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)
    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.
    No, what I was talking about was the initial French ruling/law that the European Court ruled did not violate the freedom of expression of the guy who called for a boycott. Which, of course, it did.
    Both of these rulings are so blatantly biased in favor of an ideology it should make anyone with a sense of justice or impartiality sick.
    This story has been kept under the radar, so I'm not sure there's enough of a public fervor in France for any serious protests. I wish there was, though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It is not remotely ludicrous. It simply upholds the principle that the freedom of expression does not extent to inciting racial hatred.
    As I said in my OP, disagreeing with a country's political policies and wishing to act on those disagreements has no bearing on that country's predominant race or religion.

    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."
    "National" grounds? That seems an awful lot like a convenient interpretation of semantics to me. The newstory I found said only that the "criminal" act was only "Claude Fernand Willem, who in October 2002 announced at a town hall meeting that he intended to call on the municipality to boycott Israeli products."

    The issue only arises because of French courts interpretation of French laws. It is not an issue for other states.
    I completely realize that. But this court said laws similar in nature to those in France, in whatever state in their jurisdiction, do not violate basic rights of expression. This is what I have a problem with.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    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."
    The person that appealed the French decision didn't attempt to boycott Israeli goods but rather Israeli nationals?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amandacalifornia)
    "National" grounds? That seems an awful lot like a convenient interpretation of semantics to me. The newstory I found said only that the "criminal" act was only "Claude Fernand Willem, who in October 2002 announced at a town hall meeting that he intended to call on the municipality to boycott Israeli products."
    No semantics about it, that is clearly discrimination based on nationality. If they suggested a boycott of the Israeli government, that would be one thing - this is quite another.

    (Original post by Sakujo)
    The person that appealed the French decision didn't attempt to boycott Israeli goods but rather Israeli nationals?
    That's the oddest question I've ever read.

    Israeli good, goods made by Israeli nationals in Israel...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand this. It's perfectly acceptable to wage war against a country because of the actions of it's government, a war which will lead to the inevitable loss of innocent civilian life, but nonetheless a war justified on the greater good. But it is unacceptable, however, to call for a boycott of goods from a country because of the actions of it's government.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No semantics about it, that is clearly discrimination based on nationality. If they suggested a boycott of the Israeli government, that would be one thing - this is quite another.
    What would the difference be? If you sanction or boycott a government, you are in effect restraining the people of that country. The heads of the state, I'm sure, won't have their lifestyles affected in any shape or form by any kind of "boycott".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can anybody explain how come Iran is not being boycotted for persecuting the Bahai's? I mean - this is happening as we speak.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    Can anybody explain how come Iran is not being boycotted for persecuting the Bahai's? I mean - this is happening as we speak.
    Make a thread and campaign.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meus)
    What would the difference be? If you sanction or boycott a government, you are in effect restraining the people of that country. The heads of the state, I'm sure, won't have their lifestyles affected in any shape or form by any kind of "boycott".
    Adding to Meus, it is very difficult for the general pulic to boycott the Israeli governemnt. What is a normal person meant to do? Turn down a meeting with an official?:rolleyes:

    Where as an economic, cultural and academic is much more easier and effective to implement.

    Also, Meus how would the boycott be strengthened by this case?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No semantics about it, that is clearly discrimination based on nationality. If they suggested a boycott of the Israeli government, that would be one thing - this is quite another.
    "Discrimination based on nationality?"

    Boycott: a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest, usually of political reasons.

    What, are they just allowed to not buy the Israeli state? Is that acceptable under your interpretation?

    The concept of a government, public or private organization, or a consumer calling others and/or choosing to not contribute to a country's economy, when they find the actions of that country's government abhorrent, is neither new nor presently banned in the Western world, except in one case. It has happened numerous times in history. Such as... hey! The economic boycott of Germany by The American Jewish Congress in March 1933! The South African liberalization is an example of a successful use of economic boycotts.

    The hypocrisy is a big part of why this ruling is unjust, not to mention pure principle. It is a violation of human rights of expression. How many other countries can you name who have this privileged position?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amandacalifornia)
    "Discrimination based on nationality?"

    Boycott: a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest, usually of political reasons.

    What, are they just allowed to not buy the Israeli state? Is that acceptable under your interpretation?
    To boycott the Israeli state would simply be discriminating against an organisation and legal person. The boycott suggested discrimination on the basis of nationality. I don't know what you find so difficult about that - it is not my interpretation, but that of the courts in France and the ECtHR.

    The concept of a government, public or private organization, or a consumer calling others and/or choosing to not contribute to a country's economy, when they find the actions of that country's government abhorrent, is neither new nor presently banned in the Western world, except in one case. It has happened numerous times in history. Such as... hey! The economic boycott of Germany by The American Jewish Congress in March 1933! The South African liberalization is an example of a successful use of economic boycotts.
    So? That something has happened for a long time doesn't make it any more or less legal.

    The hypocrisy is a big part of why this ruling is unjust, not to mention pure principle. It is a violation of human rights of expression. How many other countries can you name who have this privileged position?
    All of them do - it is not about which group of nationals the boycott is directed towards, but that any group has been discriminated against in this way.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meus)
    What would the difference be? If you sanction or boycott a government, you are in effect restraining the people of that country.
    Only by secondary effect, not directly. No causal link, no problem.

    (Original post by Meus)
    I don't understand this. It's perfectly acceptable to wage war against a country because of the actions of it's government, a war which will lead to the inevitable loss of innocent civilian life, but nonetheless a war justified on the greater good. But it is unacceptable, however, to call for a boycott of goods from a country because of the actions of it's government.
    It is illegal to ever target a country's civilians in war. A general boycott does that economically.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    To boycott the Israeli state would simply be discriminating against an organisation and legal person. The boycott suggested discrimination on the basis of nationality. I don't know what you find so difficult about that - it is not my interpretation, but that of the courts in France and the ECtHR.
    Clearly we disagree on some basic premises here. I'm not sure how a private citizen is supposed to boycott against a state.
    I believe that private consumers and organizations should be allowed to say and do whatever they like with their private property, and that almost any speech is free speech. And I think a economic boycott is especially appropriate when the country they take such issue with is a democracy.
    It is not a life-threatening act to reduce a company's profits. And I don't see how it's less discriminatory for a state to do so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amandacalifornia)
    Clearly we disagree on some basic premises here. I'm not sure how a private citizen is supposed to boycott against a state.
    It's not relevant to the issue.

    I believe that private consumers and organizations should be allowed to say and do whatever they like with their private property
    As do I, but few are as extreme in their views as me. Keep in mind this does imply a complete alienation of all discrimination laws.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reefer)
    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.
    Yes, spot on. Criminalizing the boycotts against Israel simply gives the anti-Israel propagandists more material to rally against. No one's a villain, but no one's a good guy either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It shouldn't ever be illegal to boycott.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Only by secondary effect, not directly. No causal link, no problem.
    We both know that is BS mate. There is no secondary effect here, the only effect is towards the populace, hence to pressure the authorities in the face of public dissent. Tell me how sanctions against Iraq, Iran and North Korea has impacted the lifestyles of the government? Was Saddam going without meals in his countless palaces? Are the Iranian authorities flying around in unstable airplanes? Is Kim living in a dark room with little to eat like most of his people? The only difference in this context is that there is no UN resolution to go with it, it is informal, a practice by the individual. The motivation behind is due to the behaviour of that nation's government, just like 'sanctions'. It is a political protest designed to cause public dissent towards that government, it is not designed out of resentment towards the jewish people. If such a thing is, then I'd like to see how you differentiate between a real boycott/sanction and discrimination.

    Honestly, that suggestion is more laughable than this in which I'm trying to understand.

    If this was a case involving a proven racist trying to start a boycott of products from some neutral African country that is not involved in any controversy or situation, in other words no grounds for a political boycott, then I could understand the argument that it is purely designed to discriminate on race or ethnic. But someone having a problem for the Israeli state's policies? I mean, it's not like Israel is involved in any controversy is it, deary me. What next, anyone who protests against the state is now anti-Semitic?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakujo)
    How so?
    Much of the negative sentiment towards the Israeli state's policies is associated with the belief that there is a bias in favour of Israel, in regards to International law and support - especially from the United States. This perception of hypocrisy, or bias, will only be fuelled by this criminalisation of protest via boycott. If you're Pro-Israeli in this context, you'll have an almost impossible time tying to explain how it is immoral to boycott Israeli goods towards a group of people who believe the state is committing an immoral occupation/war against civilians. This will just reinforce the 'underdog' mentality and grow passion/anger.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meus)
    Much of the negative sentiment towards the Israeli state's policies is associated with the belief that there is a bias in favour of Israel, in regards to International law and support - especially from the United States. This perception of hypocrisy, or bias, will only be fuelled by this criminalisation of protest via boycott. If you're Pro-Israeli in this context, you'll have an almost impossible time tying to explain how it is immoral to boycott Israeli goods towards a group of people who believe the state is committing an immoral occupation/war against civilians. This will just reinforce the 'underdog' mentality and grow passion/anger.
    That is why most pro-Israelis on this thread have said that they are fine with you guys boycotting Israel - fight for the boycott if you want. Just why don't you boycott Sudan as well?

    Also this whole 'underdog' mentality is very peculiar considering that the Arab States in the middle East have a population in excess of 300 million people, Israel's population stands at just under 8 million. But go for your boycott, it was wrong of the EU to criminalize the boycott - unless of course there are facts in their answer that we do not know about.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    T Just why don't you boycott Sudan as well?
    We hardly trade and do buisness with Sudan and people from Darfur haven't called for a boycott where as people from Palestine have. Also, we are seeing some movement from Sudan in terms of resolving the Darfur issue, we are not from Israel.

    (Original post by dn013)
    Also this whole 'underdog' mentality is very peculiar considering that the Arab States in the middle East have a population in excess of 300 million people, Israel's population stands at just under 8 million.
    300 milion people spread across a huge area with only 4 Arab countries bordering Israel. Of those Arab countries you have Egypt and Jordan in a peace deal with Israel. That leaves three Arab populations, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians. Palestinians can't have weapons, Lebanese have an army that consist of trucks and rifles and Syria has Soviet era wepaons a few decades old.
 
 
 
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
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.