Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Anger as boycott of Israeli goods to becomes a criminal offense watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The reasons given for the ban on boycotts are extremely weak:

    "Senior government sources said they were cracking down on town-hall boycotts because they “undermined good community relations, poisoned and polarised debate and fuelled anti-Semitism"
    So undermining good community relations, poisoned and polarised debate and fuelled anti-Semitism is a weak reason for banning them

    I'd say it was a rather strong one.

    But as I said Local councils should be dealing with local issues and not be wasting time on things like the Israel\Palestine issue
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Instead of trunc
    boycotting of arms comp
    I know you 'explained' why 'you thought' it was a weak argument I simply said I don't agree with you.

    and again the Government decides foreign policy not local councils.

    Local councils need to spend time dealing with local issues not worrying about where they but their arms from. Oh wait they don't buy 'arms' from anyone so not really a valid argument now is it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Without having made a

    Where you have around 433



    But they i
    Oh dear.
    I don't need to explain why you are wrong as I support the action.

    But yes Oh Dear......
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    So you supportive of a move towards authoritarianism, totalitarianism and dictatorship?

    That was very enlightening.
    No I'm supportive of the government deciding foreign policy (as has always been the way) it's you who thinks this is authoritarianism, totalitarianism and dictatorship not I. I consider it quite reasonable.

    So I would say I support this reasonable restriction the government has placed on government funded institutions

    But hey don't like it we do live in a democracy so feel free to use the process to try and get what you want
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    And
    I told

    else

    position.

    Also
    is

    enfranchisement

    ting author?
    No I'm supportive of the government deciding foreign policy (as has always been the way) it's you who thinks this is authoritarianism, totalitarianism and dictatorship not I. I consider it quite reasonable.

    So I would say I support this reasonable restriction the government has placed on government funded institutions

    But hey don't like it we do live in a democracy so feel free to use the process to try and get what you want
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The reasons given for the ban on boycotts are extremely weak:

    "Senior government sources said they were cracking down on town-hall boycotts because they “undermined good community relations, poisoned and polarised debate and fuelled anti-Semitism"

    How can a local boycott of an arms company undermine good community relations? In what manner does it poison or polarise debate if our local representatives decide to boycott a corporation it regards something as unethical?
    While I agree the reasoning is quite weak don't pretend the boycott is all about arms manufacturers.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Even as a friend of Israel I really don't see the point of the legislation. If an institution, public or not, decides for whatever reason they wish not to use certain services or goods, then that is their choice. This will do nothing but foster ill will.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If they really want to boycott Israel, maybe they shouldn't accept public money from a state that is aligned with them .
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    (1) It is absolutely fair to hold local authorities, universities etc to the law; that is, you can't discriminate based on national origin. It seems that people are quite wiling to countenance discrimination if it's against Jews (I say Jews because, notably, the only state they protest against is the world's only Jewish state)

    (2) It is fair for the government to say that it is not for local authorities to make their own foreign policy. Foreign policy is an area reasonably within the purview of the executive, it's ludicrous for jumped up local councillors to make their "nuclear free zones" in Slough or to declare they are sanctioning a country.
    Is the BDS movement even legal under the Equality Act 2010?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Is the BDS movement even legal under the Equality Act 2010?
    Why would it not be?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Why would it not be?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because nationality is one of the protected characteristics.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The reasons given for the ban on boycotts are extremely weak:

    "Senior government sources said they were cracking down on town-hall boycotts because they “undermined good community relations, poisoned and polarised debate and fuelled anti-Semitism"

    How can a local boycott of an arms company undermine good community relations? In what manner does it poison or polarise debate if our local representatives decide to boycott a corporation it regards something as unethical?

    Our Councillors are our representatives, not Cameron's appointees who have gone rogue. If we don't like how they operate, then we vote them out.
    As you can see today, the papers are full of articles about anti-Semitism dressed up as anti-Zionism. It poisons and polarises the government policy towards Israel and the Palestinians if local councils are running their own foreign policies. It undermines good community relations in the UK if Jewish and pro-Israeli groups perceive local councils to be hostile to them and if anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli groups feel they can get an edge by putting political pressure on local authorities.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Because nationality is one of the protected characteristics.
    But it doesn't apply to institutions and products.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    But it doesn't apply to institutions and products.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But it does apply to individuals and the BDS movement have explicitly sanctioned boycotting academics.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    But it does apply to individuals and the BDS movement have explicitly sanctioned boycotting academics.
    On the basis of which institutions they work at associate with, not their nationality.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    On the basis of which institutions they work at associate with, not their nationality.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The set of institutions being defined on the basis of nationality. The whole flaw with the BDS movement is that targets institutions based on an assumed responsibility for simply existing in a certain geographical area, rather than a direct contribution to human rights violations. Because of this there's no leeway to claim that the institutions are not being targeted on the basis of nationality. It's also, I dare say, possible to target institutions without explicitly forbidding the dealing with individuals in an unofficial as well as official capacity. Since you've implied this is not the case it's obvious the problem you have is with the individuals as much as the institutions. It's a bit like if a bad bank caused a financial crisis and you decided to imprison every single employee of the bank for malpractice.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I wonder how this will be enforced. Can't public bodies simply not buy goods from the illegal settlements or fossil fuel companies without stating their true reasons?

    Interesting that the EU is boycotting goods from the illegal Israeli settlements, yet local councils and universities cannot.

    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."


    This policy is going to be announced in Israel, so it's obviously about Israel and suppressing criticism of the world's biggest terrorist state, regardless of what this scheming government claims. Well, I'll continue to watch out for goods from their illegal settlements. I suppose this will simply make individuals more determined to do so.

    Interestingly, Leicester council in it's defence to a lawsuit from a Jewish rights group over it's boycott admitted that the boycott itself was effectively unenforceable and couldn't be implemented with however council procurement works. It was essentially solely a symbolic political statement.

    A local council and the EU are not in the slightest the same type of organisations and do not have the same remits. You might as well query why HM Prison Service can keep people in custody but when you try and lock someone in your basement for twenty years that's a no no.

    You think Israel is the world's biggest terrorist state?
    Their belligerent attitude towards Palestinian paramilitary terrorist groups that constantly fire rockets at them and try to build tunnels into their territory constitutes that does it? They share a region with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Iran, but it's Israel that's the world's biggest terrorist state?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Interesting that the EU is boycotting goods from the illegal Israeli settlements
    No, it isn't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    ...
    Local councils are elected and this constitutes an attack on local democracy.

    We can have a debate on Israel-Palestine elsewhere, but I'll not respond to it here.

    (Original post by admonit)
    No, it isn't.
    I have updated on that issue now, thanks.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Local councils are elected and this constitutes an attack on local democracy.

    We can have a debate on Israel-Palestine elsewhere, but I'll not respond to it here.
    The fact they are elected doesn't matter. Being elected doesn't give you a broad mandate to do whatever you want. Councils have a specific remit and foreign policy does not fall into that area. The same way a Crime Commissioner can't arbritarily decide to raise a paramilitary army and invade Zimbabwe to topple Mugabe simply because they were elected and have a strong 'moral' stance on the issue.

    You raised the matter with your inflammatory statement but hey ho. Answer me just this though, do you honestly seriously consider Israel to be the world's biggest terrorist state, in a world that includes the likes of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Sudan?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.