Pro-Israel censorship in the US takes a hit
JVL Introduction
We can do no better than to repeat the opening two paragraphs of this article:
For Palestine rights activists, the 10 February Harvard Law Review editorial board statement that BDS is not a discriminatory practice, and should not be banned as such, came as a soothing balm on an open wound.
Harvard University is one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world, and the statement the editors of the Law Review issued was amply documented, referenced, and assertive. “This Note debunks the claim that BDS constitutes legally cognizable discrimination,” the editors wrote in their introductory comments, adding that “anti-BDS laws are not backed by a valid anti-discrimination interest.”
Here is a link to the full Harvard Law Review statement Wielding Antidiscrimination Law to Suppress the Movement for Palestinian Rights
This article was originally published by Middle East Eye on Thu 27 Feb 2020. Read the original here.
Pro-Israel censorship takes a hit - pro-Palestine voices won't be silenced
With a Harvard Law Review legal opinion, opposition to the muzzling of pro-Palestine speech is growing, in both academia and wider society
Loading article text…
An excellent review document…the Harvard Law Review Statement..
Well worth printing out and reading closely.
Thanks.
In this connection, on 9/01/2020 my local paper, Oxford Times, published the following letter from me regarding BDS bans. We should all be pushing our local councils, our universities and student bodies and our trade unions to take a firm stand in favour of freedom of speech on Israel and Palestine.
“For many of my generation, their first political commitment was to the Anti- Apartheid movement. Among our objectives was to get the government to boycott apartheid South Africa. We were surely on the right side of history, while those, like Mrs Thatcher, who referred to Mandela’s ANC as a “terrorist organisation” were not.
Today Mrs Thatcher’s heirs, hoping we’ll forget their record on apartheid, want to outlaw another boycott campaign. The Conservative Party Manifesto for the recent election promised to “ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion.” If a public body, outraged at the treatment of the Rohingya by the Myanmar government, refused to buy goods from that country, would that “undermine community cohesion”? Or if a council agreed to disinvest from China in protest at the oppression of the Uigurs, would that “undermine community cohesion”?
Remember, right now the government – a public body if ever there was one – is co-operating with the US boycott of Iran. Right or wrong, its effect is not to “undermine community cohesion”.
Imagine a local council in 1939 being forbidden by law to advocate a boycott of Nazi Germany for its treatment of Jews on the grounds that it might “undermine community cohesion”.
Clearly this is nonsense, so what’s it all about? What is really at issue was made clear by Lord Pickles immediately after the election in interviews with Israel’s i24 News and Jerusalem’s deputy mayor. He declared with his usual disrespect for truth that the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions campaign targeting Israel was “anti-Semitic” and a “thinly disguised piece of racism”.
Here Pickles unmasks his masters. What the government is proposing is to make it illegal for public bodies to advocate any boycott of Israel. And in order to cover this specific project they adopt the thin disguise of “community cohesion”.
And will it stop there? Soon we will see public bodies refusing to rent their halls to organisations that advocate boycotts or that invite speakers who do so.
And what is the definition of a “public body” anyway? Are, for example, charities which receive public funds to be refused them if they advocate a boycott? Obviously councils are public bodies, but so in general are universities. Does this mean that soon universities will not be permitted to provide premises for meetings of those advocating BDS (Boycott, Disinvestment, Sanctions) in support of Palestinian rights? Let’s not forget that Lord Pickles was foremost in insisting that the University of Bristol sack a lecturer, Dr Rebecca Gould, for her criticisms of Israel.
This is more than a case of pay-back time for some of those behind the ludicrous claims that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are anti-Semitic. It is a drive that constitutes a real danger, not least that this government will initiate an official policy of suppression of free speech.”
I remember and agreed with the anti-apartheid movement on South Africa, went on marches in support at the time and still have a photo of my daughter eating her first ever Cape apple when apartheid was outlawed. We need another AAM against Israel now so we can march in unity once more.
From the end of the Review article “A prior version of this Note incorrectly suggested that the authors of the Dorf Brief — Professors Michael C. Dorf, Andrew M. Koppelman, and Eugene Volokh — are supporters of anti-BDS laws in the text accompanying note 77 and opponents of BDS in note 137. Dorf, Koppelman, and Volokh do not advocate for or against the laws in their brief, but only evaluate the laws’ constitutionality. The Review regrets the error.” However, I have no doubt that their every past utterance is being scrutinised at the moment.
Interestingly, Volokhs “First Amendment articles have been cited twice by Supreme Court Justices, and over 25 times by federal circuit courts, as well as by many district courts and state courts.” So not an article by anyone obscure or without influence