Assaults on freedom speech can be found in many aspects of American life these days, but one specific area that isn’t getting the attention it deserves relates to boycotts against Israel. Increasingly, we’re seeing various regional governments requiring citizens to agree to what essentially amounts to a loyalty pledge to a foreign government in order to participate in or receive government services.
I’m going to highlight two troubling examples of this, both covered by Israeli paper Haaretz. The first relates to Kansas.
From the article, In America, the Right to Boycott Israel Is Under Threat:
The First Amendment squarely protects the right to boycott. Lately, though, a legislative assault on that right has been spreading through the United States – designed to stamp out constitutionally protected boycotts of Israel…
Over the past several years, state and federal legislatures have considered dozens of bills, and in some cases passed laws, in direct violation of this important ruling. These bills and laws vary in numerous respects, but they share a common goal of scaring people away people from participating in boycotts meant to protest Israeli government policies, including what are known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns.
Today, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging one of those laws — a Kansas statute requiring state contractors to sign a statement certifying that they do not boycott Israel, including boycotts of companies profiting off settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
We are representing a veteran math teacher and trainer from Kansas who was told she would need to sign the certification statement in order to participate in a state program training other math teachers. Our client is a member of the Mennonite Church USA. In response to calls for boycott by the church and members of her congregation, she has decided not to buy consumer goods and services offered by Israeli companies and international companies operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Our client is boycotting to protest the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians and to pressure the government to change its policies.
Earlier this year, our client was selected to participate as a contractor in a statewide training program run by the Kansas Department of Education. She was excited to use her skills to help train math teachers throughout the state, but when she was presented with a form requiring her to certify that she “is not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel,” she told the state that she could not sign the form in good conscience. As a result, the state refuses to let her participate in the program.
Kansas’s law, and others like it, violates the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits the government from suppressing one side of a public debate. That means it cannot impose ideological litmus tests or loyalty oaths as a condition on hiring or contracting.
If this was the only example of such behavior, I suppose we could dismiss it as a one-off, misguided directive. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is far more common than any of us would like to admit.
Here’s another recent example, from the article, Houston Suburb Won’t Give Hurricane Relief to Anyone Who Boycotts Israel:
A Houston suburb will not approve grants to repair homes or businesses damaged in Hurricane Harvey if the applicant supports boycotting Israel.
The city of Dickinson’s application form for storm damage repair funding includes a clause stating that “By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.”
No other clauses about political affiliations or beliefs are included in the form.
The state of Texas passed a law in May banning state entities from contracting with businesses that boycott Israel. The law, one of 21 passed in states around the country in the past few years, has been criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union as unconstitutional.
This is totally insane. I don’t care what you think about Israel, the above is completely unacceptable in a free society and we should all be making a stink about it. Please share with friends and family.
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
I think there was an attempt to pass a law along these lines in the Congress, not too long ago. I got the alert and called my Rep/Sen’s… perhaps it failed, if they’re taking the state and local avenue now. But Congress is so full of snakes, and there is so little time! Thanks for everything, Michael.
Oh, do we see Gog (Israel), MaGog (USA), and probably eventually GaGog (England, and we made this one up because isn’t there what is called British Israel mindset) in all of this. Boy, the hairs on the back of my neck just go up.
We had to wax religious terms, but God is never a religion, He is only the truth, and sometimes the Bible has a wise thing to say now and then. Our people are not keeping their own counsel.
Senator Cardiff introduced the Bill and is still trying to get it passed in watered down form.
It’s a classic drop close. Instead of the Bill stating that boycotting Israel would be punishable as a criminal offense, they are reworking it to just make it a civil offense.
Either way, it’s a direct violation of the First Amendment.
BTW, the name IS-RA-EL is derived from 3 Egyptian Gods:
ISIS – Is
RA- Ra (the Sun God)
EL – Enlil (which actually pre-dates Egypt and was the primary God of ancient Sumeria)
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Rabbi.
Genaro says Senator Cardiff has introduced a Bill that would criminalize boycotting Israel. I just did an Interner search on Senator Cardiff and nothing came up. As the case may be, this is a serious matter. How does it differ from treason?
Google: “anti israel boycott bill”, Kendra.
My bad, it’s Cardin not Cardiff.
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-israel-anti-boycott-act-threatens-first-amendment-rights
“Last week, the ACLU came out against a bill that would criminalize constitutionally protected boycotts and certain speech targeting Israel.”
The name is Cardin.
Bizarre.
Simply bizarre.
I sent you a check of support which has not been cashed, causing a problem. As for the attack by the usual enemies of free speech, ask David Irving about that!
Hank, I received it. Kind thanks. It will be deposited shortly.
Greatly appreciated!
The Glenn Greenwald article on The Intercept clearly lays it all out.
This Bill is actually much more than just a thorough and complete violation of the 1st Amendment in multiple ways. It is treasonous.
The fact that elected officials of the US would propose legislation that would allow US citizens to be inprisoned for up to 20 years for boycotting businesses in another country, is the definition of treason.
Of course, AIPAC is behind this, so it’s a bipartisan effort.
Does the state possess the same contractual rights as individuals?
And if it does, why can’t the state just like any individual choose to contract or choose not to contract with whomever they choose for whatever reason?
This business of teasing out the various rights and obligations is really a problem when state entities act like private parties in mixed economies.
I fail to see how the government is violating any first amendment freedoms by curtailing speech rights. The teacher is still quite free to engage in her protest. She is simply being denied a contract on the basis of a set of standards laid out in the contact.
You may want to actually read the bill, Phineas.
There’s far more to what they are proposing than just being denied a contract. Which in and of itself is still a clear violation of the 1st Amendment because it still serves to purposefully stifle freedom of expression and free speech.
But for our supposed Representatives to attempt to criminalize boycotting any foreign country is an overt betrayal of We the People whose interests as citizens they are sworn to protect.
Just to make this even worse, Israel has been an overt ally for decades as long as the relationship between Israel and the US always benefits Israel far more than it benefits the United States. While at the same time Israel has been a covert enemy whenever it suits its purposes.
So now they’re using AIPAC to try to shove unconstitutional laws down our throats?!
That shit’s not going to wash off of the Israeli government or the traitors in Congress. Now they’ve clearly shown all of their cards.
What was the original intention of the First Amendment? The idea was that by virtue of an innate human dignity a person had a right to voice sincere beliefs, and that American law would protect this innate right. To put it in religious terms, the right is first given by God, then the God-given right that already exists is protected by American law. Now what is being attacked, in my opinion, is the idea of an innate or God-given right. I think the Supreme Court has made things easier for such attackers by extending First Amendment rights to such things as pornography and boycotting. As a result, according to present-day law, a person has no more right to voice a sincere belief than to view pornographic material or to engage in an economic boycott. Thus, if a law can be passed that will outlaw pornography or a boycott of Israel, the result wll be proof that there is no such thing as an innate God-given right, such as free speech. I think the real intent of the push for laws banning any boycott of Israel is indeed the elimination of the idea of an innate right, and they are just going about this in a way that will not make them look blatantly anti-American.
I believe it is time to ask, since most Americans do not care one way or another about Israel, how and why does it have so much power? We must be open to the idea that there really is a Jewish elite that is running things. This does not mean that the typical Jew you meet is a part of that.
Powerful elites run things. Some are Jews, some aren’t. It’s never a good idea or accurate to oversimplify things in such a way. It’s also one of the things I don’t tolerate here, irrespective of what groups are being demonized. We don’t do that sort of thing here to any groups.
While the Israeli lobby is unquestionably extremely powerful, so are many other lobbies. The issue is too many special interest groups have way too much power and that needs to be addressed.
I’d add that despite the power and money of the Israeli lobby, if Israel happened to be in the middle of Africa where no needed natural resources were around, it would certainly get some support due to an Israeli lobby, but nothing like what it gets currently. Bottom line, if it weren’t for massive oil reserves right next door, Israel wouldn’t get the attention and support it does. Neither would Saudi Arabia.
Use the phrase “Oligarchy” or my favorite FDR-ism, “economic royalists” if you don’t want to be ignored. Populist terms, not exclusionary or “othered” terms. Catch more flies with honey than vinegar, etc etc.
Puts all economic parasites in the same boat, Jewish or not.
Greed is not unique to Jews.
Reply to MK, since there is no reply button:
I should have left it at “How and why does Israel have so much power over us?” and left it for others to fill in the blank.
I made it clear I was not making a statement about all Jews. I have no hatred for Jews. I actually do not give them much thought.
Most groups of people have subgroups that are undesirable. The Bible makes it clear there was a Jewish elite that wanted Jesus dead. This is not an excuse to blame or hate all Jews.
As for your last statement, if all we cared about was natural resources, we would be supporting Israel’s enemies.
No there was an elite that wanted Jesus dead. Since Jesus was a practicing Jew, that was all in the family.
This whole line of thought is simply ridiculous, so let’s end it now.
As I said, there’s no place here for demonizing any groups based on religion, race, gender, etc. There are plenty of sites for that, so if that’s your thing, go there.
If this Bill ends up getting passed then the Saudi’s will be looking to get some sort of equal treatment, eventually.
We’ll see how that plays out up the road. Because it looks like this is going to pass in some form.
Genero, before I go away I want to say that I agree with your posts completely. I think there ought to be a distinction between direct violations of the First Amendment, such as the censoring of free speech, and inferential violations of the First Amendment, such as the instance under discussion regarding the boycotting of Israel, nevertheless I agree with you completely regarding the things you said in your posts, and I wish to say that before I go away. Why am I going away? I am a known critic of what I shall term the “Sumerians,” and I don’t think such beliefs are welcome here, based on what has just been said by the boss of this place. If I am not welcome here, that’s fine. I am not one to insist that I should be welcome anywhere. And believe me, there are lots of places where I am unwelcome.
I appreciate the cordial replies and the discussion.
The fundamental problem underlying this is the state monopoly on education. The state’s usurpation of power over this most fundamental institution has muddled these issues of rights.
Private citizens have every right to the freedom to associate and trade with whomever they please for whatever reason. Though our laws often don’t reflect that reality either.
If the bill (or is it already a law given the facts) in fact seeks to criminalize speech and is passed it will be challenged and likely ruled against on appeal.
Legislatures have tried to curtail speech rights since before the ink was dry after penning the document. The Alien and Sedition acts come to mind. And we still struggle with properly crafting laws that genuinely respect and preserve rights rather than violate them.
“If the bill (or is it already a law given the facts) in fact seeks to criminalize speech and is passed it will be challenged and likely ruled against on appeal.”
Phineas, this is important. The Bill has not been passed, so it is not law.
But as Greenwald pointed out in his article in The Intercept; “Thus far, not a single member of Congress has joined the ACLU in denouncing this bill”. So we shall see if that changes thanks to some light being shed on this atrocity by the alternative media. As your definitely not going to hear about it from the MSM on the right or the left.
In the meantime, anyone who cares should contact there Senators and Congressmen and raise holy hell with them. If enough wheels start squeaking, then they’ll at least have to address the issue overtly, instead of covertly.
But the overarching point is still the fact that this Bill was even written and proposed in the first place, and it’s obvious that the disloyal pieces of garbage in both Houses would have quietly and almost unanimously voted the Bill into law were it not for the ACLU sending this letter to all of the members of the Senate last Tuesday.
https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-senate-opposing-israel-anti-boycott-act
As I have already said, now they have shown their cards. “They” being the Israeli government, AIPAC, and the Congress.
It is not surprising to me that our elected Representatives could care less about the 1st Amendment. What does surprise (and worries) me is that they would demonstrate that in such a flagrant and bipartisan manner.
As George Carlin said: “The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.”
So I think there’s even more to this than just what’s in the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720) Bill. I’ve got a bad feeling on this one. Something tells me that the recent coziness between the Saudi’s and Israeli’s ties into this somehow.
If you’ve never read, “Skinny Legs and All” by the brilliant writer Tom Robbins, I highly recommend it. There has never been a book written that better illustrates all of the intricacies of the middle-east and the ancient Jewish-Arab problem. There is always a method to Robbins madness, and this situation is rapidly becoming as crazy as the book.
MK,
That’s fine. Like what has been said, you’re the boss. The sites where my views are welcomed are sgtreport.com and paulcraigroberts.org, not exactly neo-Nazi sites.
This June marked the 30th anniversary of the attack on the U.S.S Liberty, unarmed and in international waters, intentionally and knowingly by Israel. They tried to sink it and they strafed the crew to try to kill everyone on board. The communication antennas were one of the first things they attacked so that they could not radio for help.
What they did would normally be considered a war crime.
They were able to radio for help. The fleet commander sent planes from an aircraft carrier nearby. But, they were ordered back by LBJ, the president.
The survivors were ordered to keep quiet about the incident. It has been covered up by both the government and the media.
Am I out of line to ask how Israel has so much power to get away with this and have both the government and media complicit?
Correction to my post: It has been 50 years since Israel attacked the U.S.S Liberty.
Correction to your last post:
I never demonized any group based on religion, race or gender. That is the ridiculous statement.
Is pointing out there are white supremists demonizing whites?
Is pointing out there are Hispanic gangs demonizing Hispanics?
Is pointing out there are priests that molest children demonizing Catholics?
I find it ironic that in an article about free speech, you tell others go elsewhere to express themselves.
Kevin, I tried to reason with you and give you the benefit of the doubt, but you continue to spam the site and act like a petulant child.
You wrote: “We must be open to the idea that there really is a Jewish elite that is running things.”
Your words, not mine.
Take your bigotry and nonsense (and your commentary has been nonsense on many topics for a long time, as many readers have pointed out), elsewhere.
I’ve been clear about my intention for the comments section on this site constantly over time. My intent is to build a community of people, who while they may disagree with each other and me, do so in a thoughtful, decent manner that pushes to elevate commentary and unite the people as opposed to bigotry and division. You are not a positive addition to the community here, as others have also pointed out over time.
Like I said, plenty of websites for bigots like you.
wow