Turn on thread page Beta

European Court of Human Rights criminalises boycott of Israel watch

  • View Poll Results: Is boycott an effective non-violent protest against Israel?
    Yes
    46
    69.70%
    No
    20
    30.30%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gcampb)
    @Dno13..

    Perhaps you should read the Amnesty International report on the the January attacks in Gaza. The link is in the original post.
    It's very comprehensive and takes into account both sides of the conflict. However, as I've said, the overwhelming evidence
    shows that Israel completely disregarded the safety of the Palestinian civilians.
    There's also overwhelming evidence that Hamas had complete disregard
    for both Palestinian and Israeli citizens safety. So it seems that the only real problem is that the Israeli government did too much to protect it's own citizens from rocket attacks.

    I guess if no shelters were built and the death toll on the Israeli side had been much larger then everything would be OK.

    Bllalaaaaaaa. (That's me vomiting).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    Dont worry mate I read it, and I have formalized my own judgment that Amnesty International completely disregarded the Geneva Convention. Here is a little interesting read if you want:
    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1599

    But as I stated earlier, if you want to boycott Israeli goods go for it, it is your right not to spend your money on something produced by a country you believe is morally incorrect.
    You have missed the point, the act of organising a boycott has been criminalised.

    I think you will find the latest report more comprehensive. Seeing as how that 'article', which wasnt produced by AI I might add, was published in January.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gcampb)
    The European Court of Human Rights recently upheld a ruling that it is discriminatory and illegal to call to boycott Israeli goods. This has set a moral precedence throughout Europe.
    .
    They didn't mind putting Iraq under sanctions for 13 years and starving the population.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gcampb)
    You have missed the point, the act of organising a boycott has been criminalised.

    I think you will find the latest report more comprehensive. Seeing as how that 'article', which wasnt produced by AI I might add, was published in January.
    Dude I know the act has been 'criminalized' and even though I would not support a boycott I do not support the court's decision to criminalize it. As I said you should have the right to do what you want to do.

    My point is that your perception of the war in Gaza is wrong, or at least skewed. Well immediately I can spot one factual error with AI's report: 1400 people were not killed in Gaza - even Hamas has lowered the figure.

    This is what happens when you get people with a political agenda and you put them in a situation where they have no expertize. How many Amnesty reporters were military veterans or war experts?? Let me give you a clue - none.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    They didn't mind putting Iraq under sanctions for 13 years and starving the population.
    Saddam starved the people. Iraq could produce enough food to feed its own people during the time - it was a net exporter of food when the people were dying.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    People can boycott whatever they damn well want to, the courts should not be meddling in this.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Saddam starved the people. Iraq could produce enough food to feed its own people during the time - it was a net exporter of food when the people were dying.

    He used the oil for food programme to increase his grip. They enabled him. Not to mention the sanctions on everything that was deemed "dual purpose", including the components of water sanitation plants that the British bombed even after the war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No matter how right anyone seems to be, they shouldn't be immune from the same penalties/punishments that the rest of us face. This criminalization simply invites abuse -- the very same abuse of trust that the oppressed claim exists. What a horrible matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jhukranti)
    No matter how right anyone seems to be, they shouldn't be immune from the same penalties/punishments that the rest of us face. This criminalization simply invites abuse -- the very same abuse of trust that the oppressed claim exists. What a horrible matter.
    Hmm...you're correct but how enforceable is it though? I do think that criminalizing it is extreme and just brings unnecessary attention to something in a very bad way - especially for something which isn't likely to be that material in effect anyway.

    As other people have said, it's an act of protest so i dont like the message this is sending out.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by gcampb)
    The European Court of Human Rights recently upheld a ruling that it is discriminatory and illegal to call to boycott Israeli goods. This has set a moral precedence throughout Europe.
    do you have a link to the court's opinion?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    do you have a link to the court's opinion?
    There is a press release on the courts website.
    http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...C1166DEA398649
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So Europe wouldn't boycott Russian goods in the future? Sounds promising. But Polish meat is still a no-no.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Lol this is certainly going to harm the boycott isn't it - more like only make it stronger!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meus)
    Lol this is certainly going to harm the boycott isn't it - more like only make it stronger!
    How so?:confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakujo)
    How so?:confused:
    All I can envisage now is every decent attempt at initiating a boycott will be subdued as soon as the Government sees that it might actually have an effect.

    Perhaps it's illegality might attract Anarchists. Unlikely though.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gcampb)
    All I can envisage now is every decent attempt at initiating a boycott will be subdued as soon as the Government sees that it might actually have an effect.
    In France if I'm reading correctly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Strange.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gcampb)
    The European Court of Human Rights recently upheld a ruling that it is discriminatory and illegal to call to boycott Israeli goods.
    That is straight up ludicrous. How can they possibly justify that opinion? I just looked up and read a news story on it. Apparently no one in France is allowed to voice (they criminalized even calling for a boycott) or act on an opinion other than "Israel is infallible and we have to give them our personal property" because it is "provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds." (actual quote) Totally ridiculous. If a country is affiliated with a religion or predominantly contains one ethnicity, no one is allowed to disagree with that country's political policies and nonviolently protest against them? That's racism now? It just gets me angry to find stories like this.

    Personally, I believe it is my basic right to boycott goods...
    Completely agree, and anyone else who lives in a society which claims to be free.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amandacalifornia)
    That is straight up ludicrous. How can they possibly justify that opinion? I just looked up and read a news story on it. Apparently no one in France is allowed to voice (they criminalized even calling for a boycott) or act on an opinion other than "Israel is infallible and we have to give them our personal property" because it is "provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds." (actual quote) Totally ridiculous. If a country is affiliated with a religion or predominantly contains one ethnicity, no one is allowed to disagree with that country's political policies and nonviolently protest against them? That's racism now? It just gets me angry to find stories like this.


    Completely agree, and anyone else who lives in a society which claims to be free.
    That's interesting, I've not looked into how other EU states have acted since the ruling. France has always had a history of the public protesting and I cant imagine they will take it very well over there.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amandacalifornia)
    That is straight up ludicrous. How can they possibly justify that opinion?
    It is not remotely ludicrous. It simply upholds the principle that the freedom of expression does not extent to inciting racial hatred. It does not comment on the moral validity of anything or the standing of the French incitement laws - as you seem to be assuming.

    I just looked up and read a news story on it. Apparently no one in France is allowed to voice (they criminalized even calling for a boycott) or act on an opinion other than "Israel is infallible and we have to give them our personal property" because it is "provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds." (actual quote) Totally ridiculous. If a country is affiliated with a religion or predominantly contains one ethnicity, no one is allowed to disagree with that country's political policies and nonviolently protest against them? That's racism now? It just gets me angry to find stories like this.
    A boycott was not called against the Israeli state, but against the Israeli nation and its nationals. That is, of course, "discrimination on national... grounds."

    (Original post by gcampb)
    That's interesting, I've not looked into how other EU states have acted since the ruling. France has always had a history of the public protesting and I cant imagine they will take it very well over there.
    The issue only arises because of French courts interpretation of French laws. It is not an issue for other states. But I should point out that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 1, 2009
The home of Results and Clearing

2,646

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.