OutByEaster? Posted February 17, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2016 I've been asked. Albeit via facebook, and I support the BDS movement. I was against apartheid in South Africa and I'm against it in Palestine - there are huge parallels between the two in the way in which governments are looking at them. Noted and agreed on the students. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 23 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: And I'm against it in Palestine -. For the record so am I , I visited Palestine last year and from the view point at Herods fortress you can see the illegal land grab in all its shame... Not to mention the wall around the city and the attempts to starve a country , our taxi driver took us to his home to meet his wife and family and feed us ...he just a wants to earn a living and is being deprived of that right but for the record I also meet an amazing Jewish lady in Jerusalem who was telling me what it is like to live in a city where when the sirens go off you basically grab your children and run for cover ,to live in a house with a bomb proof shelter / room .... Two sides to every story and all that .... For what it's worth she doesn't agree with her governments apartheid rule over Palestine either , and yet she could potentially suffer as a result of a boycott of dealing with her country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 18, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 She could also benefit from a boycott if it leads to a better situation than we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 8 hours ago, tonyh29 said: the point was that lets say you're the chief decision maker and you don't like Israel because of its land grab so you refuse to deal with any Israeli company ...that's your own view and it doesn't necessarily reflect the view of the people you represent , so you are over stepping your authority in making such a stance however morally correct you feel it to be .... This law change as I saw it stops you from doing that , though as Mike correctly points out there are other ways to come up with the winning bid and still impose your will regardless he point was that lets say you're thIs Hancock tory bloke and you don't like people boycotting Israel so you Decide to make it illegal ...that's your own view and it doesn't necessarily reflect the view of the people you represent , so you are over stepping your authority in making such a stance however commercially correct you feel it to be .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 hours ago, blandy said: he point was that lets say you're thIs Hancock tory bloke and you don't like people boycotting Israel so you Decide to make it illegal ...that's your own view and it doesn't necessarily reflect the view of the people you represent , so you are over stepping your authority in making such a stance however commercially correct you feel it to be .... that's fairly poor by your standards ... surely the default position on anything is to allow it so you aren't over stepping any authority by doing so ... that it needs a law to make it so probably says more about the people holding positions of office though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 10 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: I've been asked. Albeit via facebook, and I support the BDS movement. I was against apartheid in South Africa and I'm against it in Palestine - there are huge parallels between the two in the way in which governments are looking at them. Noted and agreed on the students. I should point out belatedly that you didn't answer the question about the "majority" being in favour , though tbf I did find a hit that said 73% of students at London University had voted in favour to boycott Israel ... I think my thoughts on that ( which you agreed with ) are well documented and I don't think that can be taken as evidence So , best I can find suggests no more than 29% in favour of a boycott ... I did find a link that said that only 1 in 9 British people are in favour of any boycott but as the source of this was the Jewish Times , In order of fairness I will file that evidence in the same category that I file the student vote ... BDS I'd never heard of before but looking at the list there is nothing on it I buy anyway so I guess I've joined the protest .. I'm off to get my Che Guevara T-shirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, tonyh29 said: the point was that lets say you're the chief decision maker and you don't like Israel because of its land grab so you refuse to deal with any Israeli company ...that's your own view and it doesn't necessarily reflect the view of the people you represent , so you are over stepping your authority in making such a stance however morally correct you feel it to be .... This law change as I saw it stops you from doing that I don't see how you got that from what is being trailed in the article from the Independent referred to earlier unless I've completely misread it. Obviously, we'll have to wait and see the actual text of any proposed legislation* but from that link, it says: Quote Under the new rules all contracting authorities including local councils, quangos and universities which receive the majority of their funding from the Government will lose the freedom to take ethical decisions about whom they purchase goods and services from. It also says the following: Quote Mr Hancock said the current position where local authorities had autonomy to make ethical purchasing decisions was “undermining” Britain’s national security. “We need to challenge and prevent these divisive town-hall boycotts,” he said. “The new guidance on procurement combined with changes we are making to how pension pots can be invested will help prevent damaging and counter-productive local foreign policies undermining our national security.” The intention suggested by the government minister, therefore, is not to stop an instance where a 'chief decision maker' makes a decision on their own whim where it doesn't necessarily reflect the view of the people you represent (if you're the chief decision maker then I don't see how you're overstepping your authority, btw) but rather to prevent them making any decision of that ilk whether or not a majority, a minority, one or all of the local population would be in favour of it. It may turn out that the actual legislation* has get outs but it would appear that the intention of the government as per Matt Hancock's comments (and the content of the article) is to stop any of those bodies from making 'ethical' purchasing decisions full stop. *Edit: What the article is rather fuzzy on is the mechanism by which this is to be introduced. It speaks of rules (and Hancock of 'guidance') but also of new law. Does it mean that this is a change to government guidance for bodies which is already reinforced by law? Or is this going to require some debate in parliament? If it needs to be introduced, will it be by way of SI or an Act? Edited February 18, 2016 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I understood that the legislation is only aimed at preventing the good folk who run public institutions from implement boycotts. Individuals are still free to boycott any nation's goods they so choose. Trade boycotts have been considered an act of war in the past and would be considered to be a hostile political sanction these days. It would certainly be considered duplicitous for a country to claim to be on friendly terms with another country but allow a layer of government to implement its own unilateral trade boycott. And you have to ask why just Israel? Their crimes are well known but it is impossible to feel self-righteous about boycotting Israel, while still being prepared to watch Champions League football sponsored by Gazprom, owned by the government of a country whose crimes in Chechnya must be considered as at least as terrible as Israel's in Palestine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Just now, MakemineVanilla said: I understood that the legislation is only aimed at preventing the good folk who run public institutions from implement boycotts. According to that article, it says: Quote Under the new rules all contracting authorities including local councils, quangos and universities which receive the majority of their funding from the Government will lose the freedom to take ethical decisions about whom they purchase goods and services from. Just now, MakemineVanilla said: It would certainly be considered duplicitous for a country to claim to be on friendly terms with another country but allow a layer of government to implement its own unilateral trade boycott. Why would it 'certainly' be considered duplicitous? Allowing other levels of government and other bodies which receive public funding autonomy over their decision making on purchasing decisions is hardly to be considered as that especially as the government of the day have purported to be greatly in favour of an agenda of 'localism'. 2 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: And you have to ask why just Israel? It isn't, is it? 6 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: Their crimes are well known but it is impossible to feel self-righteous about boycotting Israel, while still being prepared to watch Champions League football sponsored by Gazprom, owned by the government of a country whose crimes in Chechnya must be considered as at least as terrible as Israel's in Palestine. It's rather easy to characterize (and implicitly cock a snook at) actions such as this by talking about self-righteousness and questioning why other actions aren't also taken - indeed it's rather the style of any pooh-poohing of boycotts when people whip out those diagrams of who actually owns/is responsible for all the different companies in the world and say, "Why didn't you boycott this lot, too - didn't you know nestle actually... blah, blah, blah." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: surely the default position on anything is to allow it Like to allow a boycott, you mean? You make my point for me (again). The Government man is proposing to make it illegal for elected councils (etc.) to boycott countries which breach UN resolutions. So the Government is quite OK with for example imposing sanctions on Iran or Russia or wherever for doing bad things, but is not OK with Surrey council boycotting Russian Vodka. The fecking tories are an absolute incoherent, idiotic shambles (surpassed only by Labour, before anyone "ah but"s ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 42 minutes ago, blandy said: Like to allow a boycott, you mean? You make my point for me (again). The Government man is proposing to make it illegal for elected councils (etc.) to boycott countries which breach UN resolutions. So the Government is quite OK with for example imposing sanctions on Iran or Russia or wherever for doing bad things, but is not OK with Surrey council boycotting Russian Vodka. The fecking tories are an absolute incoherent, idiotic shambles (surpassed only by Labour, before anyone "ah but"s ) I can't understand why the government's determination to reserve the right to implement trade sanctions to central government, is incoherent? Their claim that it is socially divisive seems legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 18, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 It would appear that the published documents are slightly watered down from the initial proposals (Although my source for that is the BDS movement, which can be filed alongside students and the Israeli lobby etc) and is slightly less draconian than was suggested. It's still a pretty unpleasant piece of bullying, but slightly less unpleasant than the first draft - and crucially doesn't include a change of legislation to make anything illegal, just a bundle of tough talking and threats. http://bdsmovement.net/2016/diluted-uk-government-boycott-ban-13720 “We’re seeking further legal advice but it appears that it remains perfectly legal for councils and universities to take ethical stances that reflect the views of their communities and exclude companies that violate human rights from tender exercises.” So, two schools of thought on the Government: i.) It's listening - it proposed something it believed in, realised that the public didn't believe in it and adjusted it accordingly. ii.) It proposed something that was deliberately and purposefully aggressive in order that it could pass through the slightly adjusted measures it had always intended without the amount of fuss there would have been if they'd pushed for these measures from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 34 minutes ago, snowychap said: It's rather easy to characterize (and implicitly cock a snook at) actions such as this by talking about self-righteousness and questioning why other actions aren't also taken - indeed it's rather the style of any pooh-poohing of boycotts when people whip out those diagrams of who actually owns/is responsible for all the different companies in the world and say, "Why didn't you boycott this lot, too - didn't you know nestle actually... blah, blah, blah." though I also agree with the point you are making , I'm on MMV's side with this , I guess you could say that was the point I was trying to make in my very first post ,it's just I didn't actually make it !! Fine have your boycott but tell us why it's only Israel you boycott and not Palestine or Russia or wherever ... surely that's not too much to ask otherwise they just run the risk of being clever students / twitter users on bandwagons and with apologies for the 5% * who do engage their brain just jumping on something they don't understand .... Heck Israel isn't the only country committing Apartheid which seems to be the justification for the boycott s against , the Arab states are equally as guilty of said crime (* for clarity I'm counting OBE in that 5 % even though he does have a beard and thus is clearly a follower ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: I can't understand why the government's determination to reserve the right to implement trade sanctions to central government, is incoherent? I think you're making a mistake by claiming that the choice of a body or organization as to whether or not they buy goods or services from someone else on 'ethical' grounds is a trade sanction. This is about the purchasing decisions they make for their own organization and their autonomy to make those decisions on an 'ethical' basis if they so wish. A boycott is not necessarily a trade sanction. Edited February 18, 2016 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 18, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 Fine have your boycott but tell us why it's only Israel you boycott and not Palestine Reads to me a little like "Why only boycott the Germans and not the French resistance? They're bombing people too." I don't think necessarily that you need to take on all wrongs in order to take on an individual one. Israel is a civilised country which is part of the main stream of democracy as preached by the US, it's part of 'us' - that's why I think it's an obvious starting point - getting our own house in order. Israel is highly visible because in principle in Israel it's possible to change things more easily than in say China or Saudi Arabia. On the wider picture, one of the other groups that's been really concerned about this is the Stop the War group - they've been campaigning against selling arms to Saudi Arabia quite heavily and have been exploring forms of divestment and boycott as a way to push that agenda. The focus is on Israel because there's an immediate problem that involves a nation that purports to share our values - but the proposals affect both other causes and all future ones. Unfortunately, while we have government that reports to its financial institutions rather than its people, we'll have this problem where moral issues impinge on the markets and need to be controlled. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 38 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: I can't understand why the government's determination to reserve the right to implement trade sanctions to central government, is incoherent? It is incoherent because it's massively at odds with their stated aim of allowing local decision makers to take decisions - the whole decentralisation thing, they pretend to have going on down there in that London. Northern Powerhouse, giving power to local councils and regions...then telling them what they can't do, like take decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Fine have your boycott but tell us why it's only Israel you boycott It isn't only Israel, though, is it? That produce from Israel (or is it more specifically produce from the occupied territories?) may be the subject of a boycott by an organization and that this particular area may be the subject of a boycott when others aren't (perhaps the local organization had a debate and decided to do it?) could be for any number of reasons, I guess. As an initial though perhaps some of the following: it's bigger headline news and a longer running issue than many others and thus more at the forefront of that type of discussion; it's easier to condemn something which has already been condemn in UN resolutions; it's much more discussed by the various lobbying groups on either side and therefore people come at the issue believing they have more knowledge because of the amount of discussion about Israel and Palestine in the media and elsewhere. In the rest of your post, you seem (as MMV did with his stuff about Champions League and Gazprom) to be conflating issues with organizations and the autonomy of their decision- making process and individuals and how self-righteous or knowledgeable they are. Other than this being a bit of a mistake, I'll reiterate that I think it's incredibly problematic to frame a discussion about the merit or otherwise of political situations and the resultant decisions made by individuals/organizations because of those situations (including on boycotting produce) in the sneering wording of 'self-righteousness', 'twitter bandwagons' and 'being clever students'. If people are focusing on one thing and intentionally turning a blind eye to something else then that is worthy of criticism and investigation as to the reason for it (such as government foreign policy in one area and not another). If, as a result of that investigation, one exposes hypocrisy or bigger problems then get condemning. We do need to be careful not to condemn the actors in a marketplace for not possessing perfect knowledge but still making decisions on the imperfect knowlege they do possess. None of this, however, is the essence of the discussion as per the initial article (all of which may be seen in a different light as a result of what OBE posted above - though I haven't read that detail yet). Edited February 18, 2016 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I think the problem with the appeal for local autonomy in the case of making ethical decisions about who they buy from relies on a narrow view of ethics. I think it is useful to ask whether political parties with ethics we totally disagree with should be given the autonomy some people are demanding. Should a party like the BNP be free to make choices within their own nativist ethical system, with regard to who they hire, or which suppliers they boycott, when they run local councils? When the Lib-Dem councillors in Tower Hamlets re-interpreted the 1977 Housing Act to deliberately exclude Bangladeshi families from qualifying for housing, was it right to respect their autonomy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said: I can't understand why the government's determination to reserve the right to implement trade sanctions to central government, is incoherent? Their claim that it is socially divisive seems legitimate. Even if you grant that these boycotts are 'socially divisive' (and I don't, or I don't think it's particularly important anyway), lots of things that local governments and related bodies do are 'socially divisive', from licencing strip clubs to pedestrianising city centres to muslim-women-only times at the swimming pool. The correct response to these situations is through speech, and then the ballot box in local elections or student union elections or whatever. It's not through policemen, lawyers and the judiciary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 minute ago, MakemineVanilla said: I think the problem with the appeal for local autonomy in the case of making ethical decisions about who they buy from relies on a narrow view of ethics. I think it is useful to ask whether political parties with ethics we totally disagree with should be given the autonomy some people are demanding. Should a party like the BNP be free to make choices within their own nativist ethical system, with regard to who they hire, or which suppliers they boycott, when they run local councils? When the Lib-Dem councillors in Tower Hamlets re-interpreted the 1977 Housing Act to deliberately exclude Bangladeshi families from qualifying for housing, was it right to respect their autonomy? Firstly, if your "narrow view of ethics" point is valid, then it surely applies as much to national as to local politicians? It's not quite about whether "political parties with ethics we totally disagree with should be given the autonomy" but actually about whether autonomy they already have should be taken away (made illegal, in fact). And I'm not sure who you mean by "we" - people who elect councillors elect them to use their judgement and abilities on their behalf. If they feel the judgement is poorly used, they can boot them out. More easily than is the case for MPs at national level, too. So yes if a hypothetical BNP council existed and it chose to boycott (say) Google or Apple (for not paying nuff tax) then fine. If they chose to boycott something out of racial discrimination, then that would be illegal under race law and is a different subject. There's not going to be a BNP council, though. Dunno about that tower hamlet thing - sounds like it would be against race law, if true. - what it's got to do with boycotts beats me anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts