Start A Petition

Canada's Plan to Make Boycotting Israel a 'Hate Crime' Is Stupid and Counterproductive


World  (tags: Robert Fisk, Human Rights, Civil Liberties, boycott, Israel, occupied territories, Canada, hate crime, free speech, non-violence, Palestine )

Evelyn
- 1337 days ago - informationclearinghouse.info
Boycotting a state for its crimes is a non-violent but potentially powerful way to express moral outrage at a time when political statements fail to represent the anger of voters or have any effect on a state that ignores international law.



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Evelyn B (63)
Wednesday May 20, 2015, 1:44 am
Canada's Plan to Make Boycotting Israel a 'Hate Crime' is Stupid and Counterproductive

The law change would put Jews and civil society groups on trial for anti-Semitism

By Robert Fisk

May 19, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "The Independent" - I’ve never been keen on boycotts. The one against Italy for invading Abyssinia didn’t work. Nor did the arms blockade on Spain. I’m still not sure that boycotting South Africa really brought down apartheid. I rather suspect that the old racists simply realised they were hopelessly outnumbered by the blacks of South Africa and that the game was up.

And I’m still unconvinced that boycotting Israel, even though it frightens the right-wing crazies in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, will achieve a two-state solution, human rights for Palestinians, etc. I’m free to refuse to buy products from Jewish colonies in occupied Arab land (I do not buy them), but, when I visit Israel, I stay at the King David Hotel in west Jerusalem, visit the Tel Aviv gallery of art and buy Israeli-published books. Some Israeli academics support a boycott of their own country. They may be right in doing so.

But in Canada – and I had to literally rub my eyes when I read this – the totally pro-Israeli Conservative government of Stephen Harper intends to list the boycotting of Israel as a “hate crime”. This is not only ludicrous, stupid, pointless and racist because it assumes that anyone opposed to Israel’s vicious and iniquitous policies of land-grabbing in the West Bank is an anti-Semite, but it is also anti-democratic. Those who believe in non-violence have always espoused boycott movements on the grounds that economic pressure rather than bombs is a moral way of putting pressure on a country that violates international law.

Yet Harper, who would surely be elected to the Knesset if he were an Israeli, went so far as to suggest on a recent visit to Jerusalem that merely to criticise Israel can be a form of anti-Semitism. The newly retired Canadian Foreign minister John Baird (normally a fairly sane guy) has described Canada’s Boycott Israel movement as “the new face of anti-Semitism”. In January, he actually signed an official agreement with Israel to fight the Boycott Israel organisation, known locally as the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) group. Steven Blaney, who rejoices in the title of Canada’s “Minister of Public Safety”, says that boycotts of Israel cannot be separated from anti-Semitic hate speech and the recent attacks against Jews in France.

This is preposterous. If I decline to buy Israeli-produced oranges at a British supermarket, this doesn’t make me a Nazi murderer. To criticise Israel doesn’t turn Canadians into Jew-haters. A number of liberal Jewish groups have protested against Harper’s proposed extension of existing ‘hate laws’ – far too many Jewish organisations have praised it – on the grounds that it assumes that all Jews support Israel or approve of its actions. And since Jews are also members of boycott-Israel groups, Harper’s expanded definition of the law would have to put Jews on trial in Canada for anti-Semitism.

Cloaked as usual in the kind of Blairite (and Cameronite) clichés that all law-and-order politicians adopt, Canadians are told that their government will show “zero tolerance” towards groups advocating a boycott of Israel. Of course, we show “zero tolerance” on the streets towards theft, mugging and gangland thuggery. But “zero tolerance” against those who wish to boycott a nation whose army slaughtered more than 2,000 Palestinians in Gaza last year, more than half of them civilians? Really? It was significant, I thought, that, after the killing of a Canadian soldier outside the Ottawa parliament by a Muslim last year and a murderous attack on Canadian servicemen, Harper publicised the message of condolence he had received from Netanyahu, as if the commiserations of a man who ordered the bombardment of Gaza were something to be proud of.

The dark little catch in all this is that last year Canada changed its definition of hate speech to include statements made against “national origin”, not just race and religion. Thus statements or speeches critical of Israel – like a number of public lectures I have given in Canada – may now be classed as statements against Jews (even though Jews are often among the organisers of my own speaking engagements in America). And, in due course, editorials in papers such as the Toronto Star can be deemed anti-Semitic and thus worthy of being denounced as a “hate-crime”.

If Canada’s parliament is dumb enough to pass this new definition of 'hate crime', it will put a lot of civil society groups under the cosh. The United Church of Canada and Canadian Quakers could find themselves in court and judges, however much they personally recoiled from Israel’s abuse of Palestinians, would have to abide by this outrageous piece of legislation and exercise “zero tolerance” against the free speech of those who condemn war crimes by Israel in the Middle East.

It is worth remembering that tens of thousands of Jews throughout the world, and especially in America and Poland, called for a boycott of Nazi Germany in 1933 for the very anti-Semitic acts that led directly to the Holocaust. American diplomats were critical, lest it provoked Hitler to even crueller deeds. But they didn’t threaten the protesters with “zero tolerance” of “hate crimes” because of the “national origin” of the Germans they proposed to boycott.

In the end, of course, it’s quite simple. Boycotting a state for its crimes is a non-violent but potentially powerful way to express moral outrage at a time when political statements – or cowardly governments like that of Stephen Harper – fail to represent the anger of voters or have any effect on a state that ignores international law. If you take that away, then the Boston bomber, now facing the execution chamber, can say that his was the only way.

© independent.co.uk
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday May 20, 2015, 4:42 am
It's so absurd. Harper is despicable. thx Evelyn
 

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday May 20, 2015, 6:25 am
What an EXCELLENT article, bravo Mr Fisk! (sorry Evelyn for my previous confusion/ misunderstanding)
He definitely can be called non-partisan on the matter and he clearly and accurately analyses this situation!
Love the several statemets and points he makes in there, some make me smile, though I'd disagree with him on South Africa.and a REMARKABLE last sentence there!
Thanks for the post and let's all hope Canadians will give their Facist -Nazionist PM the boot!
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 6:30 am
Fisk is known for his anti-Israelis bias, and his bias is obvious in this long article.

"It is worth remembering that tens of thousands of Jews throughout the world, and especially in America and Poland, called for a boycott of Nazi Germany in 1933 for the very anti-Semitic acts that led directly to the Holocaust. American diplomats were critical, lest it provoked Hitler to even crueller deeds. But they didn’t threaten the protesters with “zero tolerance” of “hate crimes” because of the “national origin” of the Germans they proposed to boycott." ???

If Arab were treated in Israel like Jews were treated in Nazi Germany, that this paragraph could have some sense.

Posting articles of a known anti-Israel PR mouth of Fisk Is Stupid and Counterproductive.
 

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 8:01 am
It's a great pity that the call to boycott was not taken up in 1933. Boycott & sanctions might well have served as a brake on Nazi growth ... A valid, non-violent form of condemnation.
 

Carol R (11)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 8:01 am
Great article. Thanks Evelyn!
 

Angelika R (143)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 8:40 am
How true Evelyn! More than a great pity, really a catastrophe the effect of which reaches until today. Aside from the horrors done to humans, imagine all those evil corporations that are still poisoning and killing people around the world right now could have been eliminated back then!
 

Janet B (0)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 1:25 pm
Thanks
 

Birgit W (160)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 1:35 pm
Noted.
 

Lois Jordan (63)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 1:39 pm
Noted. Thanks, Evelyn. Excellent piece.
 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 3:15 pm
Shared on facebook and twittersphere.
The Information Clearing House is a very good source of news and information.
Thanks Evelyn.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 3:36 pm
I can't even begin to say how much I loathe Harper. He cares nothing about Canadians, Canada, or the environment. He is by far the most despicable PM we have ever had.
 

marie C (163)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 5:38 pm
noted
 

Roslyn McBride (32)
Thursday May 21, 2015, 6:53 pm
As Sherri O'Connor is Canadian, & from what I've read about Harper, I think her remarks are probably correct.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.