it is acceptable to break them, in order to bring about justice. For instance, in 1976 Desmond Tutu was one of the dominating black South African leaders against the apartheid. He protested against racial segrration and discrimination, as a result being jailed. However, Tutu remained a powerful force to end apartheid promoting inter-racial harmony.This shows that it is acceptable to break unjust laws as it can be a way to promote justice in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Zahir
Zahir
I would disagree with the statement in which the past have shown us that

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the statement because the law is put in place to help and protect people and if it is not doing that then the right thing to do is to stand for justice. For example, Aung San Suu Kyi spent 15 years under house arrest for advocating for democracy. She was kept imprisoned by the government in Myanmar. However, she is now an international symbol of ‘peaceful resistance in the face of oppression’. By standing up against a law which was unfair, she was able to help many people. This shows that breaking the law can be acceptable if the law is unjust.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the statement because laws are made to protect people and if they are unjust, it is acceptable to break them to stand for justice. For example, Muhammad Ali refused to be drafted to army service and decided not to fight in the Vietnam war because with regards to Ali being a Muslim, War is against the teachings of the Qur'an. Furthermore, Ali also decided not to take part in the war because he had nothing against the people of Vietnam as they had no impact on him and hadn't committed any wrong or sinful actions towards him. As it was illegal to not enter and fight in the war in this period of time, he was punished with a fine of $10,000, he was sentenced to five years in prison (which were not served), he was suspended of his boxing license for three years (banned from boxing) and he was stripped of his WBA Heavyweight Championship of the World. So these laws were potentially endangering his life. By standing up for what he believed in and for what he represents, Muhammad Ali was able to rise up against an unjust law and impact many people. Therefore, in this circumstance this shows that breaking the law can be acceptable if the law is unjust.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement because although the majority of law are put in place for the well being and protection of a countries population some laws are created unjust and therefore must be challenged, an example of this is the Human rights activist Liu Xiaobo who fought against the Chinese communist single-party rule. Unlike in England China did not have a democratic government. Liu Xiaobo fought against these unjust laws, this landed him with multiple year in prison. While in prison in 2010 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent struggle against China's corrupt government and Human Rights violations.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement as there are some cases where the law is so unfair and unjust that the only way to put it right is to break it. For example, the suffragettes broke the law in so many ways: Mrs Pankhurst believed the only way to draw attention to the cause was by violent actions. The motto of the suffragettes was deeds not words and from 1912 onward they became more violent for their campain. Law-breaking hunger strikes, burning down postboxes, destroying art work, attacking police officers and causing general disruption was all part of their plan which arguably without would not have got women the vote today.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree as sometimes the law should be broken because it isn't fair. For example Malcom X who was a Muslim and so believed in Muslim principles. His most famous line was “By any Means Necessary”. He believed in fighting back physically and doing whatever had to be done to get freedom no matter if that meant being violent. This landed him in prison for years but this didn't stop him and it got him the attention and motivation he needed to continue fighting for freedom. This is an example where breaking the law is for the greater good as it benefited so many peoples lives for the better.

# data[].attributes.body
i disagree which the statement. I believe that if someone breaks an unjust law with a good enough reason then it is fine. For example Roxana Saberi got put in jail for fighting for women’s rights in the 1860s. i believe that her reasoning for protesting was acceptable because all she wanted was gender equality. This shows how protesting for something your passionate about can get you in trouble with the law, and how fighting to help wasn’t acceptable back then.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement because I think that laws should protect people and if someone is then going against the law is acceptable. For example, Susan Brownwell Anthony is an American social reformer and feminist who played a pivotal role in the women’s suffrage movement. In 1866, Anthony initiated the American Equal Rights Association, which campaigned for equal rights for both women and African Americans, and in 1872, Anthony was arrested for voting in her hometown of New York, and convicted in a widely publicised trial. This shows that Anthony was simply standing up against the law of the time which was unjust and didn’t promote an equal society. Therefore, Anthony’s actions are justified and her breaking of the law is acceptable in my opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with the statement as the government, and thus the laws put in place by the institution, is the governing body for the people and so should be there to protect and benefit the people, not to rule them. Alan Turing, for example, was a significant figure in the fight against the Nazis in WWII, breaking the enigma code machine and saving countless lives as a result, but he was homosexual at a time where such was illegal and so was convicted of 'gross indecency'. Being homosexual wasn't brave, it was his coming out to the world that sticks out to me and highlights just how unjust the government were that they would persecute a wartime hero just for being attracted to the same sex. Turing announced his homosexuality with dignity and he was disgraced for it, but, as of 2013, he was posthumously given a royal pardon and had the Turing's Law, a law that pardoned all men arrested and prosecuted for homosexuality. Turing's acts show that sometimes standing up against an unjust law can yield results for the masses, even where the singular is discredited, disregarded and disgraced.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree that if the law is unjust, you should not break it. This is because the law has shown many signs of hypocrisy, racism and also inequality in the past. When civilizations don't follow the law, civil liberties start to erode. If you want a society that contains law abiding citizens then you have to have just laws by a just government/institution who are willing to uphold it. We have seen many individuals in the past who were willing to put their life at risk for the better of others. We see this in the life of Salahuddin Al Ayubi who was the king of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. He is referred as the 'Liberator of Jerusalem'  and when you assess his life you see to what extent he used his morals and beliefs to stand up against the transgression's happening at that time. He forgave Balian and offered him and his people protection after conquering Jerusalem. Everybody loved him, even his archenemies loved him. Historians say that Salahuddin showed the Christian King the true meaning of forgiveness and mercy.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement as you might be put in a situation where u might need to break the law in order to do what's right and bring justice to the situation. if the law is against your conscience then it should be allowed as we all have a sense of what is right and wrong, each individual may be different. just because the government is telling people what to do doesn't mean its always the right thing to do, therefore if it is against what people believe then they might have to break the law.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this statement as I believe if a law is unjust, it can positively impact many people’s lives if it’s broken. For example, Harriet Tubman escaped slavery and broke the fugitive slave law and freed hundreds of slaves, by transporting them from Maryland to South by using underground railroad. This caused herself, her family and thousands of slaves to become free. Therefore, I think it’s okay to break the law if it’s unjust because it can better many peoples lives, like in this case it made thousands experience freedom, which would’ve been a relief for many and made people have more equal lives than before