Israeli Court orders NZ citizens:pay fine for music boycott

[Right wing humour squad]

If they had made a Facebook post stating she shouldn’t yeah. But they sent a letter to get her to not. It’s the act that’s a crime, not the statement.

So sending a letter is a crime?

Unless this letter was treatening violence unless the artist in question pulled out, then this is a bullshit crime.

Plenty of things have been against the law all over the world, and plenty of laws quite frankly should be broken. If only to highlight the utter stupidity and maliciousness of the law.

An act that intends to garner support for terrorism isn’t a crime?

[The Batorys]

BDS?

Boycott, Divest, Sanction, or something like that. I believe these New Zealanders were a part of this movement.

It's illegal to call for boycotts and divestment?

How did it work with South Africa, then? Or did France not participate in that? It was a while ago and I was too young to pay attention to politics at the time.

[Olerand]

Anyway, BDS is illegal in France.

I wasn't suggesting that France was a paragon of freedom either. The Israeli government has influenced many countries to do what it wants, it's quite a shame that France, the US, and others put the desires of the Israeli government over their own citizens' rights. But the fact is, it is nonetheless an outrage to anyone who believes in free speech to criminalize calling for boycotts.

It wasn't really in urging of the Israeli government that France did this. Though we have good relations, no political party in France is like in America.

The law stands on anti-discrimination measures, applying to national origin, ethnic origin, etc.

Its rightfulness is... debatable. But the law is sound, legally, and I'm no fan of BDS so I wouldn't defend it.

Boycott, Divest, Sanction, or something like that. I believe these New Zealanders were a part of this movement.

It's illegal to call for boycotts and divestment?

How did it work with South Africa, then? Or did France not participate in that? It was a while ago and I was too young to pay attention to politics at the time.

For you personally to do so, of course not. For you to call on others to do so? Yes.

France did participate, it was actually quite the important force.

[The Batorys]

I wasn't suggesting that France was a paragon of freedom either. The Israeli government has influenced many countries to do what it wants, it's quite a shame that France, the US, and others put the desires of the Israeli government over their own citizens' rights. But the fact is, it is nonetheless an outrage to anyone who believes in free speech to criminalize calling for boycotts.

It wasn't really in urging of the Israeli government that France did this. Though we have good relations, no political party in France is like in America.

The law stands on anti-discrimination measures, applying to national origin, ethnic origin, etc.

Its rightfulness is... debatable. But the law is sound, legally, and I'm no fan of BDS so I wouldn't defend it.

It's illegal to call for boycotts and divestment?

How did it work with South Africa, then? Or did France not participate in that? It was a while ago and I was too young to pay attention to politics at the time.

For you personally to do so, of course not. For you to call on others to do so? Yes.

France did participate, it was actually quite the important force.

So was the law passed after that, then?

[Page]

Not really. When one is overflowing with criticisms for Israel, but totally silent about everyone else, or even excuses them, it's not whatabouttism at all. You can criticize Israel. You just can't exclusively criticize Israel.

As in, if you criticize Israel frequently, but have in the past criticized others, it's fine, and attempts to change the topic are whatabouttism.

But if you exclusively criticize Israel, and have nothing to say about human rights violations in the region otherwise, or even excuse them, it's an obsession. A very.... suspect obsession.

If one talked at great length about the human rights situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar and didn't have a lot to say about any other country, would anyone suggest that they are against the people of Myanmar? Would anyone suggest that person hates all Buddhists?

Or for another example, I have talked a lot myself about Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen, but I've yet to be called Islamophobic, and I think anyone who suggests I'm Islamophobic for talking about the atrocities of an Islamic regime would be laughed at.

[Page]

Its rightfulness is... debatable. But the law is sound, legally, and I'm no fan of BDS so I wouldn't defend it.

If you don't speak out for the rights of people to say things you don't like, then can you really say that you value free speech at all?

[Olerand]

It wasn't really in urging of the Israeli government that France did this. Though we have good relations, no political party in France is like in America.

The law stands on anti-discrimination measures, applying to national origin, ethnic origin, etc.

Its rightfulness is... debatable. But the law is sound, legally, and I'm no fan of BDS so I wouldn't defend it.


For you personally to do so, of course not. For you to call on others to do so? Yes.

France did participate, it was actually quite the important force.

So was the law passed after that, then?

After what?

It's the same law as the one banning discrimination based on national origin, ethnic origin, etc. In 2010 or so, the Minister of Justice send out a note instructing magistrates to be particularly sensitive to calls to BDS Israel and whatever.

In 2015, the Court of Cassation (France's highest court in the civil law track), definitely ruled against some BDS protesters.

Anyway, again, the notion is debatable, but BDS is a prime example of suspicious focus and criticism, so I don't care to defend them.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ah this is a load of fucking stupid bollocks.

[The Batorys]

So was the law passed after that, then?

After what?

It's the same law as the one banning discrimination based on national origin, ethnic origin, etc. In 2010 or so, the Minister of Justice send out a note instructing magistrates to be particularly sensitive to calls to BDS Israel and whatever.

In 2015, the Court of Cassation (France's highest court in the civil law track), definitely ruled against some BDS protesters.

Anyway, again, the notion is debatable, but BDS is a prime example of suspicious focus and criticism, so I don't care to defend them.

After the end of apartheid in South Africa.

[Olerand]

Its rightfulness is... debatable. But the law is sound, legally, and I'm no fan of BDS so I wouldn't defend it.

If you don't speak out for the rights of people to say things you don't like, then can you really say that you value free speech at all?

Uhm... The American maximalist notion of freedom of speech is present nowhere else. I value freedom of speech in as much as it is regulated by my country's laws. Calls to ethnic, racial, place of origin, etc. discrimination is illegal. I find that wholly acceptable.

Not really. When one is overflowing with criticisms for Israel, but totally silent about everyone else, or even excuses them, it's not whatabouttism at all. You can criticize Israel. You just can't exclusively criticize Israel.

As in, if you criticize Israel frequently, but have in the past criticized others, it's fine, and attempts to change the topic are whatabouttism.

But if you exclusively criticize Israel, and have nothing to say about human rights violations in the region otherwise, or even excuse them, it's an obsession. A very.... suspect obsession.

If one talked at great length about the human rights situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar and didn't have a lot to say about any other country, would anyone suggest that they are against the people of Myanmar? Would anyone suggest that person hates all Buddhists?

Or for another example, I have talked a lot myself about Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen, but I've yet to be called Islamophobic, and I think anyone who suggests I'm Islamophobic for talking about the atrocities of an Islamic regime would be laughed at.

Yes.

In fact, we have several Islamist organizations in France that do just that. I remember one TV show where the Minister of National Education at the time (Najat Vallaud-Belkacem) was present with the head of an "Islamic" charity. He waxed poetic about the Rohingya in Myanmar, as one of his organization's members was jailed in Bangladesh for something or another related to that issue.
The show's host then asked him about his organization's presence in Syria, and how it manages being in places where Al-Qaeda and the IS are...

And on that matter, he was... very short on criticism, and very liberal in handing out his comprehension and understanding. I can still remember NVB's face... It was... something...

And yes, if one is exclusively critical of a Muslim country, but has very little to say about other countries, I would find it suspect. Much of the American right, and the European radical and far-rights are in this category.

[Olerand]

After what?

It's the same law as the one banning discrimination based on national origin, ethnic origin, etc. In 2010 or so, the Minister of Justice send out a note instructing magistrates to be particularly sensitive to calls to BDS Israel and whatever.

In 2015, the Court of Cassation (France's highest court in the civil law track), definitely ruled against some BDS protesters.

Anyway, again, the notion is debatable, but BDS is a prime example of suspicious focus and criticism, so I don't care to defend them.

After the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Well yes, apartheid ended in 1991.

[Page]

If you don't speak out for the rights of people to say things you don't like, then can you really say that you value free speech at all?

Uhm... The American maximalist notion of freedom of speech is present nowhere else. I value freedom of speech in as much as it is regulated by my country's laws. Calls to ethnic, racial, place of origin, etc. discrimination is illegal. I find that wholly acceptable.

If one talked at great length about the human rights situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar and didn't have a lot to say about any other country, would anyone suggest that they are against the people of Myanmar? Would anyone suggest that person hates all Buddhists?

Or for another example, I have talked a lot myself about Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen, but I've yet to be called Islamophobic, and I think anyone who suggests I'm Islamophobic for talking about the atrocities of an Islamic regime would be laughed at.

Yes.

In fact, we have several Islamist organizations in France that do just that. I remember one TV show where the Minister of National Education at the time (Najat Vallaud-Belkacem) was present with the head of an "Islamic" charity. He waxed poetic about the Rohingya in Myanmar, as one of his organization's members was jailed in Bangladesh for something or another related to that issue.
The show's host then asked him about his organization's presence in Syria, and how it manages being in places where Al-Qaeda and the IS are...

And on that matter, he was... very short on criticism, and very liberal in forgiveness. I can still remember NVB's face... It was... something...

And yes, if one is exclusively critical of a Muslim country, but has very little to say about other countries, I would find it suspect. Much of the American right, and the European radical and far-rights are in this category.

Freedom of speech is one of the few things my country gets right, or at least did for awhile, since Trump, the Republican Party, and several Democrat collaborators seem intent on trying to criminalize speech against Israel too. America has certainly fucked up health care, protecting the environment, treating its workers well, keeping up infrastructure, and a whole lot of other things, but our free speech absolutism is one thing that I am proud of. But even if you do not believe in free speech (and while you can talk about distinguishing from free speech maximalism, in the end you either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. Freedom of speech is entirely about the things you don't like; no one wants to criminalize saying that puppies are cute, murder is bad, and pizza tastes good), you nonetheless are the one who has a double standard when it comes to Israel.

If one called for a boycott of the Myanmar government over their ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, no one would think the criminalize that. Israel is the only country in the world, except for America to a lesser extent, where if you criticize its government you get accused of hating its people.

[Olerand]

Uhm... The American maximalist notion of freedom of speech is present nowhere else. I value freedom of speech in as much as it is regulated by my country's laws. Calls to ethnic, racial, place of origin, etc. discrimination is illegal. I find that wholly acceptable.


Yes.

In fact, we have several Islamist organizations in France that do just that. I remember one TV show where the Minister of National Education at the time (Najat Vallaud-Belkacem) was present with the head of an "Islamic" charity. He waxed poetic about the Rohingya in Myanmar, as one of his organization's members was jailed in Bangladesh for something or another related to that issue.
The show's host then asked him about his organization's presence in Syria, and how it manages being in places where Al-Qaeda and the IS are...

And on that matter, he was... very short on criticism, and very liberal in forgiveness. I can still remember NVB's face... It was... something...

And yes, if one is exclusively critical of a Muslim country, but has very little to say about other countries, I would find it suspect. Much of the American right, and the European radical and far-rights are in this category.

Freedom of speech is one of the few things my country gets right, or at least did for awhile, since Trump, the Republican Party, and several Democrat collaborators seem intent on trying to criminalize speech against Israel too. America has certainly fucked up health care, protecting the environment, treating its workers well, keeping up infrastructure, and a whole lot of other things, but our free speech absolutism is one thing that I am proud of. But even if you do not believe in free speech (and while you can talk about distinguishing from free speech maximalism, in the end you either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. Freedom of speech is entirely about the things you don't like; no one wants to criminalize saying that puppies are cute, murder is bad, and pizza tastes good), you nonetheless are the one who has a double standard when it comes to Israel.

If one called for a boycott of the Myanmar government over their ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, no one would think the criminalize that. Israel is the only country in the world, except for America to a lesser extent, where if you criticize its government you get accused of hating its people.

Well that's nice. No one has that, and we don't want it. Seeing the results in America today... We definitely don't want it.

If there was a whole movement dedicated only to Myanmar, and in general showed some bias towards Buddhists, then, no, most likely this movement would be illegal in France.

In fact, the law is murky right now on if any calls for boycott against a specific national origin are legal, at all. The jurisdiction only clarifies that calls for an embargo (so done by the State) are legal.

Again, it's suspect if you only care about what Buddhists do, but are silent about Bangladeshi human rights violations... Or better yet, excuse them.

[Page]

Again, it's suspect if you only care about what Buddhists do, but are silent about Bangladeshi human rights violations... Or better yet, excuse them.

You say that, but in practice I wouldn't expect it to ring true.

Beside that, are there not problems unique to Israel that don't have an equivalent in another country? How would one then go about talking about these problems if there is nothing to compare? For example, Gaza is a city of almost 2 million people and Israel has turned it into a prison. It is the world's largest prison. No one can go in and out of it, and Israel's navy blocks food shipments. And in occupied Palestine, Israel has a policy where if one Palestinian in a neighborhood commits an aggressive or criminal act against an Israeli, they evict everyone in the neighborhood, demolish their homes, and build an Israeli settlement over it. What other nation does this sort of collective punishment except maybe North Korea, and even North Korea not to such an extent.

[Olerand]

Again, it's suspect if you only care about what Buddhists do, but are silent about Bangladeshi human rights violations... Or better yet, excuse them.

You say that, but in practice I wouldn't expect it to ring true.

Beside that, are there not problems unique to Israel that don't have an equivalent in another country? How would one then go about talking about these problems if there is nothing to compare? For example, Gaza is a city of almost 2 million people and Israel has turned it into a prison. It is the world's largest prison. No one can go in and out of it, and Israel's navy blocks food shipments. And in occupied Palestine, Israel has a policy where if one Palestinian in a neighborhood commits an aggressive or criminal act against an Israeli, they evict everyone in the neighborhood, demolish their homes, and build an Israeli settlement over it. What other nation does this sort of collective punishment except maybe North Korea, and even North Korea not to such an extent.

I have no control over what you expect or don't.

The law in France being based on national origin, and having already stated that the validity of any origin based boycott is actually in question, it is very well possible that all boycotts against any country (even those that egregiously violate human rights and might deserve a boycott in every way) are forbidden.

Yes, and? The other countries in the region are not lacking egregious human rights violations either, whether in arbitrary detention, mass slaughter, general oppression or otherwise.

If one's belief is that Israel is the black sheep of the Middle East... Well I find that suspect.

[Dahon]

If you don't speak out for the rights of people to say things you don't like, then can you really say that you value free speech at all?

Uhm... The American maximalist notion of freedom of speech is present nowhere else. I value freedom of speech in as much as it is regulated by my country's laws. Calls to ethnic, racial, place of origin, etc. discrimination is illegal. I find that wholly acceptable.

The maximalist approach to free speech endures in the United States largely due to the recognition there (and I'm inclined to say here) that one cannot arrive at some golden mean where one can determine with precision which is incendiary and which isn't, only ever arrive at rough subjective approximations of the same (and in any case -- and this is where I mostly disagree, "disagree" as the state can act disinterestedly to uphold the law, "mostly" because things like Israel -- the state is not a neutral actor and can put its foot down on the side of suppressing perfectly harmless speech). Thus the courts err on the side of encouraging bigots, trusting to societal pressure to keep them marginalized.

I won't go too far into defending either approach, as I have a sneaking regard for your approach to free speech and feel I can't attack it in good faith, but I would say the logic is at least understandable.

[Page]

If one's belief is that Israel is the black sheep of the Middle East... Well I find that suspect.

Iran and Syria don't get heaps of praise from the West, nor do they get hundreds of billions of dollars. And when Syria uses chemical weapons against civilians, the media actually talks about it.

[Caracasus]

So sending a letter is a crime?

Unless this letter was treatening violence unless the artist in question pulled out, then this is a bullshit crime.

Plenty of things have been against the law all over the world, and plenty of laws quite frankly should be broken. If only to highlight the utter stupidity and maliciousness of the law.

An act that intends to garner support for terrorism isn’t a crime?

Ckearly not supportig terrorism unless your definition of terrorist encompasses every Palestinian civilian in the Gaza strip. BDS is a protest against the state of Israel's ongoing crimes against humanity and illegal occupation of territory, not a call for blowing stuff up. Quite the opposite in fact, given Israeli use of white phospher and artillery in recent history.

So yeah, if that's your defenition of supporting terrorism then it is a bullshit definition that is more or less meaningless.

[Page]

I won't go too far into defending either approach, as I have a sneaking regard for your approach to free speech and feel I can't attack it in good faith, but I would say the logic is at least understandable.

The logic for criminalizing certain kinds of speech is understandable; I am not contesting that desired outcome of criminalizing speech but rather arguing the right to freedom of speech is more important than whatever gains may be made by criminalizing it.

You could punish going over the speed limit with 50 years in prison and no one would ever speed again, it would in fact greatly reduce speeding and would certainly save lives, probably thousands of lives, but that result doesn't mean it's worth it to have such a policy.

Freedom of speech means bigots get to say bigoted things. It means that one can say terribly offensive, demeaning things, and that is a necessary consequence of freedom. To give a personal example, I'm a bisexual man and half my friends are LGBTQ, and I despise homophobia with every fiber of my being, but I'd rather live in a country where someone can call me "f****t" and get away with it than a country where that person would be put in jail for insulting me.

[Olerand]

Uhm... The American maximalist notion of freedom of speech is present nowhere else. I value freedom of speech in as much as it is regulated by my country's laws. Calls to ethnic, racial, place of origin, etc. discrimination is illegal. I find that wholly acceptable.

The maximalist approach to free speech endures in the United States largely due to the recognition there (and I'm inclined to say here) that one cannot arrive at some golden mean where one can determine with precision which is incendiary and which isn't, only ever arrive at rough subjective approximations of the same (and in any case -- and this is where I mostly disagree, "disagree" as the state can act disinterestedly to uphold the law, "mostly" because things like Israel -- the state is not a neutral actor and can put its foot down on the side of suppressing perfectly harmless speech). Thus the courts err on the side of encouraging bigots, trusting to societal pressure to keep them marginalized.

I won't go too far into defending either approach, as I have a sneaking regard for your approach to free speech and feel I can't attack it in good faith, but I would say the logic is at least understandable.

Oh I don't disagree, the logic is understandable. In theory. Though far from desirable.

In practice, we've seen that that results in "the truth is not the truth".

If one's belief is that Israel is the black sheep of the Middle East... Well I find that suspect.

Iran and Syria don't get heaps of praise from the West, nor do they get hundreds of billions of dollars. And when Syria uses chemical weapons against civilians, the media actually talks about it.

Who in the West, other than Trump and America, praises Israel these days? The best it'll get is the only democracy in the Middle East, which isn't a praise, but an (false, Lebanon exists) assertion of fact.

We also don't give them money. America gives them money, which they are obligated to use to buy American weaponry. This argument is really silly, as the Americans are giving money to Israel argument is really just the American government is subsidizing its own weapons makers through Israel argument.

Is Israel a user of nerve-agents? If so, you should seek to report this to the media, Israel deserves an investigation at least.

[Hurdergaryp]

Time for NZ to invade Israel.

One slight problem/

Well, that was subtle.

[Petrasylvania]

You say that, but in practice I wouldn't expect it to ring true.

Beside that, are there not problems unique to Israel that don't have an equivalent in another country? How would one then go about talking about these problems if there is nothing to compare? For example, Gaza is a city of almost 2 million people and Israel has turned it into a prison. It is the world's largest prison. No one can go in and out of it, and Israel's navy blocks food shipments. And in occupied Palestine, Israel has a policy where if one Palestinian in a neighborhood commits an aggressive or criminal act against an Israeli, they evict everyone in the neighborhood, demolish their homes, and build an Israeli settlement over it. What other nation does this sort of collective punishment except maybe North Korea, and even North Korea not to such an extent.

I have no control over what you expect or don't.

The law in France being based on national origin, and having already stated that the validity of any origin based boycott is actually in question, it is very well possible that all boycotts against any country (even those that egregiously violate human rights and might deserve a boycott in every way) are forbidden.

Yes, and? The other countries in the region are not lacking egregious human rights violations either, whether in arbitrary detention, mass slaughter, general oppression or otherwise.

If one's belief is that Israel is the black sheep of the Middle East... Well I find that suspect.

Of course when a country like Israel and its supporters constantly hypes itself as The Sole Shining Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East compared to its Arab neighbors, it invites immediate and frequent criticism when it engages in behavior one stereotypically expects of Arab countries like its neighbors.

[Olerand]

I have no control over what you expect or don't.

The law in France being based on national origin, and having already stated that the validity of any origin based boycott is actually in question, it is very well possible that all boycotts against any country (even those that egregiously violate human rights and might deserve a boycott in every way) are forbidden.

Yes, and? The other countries in the region are not lacking egregious human rights violations either, whether in arbitrary detention, mass slaughter, general oppression or otherwise.

If one's belief is that Israel is the black sheep of the Middle East... Well I find that suspect.

Of course when a country like Israel and its supporters constantly hypes itself as The Sole Shining Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East compared to its Arab neighbors, it invites immediate and frequent criticism when it engages in behavior one stereotypically expects of Arab countries like its neighbors.

No doubt, there is much criticism of Israel, and much of it completely warranted.

But again, if one only criticizes Israel, and has nothing to say, or excuses, its neighbors... Well then...

[Chestaan]

I love how the right are constantly banging on about free speech but then when Israel tries to crush free speech it's all fine and good.

[Liriena]

Borderline cartoonishly villainous of Israel to pull this shit.

Also, all of my love and support to those who boycott that apartheid state.