Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
The proof is in the intent. The intent is to make calls for boycotting based on nationality illegal. A thinking person must be able to differentiate the issue of "what does boycotting of Israel mean?" from the issue of "should a free world government try prohibiting a constitutional right of anyone to call for pretty much anything?". While, personally, I completely dismiss the real motivations of those calling for Israel boycott, I at the same time completely dismiss Government's intent to make their calls illegal. If they want to call for a boycott of anything, it's their right in a free and democratic society.
I always try to apply the reverse test: how would I react if we had a Government that is very pro-Palestinian/against-Israel and that would try legislating a mandatory boycott of Israel, like USSR and other Eastern Block countries did in the 70's?
|
Where does it say that the intent is to make calls for boycotts illegal though? Hate speech is directed at "Breaches of the peace" or call for genocide. What about those includes a boycott?
This legislation would also provide equal protection to Palestinians. It would make calling for the deaths of all Palestinians illegal. I really don't see the issue with the legislation itself. The government does not have the power to say that it should be directed against moves to boycott, unless they specifically legislate. Thus far, the courts have not found a "breach of the peace" to include anything remotely similar to a boycott.