Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert
from the taking-the-d-out-of-bds dept
Let's start this post off this way: the whole "BDS" movement and questions about Israel are controversial and people have very, very strong opinions. This post is not about that, and I have no interest in discussing anyone's views on Israel or the BDS movement. This post is about free speech, so if you want to whine or complain about Israel or the BDS movement, find somewhere else to do it. This is not the post for you. This post should be worth discussing on the points in the post itself, and not as part of the larger debate about Israel.
Back in December, the very popular New Zealand singer Lorde announced that she was cancelling a concert in Israel after receiving requests to do so from some of her fans who support boycotting Israel.
"I've received an overwhelming number of messages & letters and have had a lot of discussions with people holding many views, and I think the right decision at this time is to cancel the show," Lorde wrote of her decision.
"I pride myself on being an informed young citizen, and I had done a lot of reading and sought a lot of opinions before deciding to book a show in Tel Aviv, but I'm not too proud to admit I didn't make the right call on this one."
No matter what you think of BDS/Israel it does seem clear that Lorde should have the right to decide where her concerts will be -- and where they will not be. But in response to this, some of the people who had purchased tickets for the show, along with a "legal rights" group named Shurat HaDin have decided to sue. They're not suing Lorde. They're suing two New Zealanders who wrote an open letter to Lorde, pleading with her not to perform in Israel. And they're suing them in Jerusalem.
The Washington Post explains the ridiculous rationale for the lawsuit:
Shurat HaDin's lawsuit is based on a 2011 Israeli law allowing legal action to be taken against one “who knowingly publishes a public call for a boycott against the State of Israel.” Although the case will be heard in a Jerusalem court, the law applies to foreign citizens and the ruling is binding abroad, according to international legal treaties.
If successful, the two women in New Zealand, Justine Sachs and Nadia Abu-Shanab, will be forced to pay damages to the three Israeli teenagers of as much as $5,000 each.
This is, apparently, the first use of that law -- which has remained controversial in Israel for a damn good reason. Even if you are against the BDS movement, basic civil liberties concepts around free expression should find this whole thing dangerous and ridiculous. The idea that Lorde choosing not to perform in Israel would constitute "damage" on Israel seems ridiculous on its face. The fact that these ticket buyers think that the proper response to someone saying something they don't like and persuading a famous person to do something they don't like is to sue rather than to try to persuade people in the other direction seems like an indictment of their own ability to make their case.
And, of course, there's the whole issue of them living in countries halfway around the world from each other. While the Washington Post seems to think the law can be enforced outside of Israel's borders, the NY Times story quotes someone who's doubtful:
Adam Keller, a spokesman for Gush Shalom, a group that has unsuccessfully challenged the law, said he was not sure that an Israeli court would accept the idea that “being deprived of the pleasure of listening to your favorite singer would be considered damage.”
“There is also a serious question to whether Israeli law can even apply to people in another country,” he said. “Only on things that are considered universal laws, like genocide or piracy, is that normally accepted.”
Any attempt to enforce a judgment in such a case, he said, could quickly become a diplomatic problem for Israel.
A diplomatic incident because a musician decided not to perform. Time to get some perspective.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bds, censorship, debates, free speech, israel, lorde, new zealand
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This isn’t one of the major news sites for New Zealand, but is the site hosting the open letter linked to in this item.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/music/01-02-2018/no-really-new-zealanders-are-being-sued-for-asking-lo rde-to-boycott-israel/
https://www.wilsonharle.com/legal-information/nz-legal-guides/enforcing-foreig n-judgments-in-new-zealand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Backlash Always Happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eady
Sir David Eady will simply have to accept that, one night in 1773, we Yanks did dump King George's tea into Boston harbor, and we simply aren't going to pay for the tea, either.
Faced with an unprecedented demand, the New Zealand High Court can simply find that Israel has no jurisdiction over publications in New Zealand; that the proceedings of the Israeli court were fraudulent and violative of justice, and a cover for the political actions of the Israeli government; and that the Israeli government sought to interfere with, and subvert the freedom of the press in New Zealand; and that the Israeli government's acts in the Occupied Territories constitute crimes under international law. The New Zealand Parliament will presumably enact something like our SPEECH Act. No one likes being pushed around in their own country by "a bunch of bloody foreigners." You know, Adolph Hitler tried all these kinds of tricks before, back in the 1930's. And they didn't work. Nazi law could only be made to extend as far as the Panzers could go. Israel does not have the military capacity to invade New Zealand.
Incidentally, the teenagers involved in this case may have problems if they ever want to come to the United States. Their names will be flagged, of course, and they will have to be investigated to see if they are working for the Mossad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Backlash Always Happens.
Sir David Eady will simply have to accept that, one night in 1773, we Yanks did dump King George's tea into Boston harbor, and we simply aren't going to pay for the tea, either.
More importantly you weren't going to pay for the British military might which had cleared all the other european colonies out of the way, allowing the US to expand westwards without any restrictions, and without which the US today would consist only on the original colonies - with the rest of N. America being a patchwork of states with different heritages like S. America today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> citizens and the ruling is binding abroad, according to international legal
> treaties.
Whether it's binding in New Zealand or not, it would certainly not be binding on a US citizen speaking from the US. And it doesn't matter whether the US signed a treaty with Israel, either. Such a legal action would be a bright-line violation of the 1st Amendment and no treaty trumps the Constitution itself.
The idea that a foreign government could pass a law and do what the US government itself can't do-- strip US citizens of their fundamental rights-- is ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate is hate
Name a single nation that does not have that problem.
UK said fuck the EU and is leaving them.
USA and Trump currently.
Israel and the Palestinians.
Russia and Crimea.
Turkey and Erdogan....
Fuck if you are boycotting one, you should be boycotting them all. Every nation has pillaged, raped, and destroyed their very own along with others while exercising their powers. But apparently you like to pick and choose favorites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
For example. If Israel was not full of Jews, what they are doing would not be a problem and you know it.
There is a fight over there between their religions and specific areas of land. Until either the Jews or Muslims are destroyed or one of their religions change... it is not going to end. Only a fool believes they can bring peace to that place.
I can't think of a single nation or group of people that walk this earth that has not stooped to utter barbarity to advance their ideals.
But I do certainly enjoy all the people looking to delicately pluck the spec from other eye's while they are staggering around blind and drunk themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
Absolutely. But not all of them have done it in my lifetime. I was born in America but moved to Norway because I didn't agree with the politics of my birth nation... Doesn't mean I hate "Americans", but I definitely don't agree with the politics of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
Your actions speak louder than your words. You do hate Americans... just maybe not ALL of them... just most of them or you would not have left for political reasons.
It's kinda like saying I am not racist because I have black friends. Having a Black friend does not preclude racism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
If I'm playing on a playground and I see some bullies bullying people and decide I don't want to be a part of that and so pick up my ball and go elsewhere, it by no means indicates I hate either the people on the playground in general, or even the bullies. It means I don't want to be a part of what I'm seeing.
I won't get into what makes the Israel/Palestine thing different than Brexit, but I WILL talk about how trying to use trade agreements to squash freedom of speech is ALWAYS bad, no matter who does it. The way to counter speech you don't like is with more speech, not with guns and lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
Further, you conclusion is a non sequitur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
That seems to be what this is about. People are criticizing the actions of the Israeli government, and being told that makes them anti-semitic nazis.
I don't have anything against Jews, but you don't get a free pass on your actions because you have declared yourself a religious state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck if you are boycotting one, you should be boycotting them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fuck if you are boycotting one, you should be boycotting them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fuck if you are boycotting one, you should be boycotting them all.
You seem like a dim individual.
It is not an admission, it is an accusation.
There is a difference, not that you would be bright enough to understand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is not an admission, it is an accusation.
OK, so you are not admitting that Israel is as bad as the others, you are accusing them of being as bad as the others.
Does that make you feel better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
US voters and taxpayers similarly have more reasons to be concerned about abuses committed by Israel because those abuses are paid for by US tax payers and enabled by US diplomatic interference.
Listing many random other abuses to distract from the issue someone is discussing is called whataboutery (my preferred term) or whataboutism (more common, less fun to say). It's often a tactic used by trolls or people who don't want to examine their own contradictory feelings. eg. "I like Israel, but I claim to be for equal rights for everyone.... unh... unh... What about human trafficing in Niger!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Listing many random other abuses to distract from the issue someone is discussing is called whataboutery ...
In fact, it can be fun when you leverage it against them, to bring up implications of the comparison that they forgot to consider...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
Yes, that's how the freedoms of thought, speech, and association work...
People expressed their opinions, and based on that the band decided they didn't want to be associated with one of the countries. The band can skip a country for whatever reason they like.
BTW, about those other countries you mentioned... Canadian schools have cancelled trips to the USA because of Trump's policies, lots of people take sides in the Isreal v. Palestine thing, and there's no shortage of criticism of Putin and Erdogan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
So yea, being against a country like that is not antisemitism, it's just normal reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They take actions against Jewish people who have nothing to do with Israel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
It's not nice when you're the one on the receiving end, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a country that doesn't and has never existed in history
The people exist. They are not going to vanish just because you don’t accept that they are part of any official “ethnic group”. Classify them however you like, they still deserve a home. Indeed, they already had one--until certain aggressors moved in and took it away from them.
And those people are Semites, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate is hate
By that logic I hate the British simply because I hate Theresa May's government and their war on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hating the Israeli government does not equal Hating Jews.
Boycotting the Apartheid South African Government--and helping to bring it down--did not equate to hating the South African people. On the contrary, it was helping the South African people.
What worked with South Africa can work with Israel. We should help the Israeli people, just as we helped the South African people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hating the Israeli government does not equal Hating Jews.
What worked with South Africa can work with Israel.
NO it can't. There is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
So was Nelson Mandela.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
True - Winnie Mandela was much worse because she endorsed violence against political opponents within her own people.
However that was not my point - see below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela.
You mean how the Palestinian leadership is regularly accused of being “terrorists”? So was Nelson Mandela.
No. That isn't even close. My point has nothing to do with who is or is not a terrorist, let alone who is called a terrorist (hardly the same thing at all). My point is that there is no-one in the Palestinian leadership that wants to do what Mandela did and probably no-one that could do it even if they wanted to.
Nelson Mandela commanded a level of respect within his own people that enabled him to be trusted to negotiate the transition with De Klerk.
There is no Palestinian leader with that level of authority since the death of Arafat (and no Israeli leader with the necessary standing since Rabin).
In fact the Palestinian leadership does not even want peace or any settlement that would allow ordinary Israeli civilians to continue their lives in peace as white South Africans do today under the government of the ANC.
If you are in doubt of this then listen to the views of someone who grew up inside the bubble of the Hamas leadership:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8sOG62H7Ks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and no Israeli leader with the necessary standing since Rabin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: and no Israeli leader with the necessary standing since Rabin
Both sides have extremists that don't want peace, however the extremists on the Palestinian side dominate the scene more effectively than on the Israeli side.
If there was a leader on the Palestinian side with standing and authority similar to what Mandela had then it is plausible that a suitable leader would eventually emerge in Israel (remember Mandela had to wait through the time of Verwoerd, Vorster and Botha before De Klerk came along.)
Also there is another big difference between Israel and Apartheid S. Africa.
S. Africa implemented racist policies that denied voting rights to the black population and discriminated against them in other ways. Israel on the other hand has many Arab citizens (~20%) with full voting rights and no other direct discrimination. In short Israeli Arabs have everything that Mandela obtained for S. African blacks already. (Their average life expectancy actually exceeds that in any Arab country, even including the rich ones)
That is really the root of the problem. For a large proportion of the Palestinians the only acceptable solution is one in which Israel no longer exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Israel on the other hand has many Arab citizens (~20%) with full voting rights and no other direct discrimination.
No more than, say, black citizens of the US, anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Israel on the other hand has many Arab citizens (~20%) with full voting rights and no other direct discrimination.
I looked at your link before I wrote my comment.
I'm not a total fan of Israel. They have not lived up to the standards we expect in western democracies and they have shot themselves in the foot by allowing the settlements, which create the impression that it is Israel that is the barrier to peace- when in fact the real barrier is that Arab Muslims (as distinct from Christians, Druze and a few other minority communities) do not really want any settlement in which Israel continues to exist at all.
No more than, say, black citizens of the US, anyway...
but a lot less than Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Atheist or Buddhist citizens of almost any Muslim majority state, as this piece by a Middle Eastern Christian woman illustrates.
https://medium.com/@najwa.najib/donald-trump-is-good-for-middle-eastern-christians-350f 049bed62
(Note that she isn't a great fan of Israel either..)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the real barrier is that Arab Muslims ... do not really want any settlement in which Israel continues to exist at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the real barrier is that Arab Muslims ... do not really want any settlement in which Israel continues to exist at all.
The UK was actually founded on the accession of James I to the English throne but after that the state sanctioned the acts of the East India Company, which resulted in... America, to name but a few land theft actions. I'm Irish and my ancestors were English planters who came in as part of a land theft action during the 1600s.
It's true that nobody's perfect but if people are misbehaving now there's nothing wrong with calling them to account for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hating the Israeli government does not equal Hating Jews.
Technically, from what I understand Isreal tries to have it both ways with Palestine.
Officially Palestine technically isn't a nation because Israel never officially agreed to give them the lands recognized as Palestinian by many, and a nation has to own land. They came close in the past to signing a treaty to do it, but it fell apart before it happened. Israel consistently fights against Palestine being recognized as an independent nation to (see drama at the UN over this subject).
But Israel does treat Palestinians and Palestine as if they are a separate nation that they're often effectively at war with.
That would officially make the people of Palestine stateless individuals living on their land in Israel's government's view I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BDS is anti-Semitism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate is hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whaaaaa... don't go to Israel
whaaaaa... they canceled my concert
“Only on things that are considered universal laws, like genocide or piracy, is that normally accepted.”
Well, looks like it's time to make this a universal law and appease BOTH sides.
Everyone MUST play in Israel and it is illegal to schedule a Concert in Israel. Pay no mind to any contradictions in your principals or the law people, they are all figments of your silly imaginations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has extended the life of the "Lorde and Israel" story and spread the idea of "BDS" further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You would think the complaining parties would go after the people with the deepest pockets so they could finagle some sort of lowball cash settlement to make the case go away. Shit, it worked for Atari.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... because look, the court agreed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ... because look, the court agreed!
ow you see why they are fond of accusing international bodies (e.g. the Security Council, ESCWA, UNESCO, UNRWA etc) of being “politically motivated” when they bring out judgements that criticize Israel -- it’s simple projection, based on the fact that that’s how their own courts work.
However there may be other reasons too - such as UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, history:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-jerusalem-unesco-motion-jewish-t ies-temple-mount-noble-sanctuary-el-harem-al-sharif-a7360776.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
The issue is specifically in respect of the Temple mount and its western wall which are the residue of the Jewish Temple which was constructed from about 1000BC and destroyed/rebuilt/extended through to about 10BC. It was this Temple that is mentioned in the Gospels.
It was largely destroyed by the Romans in 70BC but the structure of the site and the western wall remain. The "prophet" Mohammed apparently had some kind of dream about visiting the site (although he never went there) and on that basis the Muslims claim the site. It is the 1st holiest site for Jews - but only the 3rd holiest for Muslims.
The problem with the UN statement is that it completely ignores the Jewish history of this specific site and refers to all parts of it by their Muslim names.
They also have the cheek to complain about the effects of various Israeli building works in the vicinity (not good admittedly) - when the Saudis have in fact trashed much of the ancient structure of their own holy site a Mecca and no other Sunni Muslim nation has seen fit to complain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia
They do admit that Jerusalem is sacred to 3 religions - although of course the Christian sites are elsewhere and for theological reasons neither Jews nor Muslims are inclined to have anything to do with them. (Because they are the sites of events which those two religions deny.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
No, the only reason Israel is making a fuss is because it wants to claim the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
Do the Christians claim the site?
Because if not, there's no particular reason to be surprised if they aren't making a fuss that their names (if distinct) weren't used.
If two factions which have different names for a thing lay claim to it, and an official statement about that thing uses the names preferred by one of the factions and not the other, I think it's reasonable to infer that the party making that statement is not properly neutral between the two factions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
The Christian Names are the same as the Jewish ones. Christians do not claim the temple mount because their history is centred around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
How does it "fully acknowledge the history of the site" when the Unesco resolution does not contain the words "jew" or "temple" and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power". Actually, if they want to use that term, "Currently occupying power" would be better since Jerusalem has had only "occupying powers" for centuries : to wit Roman Empire, Sassanid (Persian) empire, Roman Empire (again) Caliphate (Empire) 3 or 4 different dynasties, each one overthrown by violence, Latin (crusader) empire, Seljuk (Turkish) Empire, Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, British Empire.
None of these (and that includes all the Muslim ones) was ever established as the the legitimate self expression of the will of the people living there, they were all military conquests. In fact the only ones who ever made any concessions except under extreme duress were the Roman empire (when it adopted Christianity) and the British Empire, which voluntarily gave the land up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power"
The US has recognized, quite rightly, that West Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. Therefore it is only fair that East Jerusalem should equally rightly be recognized as the capital of the Palestinian nation, should it not? Therefore the official place names should be those of the nation that rightfully owns the area, right?
That needn’t stop you calling it by other names if you want, they just wouldn’t be “official” names. It’s like referring to New York as “New Amsterdam”, which is what it was before. Yet you don’t see the Dutch trying to claim the area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ... and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power"
Therefore the official place names should be those of the nation that rightfully owns the area, right?
Not when deeply held religious beliefs and history are involved. In that case the first owners always get a say.
Otherwise its' Ayers Rock - not Uluru.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ... and the only references to "Israel" or "Israeli" are referring to the modern country which is described as the "occupying power"
The US has recognized, quite rightly, that West Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. Therefore it is only fair that East Jerusalem should equally rightly be recognized as the capital of the Palestinian nation, should it not? Therefore the official place names should be those of the nation that rightfully owns the area, right?
As I understand it the idea was the Jerusalem should not be divided but that is would be a shared capital for both nations - so both names should be used. Also you would expect that (if the UN was actually employing your logic) the it would have made that clear in a preamble. The fact that they didn't suggests that they were doing something more than that.
Since the Islamic claim to Jerusalem is based on nothing more than a dream journey on a magic horse vs over 1000 years or so of historical residence it is a bit thin.
Additionally Jerusalem has only ever bean the Capital of two local states.
i) Historic ancient Israel prior to the Roman occupation and
ii) The Crusader Kingdom of the middle ages.
at all other times it has been ruled remotely from various places such as Mecca/Medina, Bagdad, Cairo, Constantinople, Ctesiphon, Rome and London.
There is no historic precedent for an Arab/Muslim state centred on Jerusalem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since the Islamic claim to Jerusalem is based on nothing more than a dream journey on a magic horse vs over 1000 years or so of historical residence ...
Since the Arabs have been there for about 1400 years, tell me again, who is the one “flying in the face of obvious, well established, history”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UN decisions that fly in the face of obvious, well established, histor
No, the only reason Israel is making a fuss is because it wants to claim the site.
De facto Israel already has the site. It could easily take it over fully and expel all the muslims. However it refrains voluntarily from doing so and the site is actually run by Jordan. IN fact jews have less freedom to use the site than muslims - but only because Israel chooses that it should be that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isral could easily take it over fully and expel all the muslims.
Further back you were saying “None of these ... was ever established as the the legitimate self expression of the will of the people living there, they were all military conquests”. Yet here you are, justifying such a “military conquest” as legitimate grounds for ownership.
Also you claimed “the Palestinian leadership does not even want peace or any settlement that would allow ordinary Israeli civilians to continue their lives in peace”. And yet, without blinking, you talk casually about booting people casually out of their homes wholesale, and you don’t even notice the hypocrisy of what you’re saying. It’s as though only one side consisted of actual human beings as far as you’re concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you’re going to be racist, be either entertaining or original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not racist but....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As much as $5000 in damages each? I'd talk them done to five cents. Of course people tend to complain about getting a nickel back for their concert too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BDS doesn't go far enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BDS doesn't go far enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardly Zionists
Why don’t they sue Lorde for cancelling her concert? Only she’s got access to more legal firepower than they do. Or they’re afraid of an even bigger public-opinion backlash. So they go after a couple of defenceless fans, instead. One of whom is a Palestinian, the other is a Jew.
Shurat HaDin are a bunch of bullies. And like all bullies, they are really cowards at heart, only picking on the weak, not daring to go after the strong.
As Justine Sachs herself said:
This action does not make the state of Israel look good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cowardly Zionists
I wasn't raised to hate the jews, but Israel goes out of its way to prove every bad stereo type about them is real.
I hate to pull out a stereotype but Hitler (PBUH) was right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
but you sure as fuck fell for the brainwashing anyways ha ha ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gas the Kikes
Flagged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
Wow. "Hitler (PBUH)"? Seriously?
I can't even begin to address all the problems with that. It's so wrong it's ludicrous.
7/10 trolling, trying too hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
Usually when people say that they are drawing attention to Hitler's positive remarks about Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
and arguing in favour of Israel - not sure what this guy is trying to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cowardly Zionists
To be fair, the suing of the fans seems to be a stretch based on an obscure (outside of Israel, at least) law that the 2 Kiwis almost certainly wouldn't have known about. There probably is no similar law to prevent people from cancelling their own event, so nothing to get Lorde with at all. They're clearly grasping at straws because they want to throw a tantrum but don't want to go down the "Lorde is an anti-semite" route since they still want her to play there.
My confusion is about how the law can even be applied. I could be wrong here, but my understanding of most international agreements is that the thing being done actually has to be a crime in both jurisdictions. I may be thinking purely of extraditions treaties, but it does seem to be a rather dangerous thing if someone can perform an action that's perfectly legal in their home country, and be prosecuted halfway across the world if a treaty member has decided that the action would not be legal in their country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
> that's perfectly legal in their home country, and be prosecuted halfway across
> the world if a treaty member has decided that the action would not be legal in
> their country.
As I noted above, the Israeli law would be completely ineffective against an American citizen. The Constitution trumps any treaty and no foreign government can strip US citizens of their 1st Amendment rights merely by passing a law saying so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does that have to do with this attack on a New Zealander?
Two New Zealanders. I was wondering the same thing!
The country that produced Donald Trump does seem to have a propensity for self-absorption, does it not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
> on a New Zealander?
I don't know if you noticed or bothered to read it, but the discussion had moved beyond New Zealand. I was replying to a general comment about laws like this and their effect around the world.
Do try and keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
No, you were replying to my comment in answer to why this Kiwi band weren't being sued by the Israelis directly. That you brought up your country elsewhere in the thread has nothing to do with the conversation you leapt into with irrelevant talk about the US.
I'm sorry, but you should realise that the US is not the centre of the universe and we can talk about things without needing to bow down to your constitution, as irrelevant as it is to anyone outside your borders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
> your constitution, as irrelevant as it is to anyone
> outside your borders.
Which is why I said "in the U.S." instead of just making a generalized statement.
And no one asked you to bow to anything. Take the stick out and lighten up, Francis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardly Zionists
...in a conversation that was completely irrelevant to the US before you injected it.
I know what you were saying, but not every conversation has to be about your country. It's possible to talk about things without bringing up the US constitution at every opportunity, especially when discussing things happening on the other side of the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This website should be ashamed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This website should be ashamed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God bless Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This website is now protected by the IDF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ambiguous wording
Is that "each woman will need to pay the teenagers $5,000" ($10,000 total), "the women will have to pay each teenager $5,000" ($15,000 total), or "each woman will have to pay each teenager $5,000" ($30,000 total)?
The third one doesn't seem likely, but I can't distinguish between the first two based on the quote above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"'Free speech'? Not on our watch!"
Lovely law that, making calling for a boycott illegal and punishable by fines. Looking at the text excerpt it doesn't even have to be effective, simply saying it is enough to trigger the law.
That they are now trying to apply it to people outside the country just takes the insanity and cranks it up to 11, and hopefully the children throwing a tantrum because a musician they like didn't play a concert get slapped down(even better if this mess caused enough attention that the law they are using was also tossed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "'Free speech'? Not on our watch!"
Lovely law that, making calling for a boycott illegal and punishable by fines. Looking at the text excerpt it doesn't even have to be effective, simply saying it is enough to trigger the law.
Reminds me of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, similar laws in the UK and Europe and "hate speech" laws in many western countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing she is not baking a cake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship as speech?
RE: the New Zealanders, same idea. Assume I'm right; what they did was a nicer version of that. They corrected Lorde to make her make speech they approved of and to stop making speech they disapproved of. The request to take part in a BDS action, i.e. to boycott performing in Israel, is a form of censorship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlMdYpnVOGQ
Now the Israeli teens are trying to make her make speech they approve of and stop her making speech they disapprove of. The lawsuit is a form of censorship.
So... is censorship, or the attempt thereof, a form of speech in itself, and therefore worthy of protection?
I'm sure Lorde is big enough and smart enough to have come to the conclusions she arrived at by herself and that the NZ fans were respectful and polite in their approach. Nonetheless, I find this fascinating from a freedom of speech point of view for the reasons given above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship as speech?
The call to censor is a form of speech, and worthy of protection.
Actual censorship, at least by state actors, should not be protectable as speech - if for no other reason than because of the different enforcement-power situation involved. (That sits on top of a much deeper and more complex stack of arguments, but most of us can probably take them as read.)
Actual censorship by individuals can be a form of speech, and protectable. Consider for example the people who edit movies to remove things their religious sensibilities consider objectionable, so that other people who share those sensibilities can experience those movies without those things (or at least used to do so; IIRC they got shut down on copyright grounds); consider also a parent forbidding a child access to particular books.
Both of those examples are forms of censorship, but in both cases the scope of the censorship is limited; in the former case the non-censored version of the movie is still available and can be accessed at least as easily as the censored one, and in the latter case the child will eventually grow out of the life stages where the parent has the authority to enforce such bans.
State-actor censorship, on the other hand, is generally not scope-limited in either of those ways; an attempt to use other channels to access the censored work is generally just as prohibited as accessing it by official channels would be, and the prohibition generally does not expire (either by time, or by maturity, or by any other unrestrictedly-available mechanism).
Where it gets sticky is what you might call collective censorship, not by a government, but by a large group of individuals; that includes both censorship efforts by large communities, and censorship efforts by major corporations, among probably other things. The argument that the choice of what to and to not censor is a manifestation of speech still applies, but the power imbalance of large group vs. individual can be considerably closer to that of government vs. individual than that of individual vs. individual, and the censorship can considerably more easily lack the scope limits that can make individual censorship acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship as speech?
Where it gets sticky is what you might call collective censorship, not by a government, but by a large group of individuals; that includes both censorship efforts by large communities, and censorship efforts by major corporations, among probably other things. The argument that the choice of what to and to not censor is a manifestation of speech still applies, but the power imbalance of large group vs. individual can be considerably closer to that of government vs. individual than that of individual vs. individual, and the censorship can considerably more easily lack the scope limits that can make individual censorship acceptable.
That's the part I find so endlessly fascinating. I'm very wary of the use of legal power to shut down speech because it's currently being turned backwards in Poland. Yes indeed, telling inconvenient truths can get you thrown in prison. As I told historian Mike Stuchberry yesterday, be very, very careful what you wish for, it might just come back to bite you on the bum. What I'm saying is, well-intentioned censorship can and does cause problems.
Consider Gersh V Anglin. Same idea: she wanted to shut down hateful Nazi speech so he went and shut her down using the same tools and methods, but bigger and more horrible, now with added doxxing.
Now we have Lorde being told not to play Israel because they're mistreating Palestinians. Shaming is a powerful tool; nobody wants to be thought of as the bad guy.
I agree with all your points and I continue to be utterly fascinated by the levels of nuance on display here. There really is no cut-and-dried black-and-white response to censorship or freedom of speech as such, is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will be interesting see if Mossad is employeed to collect the fines...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Israel%E2%80%93New_Zealand_passport_scandal
http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/8649223/Mossad-spy-ring-unearthed-because-o f-Christchurch-earthquake.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]