We recently discussed the highly disturbing cases of 12 protesters who called for the boycotting of Israeli products. France’s Supreme Court (the Court of Cassation) upheld the shocking prosecution of the twelve anti-Israel activists in a blow to free speech. Now, England is moving to bar local councils, public bodies and even university student unions from boycotting “unethical” companies.
All “publicly funded institutions” will lose the freedom to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products or Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn denounced the plan as “an attack on local democracy” and the denial of the right of people . . . to decisions free of central government political control. That includes withdrawal of investments or procurement on ethical and human rights grounds.”
The move appears to reflect a growing support for the boycott. In April, a French-owned multinational water, energy and waste management company, Veolia, closed done its operations in Israel. Whatever the merits of the movement, the question is whether the government should be moving to penalize those groups which support the movement. The sponsors insisted that support for the boycott “undermined good community relations, poisoned and polarised debate and fuelled anti-Semitism.” Of course, there is less debate when you bar support for one side of the dispute.
What do you think?
Paul, yeah, a lot of Nazis escaped to Argentina. Didn’t a prominent one find refuge in Egypt though?
po – several prominent ones.
More or less than were spirited out and found employment in
our government?
po – we got von Braun and his team for our rocket program. We also took some Japanese for epidemiology.
Yep, Paul, AmericaNazism!
po – they were denazified before they released to jobs. The Russians captured the 2nd team.
Denazified? I thought once a Nazi always a Nazi?
po – there was a big denazification program in Germany after WWII. One of the problems was that to have any kind of job higher than streetsweeper you had to be a member of the Nazi Party. I do not know much about the program itself other than it took place.
“When you get to the fork in the road, take it.” — Yogi Berra
“A verbal contract is not worth the paper it’s printed on.” — Sam Goldwyn
Yes, these quotations — like your purported Trump quotation — are amusing, but they are irrelevant to the point at hand: i.e., your illiteracy. Work on that for a start, unless, of course, you wish to remain an ultrasubcretin.
You are welcome, Ralph, you were dying to use it on me, and I showed huge restraint in not applying something so fitting to you…
Please don’t leave your day job, ultrasubcretin may define you perfectly but doesn’t flow as smoothly as…let’s say…dummy?!
Try it…
Ralph is an ultrasubcretin…true but meh…
Ralph is a dummy… true…unh?!
Hold it right there, Paul. po is still struggling with the meaning of “ultra” and “sub.” Let’s take things a step at a time.
Here’s an example of the combination of “ultra” and “sub” in another context:
http://www.cnet.com/products/ultra-sub-zero-x1-cooling-station-notebook-cooling-pad/
That ends today’s English lesson. Get it?
po: “Got it” [he says meekly].
Good!
Ralph, that combination is akin to this one:
The budget was unlimited, but I exceeded it. – Donald Trump
Thanks for your explanation of why my expression “ultrasubcretin” hasn’t caught on — but not for the reason you suggest. I now realize — based on your explanation — that the reason it hasn’t caught on is because too many people are illiterate and likely identify with being an ultrasubcretin.
“Ultra” and “sub” do not cancel each other out. “Ultra” simply means “extreme” or “far” and does not imply or infer anything “higher” or “lower.” The notion of yours that “ultra” is “above a norm” or “higher” is simply false, much like everything else you say. The prefix “sub,” on the other hand, means “below” or “beneath.” Thus the combination of “ultra” and “sub” means “extremely below.” Finally, adding “cretin,” you have someone who is far below a cretin in intelligence.
I invented the word “Islamonazi” and to my knowledge nobody has used it before me. In searching the Internet, the earliest use of the term I can find was from a post of mine on Loonwatch from May 2011:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/debbie-schlussel-calls-for-mass-slaughter-of-1-8-billion-muslims/
The term has caught on with several commentators. For example, Mark Levine seems to have picked it up and now uses it regularly, without proper attribution to me. And a variant of the word is now recognized on Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Islamonazism
As for the official definition of Islamonazi, I’ll be happy to discuss that with Webster when they get around to contacting me.
Unfortunately, other terms I’ve invented haven’t caught on quite yet, like “ultrasubcretin.”
Ralph, by Islamonazi you mean the islamic tendency for zionism?
Considering the required structure, the genocidal tendencies and the racist supremacist ideologies, I fear Zionism is much, much closer to nazism than anything else I have ever seen.
po – considering the connection between Islam and the Nazis prior to and during WWII, Islamonazi is or could be a valid term.
Haha, Paul, please not again!
I’ll bite…but shouldn’t it be the connection between the grand mufti and the Nazis? And since the grand mufti represented…what… at best some of the Muslims of Jerusalem, barely 1% of all Muslims… wouldn’t Muftinazi a better term?
po – there is a big connection between the Nazis and Egypt.
Paul, any more of a connection than the Nazis and Europe and many of its countries? Any more than the Nazis and zionists?
Please enlighten me!
po – just Google ‘ratline’ and you will see where a lot of Nazis escaped to after the war. It really is fascinating reading. Really.
And as for ultrasubcretin, you are pushing too hard, Ralph. As I said before, ultra suggests above norm, sub, below norm and cretin means a dummy, an idiot. So ultra and sub cancel each other out and you are left with just cretin.
I must break it to you that it won’t catch on, you can do better than that 🙂
There are no “occupied territories” any more than Texas is an “occupied territory”–and, in fact, Judea and Samaria are more legitimate as part of Israel than Texas is to the US The BDS crowd are simply Islamonazis who want to destroy Israel, freedom, and civilization and replace it with Islamonazi rule.
Ralph, what do you mean by islamonazi?
Let’s go back to the story in France where this conversation started. Turley, in his usual disingenuous fashion, fails to explain WHY the 12 individuals in France VIOLATED THE LAW.
So here are the facts of that case:
In confirming the sentences, the Court of Cassation cited the French republic’s law on Freedom of the Press, which prescribes imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000 for parties that “provoke discrimination, hatred or violence toward a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion.”
In France, several dozen promoters of a boycott against Israel — including through the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment Movement, or BDS – have been convicted of inciting hate or discrimination. In addition to the law on the press, some activists have been convicted based on the Lellouche law, passed in 2003, which extends anti-racism laws to the targeting specific nations for discriminatory treatment.
Has anybody called for the banning of products produced by Muslims? No. The attacks on Israel have nothing to do with free speech. That is a red herring prevarication invented by the leftists, who hate Israel because they actually HATE freedom and liberty.
Ralph, is there any criticism of Israel that would be fair?
Or to rephrase it, can/should Israel and Israelis be ever criticized?
po – I think that there is room for criticism of all countries. However, BDS thinks that everything that Israel does needs to be criticized.
I agree with you, Paul, that there certainly is no perfect country, and Israel in many ways is better than many other places around the globe, but BDS primarily targets goods originating from the occupied territories, not Israel proper. In fact, it is saying that since the occupied territories are occupied against international laws, Israel should not be able to profit from resources from such goods originating from those areas.
There was a moral and legal precedent in South Africa.
Ralph Adamo, it appears that you intend your comment to support the laws at issue. Do you really not see the extent to which such laws potentially limit expressive conduct in the public arena? Or do you just not see that as something valuable? Restrictions on someone else’s unpopular speech will, inevitably, become restrictions on one’s own unpopular speech in the fullness of time.
Richard, Ralph’s main issue is not one of freedom of speech or laws, he is a one issue commentator and has been steadily about his refusal to allow any criticism of anything/one related to Israel.
I fear logic, history or rationality will be rejected by his iron dome of irrationality.
The First Amendment was not encoded into the Constitution to protect popular speech, or speech everyone agrees with. Such speech does not require protection in most cases. It’s the speech that is controversial, ugly, anti-government, anti-establishment, or just plain contrary that requires the most protection.
Sometimes, Free Speech is difficult to defend. This is one of those cases. I disagree with their cause and opinions, but I vigorously support their right to say whatever they want, and to choose to buy from whomever they want. As long as the publicly funded institutions are making such decisions in a democratic way, reflective of the people they represent, then they should have every right to do so. I know I would want to boycott buying anything from Hamas, if they produced anything besides a mess.
The best defense against bad speech is good speech.
🙂
Turley again shows where he stands. He’s in favor of anything that promotes Islamoterrorism and he opposes anything which could benefit Israel. That’s why he likes to do pro bono work for anti-Israel, pro-Islamoterrorism advocates, even though he makes a sham of pro bono work — which is really supposed to be for the public benefit, not the benefit of Islamoterrorists. Of course, he applies intellectual dishonesty to frame his position as a “free speech” issue.
DavesNotHereMan – I think they would take St. Paul’s Cathedral first. But they would certainly want seats in the House of Lords and some Judgeships.
I suggest that they move a hundred thousand “Palestinians” right off the “West Bank” and lodge them in central London. See what happens. I think you might get more than a Six Day War in England. The Palestinians will decide that they have a religious right to set up a capital in London and take over Downton Abbey.
The key word here and in most of Turley’s stuff is ‘moves’. In a democracy both sides get to ‘move’ or present their arguments. Boycotting sometimes comes with offensive activities. There is no law that states you have to buy a product from Israel. I certainly don’t. There is no law exposing the issues. As yet, there are no laws. This could simply be free speech in action.
Everyone should avoid products and services from any entity suspected of supporting apartheid, terrorism, theft of property, false imprisonment, and bribing public officials.
There are good reasons why public bodies including local councils are constrained from discriminating against suppliers and running their own foreign policies
Jews don’t believe in anything but Jewish control and Jewish supremacy. Through usury, they run Europe – defy them, and you’re toast. That’s what I think, since you asked.
England does not have a written constitution with a Bill of Rights. They still have a Queen. Checkmate.
What surprise? The rule of the rich elite must be respected and observed. All bow down to the corporate elite.
Remember what the jack booted thugs did to the Occupy Movement in the U.S. – the swat teams all seemed to move in the same morning to get rid of the riff raff and the members were given harsh sentences, some suspended as long as they never exercise their free speech the rest of their lives
Nothing new here to see folks, just move along, no droids here