Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Jul 12, 2011
Boycott Law Ramification
The new "Boycott Law" is very controversial, making waves at every level. It will likely be challenged in the Supreme Court, and my guess would be the Supreme Court will knock it down for infringing on the basic rights of expression.
Regardless of the debate whether the law should have been passed or not, there is an interesting possible outcome of the law.
the "Boycott Law" says that anybody who calls for a boycott on Israel or on any body within the territory of Israel, will be able to be sued for damages as a result of the call to boycott as it will be a civil offense . Such a call to boycott, whether academically, economically or culturally, will cause the public body doing so to lose its legal status and will not be eligible for tax deductions.
A possible outcome of this law is that religious institutions or askanim who call to boycott companies or organizations, due to chillul shabbos for example, it seems will be liable under the same law.
I wonder how they will be affected. The law, as far as I can tell, does not say anything about the call for boycott being due to nationalistic reasons. Any call to boycott will be so liable.
Regardless of the debate whether the law should have been passed or not, there is an interesting possible outcome of the law.
the "Boycott Law" says that anybody who calls for a boycott on Israel or on any body within the territory of Israel, will be able to be sued for damages as a result of the call to boycott as it will be a civil offense . Such a call to boycott, whether academically, economically or culturally, will cause the public body doing so to lose its legal status and will not be eligible for tax deductions.
A possible outcome of this law is that religious institutions or askanim who call to boycott companies or organizations, due to chillul shabbos for example, it seems will be liable under the same law.
I wonder how they will be affected. The law, as far as I can tell, does not say anything about the call for boycott being due to nationalistic reasons. Any call to boycott will be so liable.
Labels:
boycott,
chillul shabbos,
laws
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
In Canada, a law cannot be challenged as unconstitutional unless you are being charged with violating that law. There was a classic case where, traffic tickets were being thrown out because the law wasn't written in french. It took years to overturn the law because the tickets kept getting thrown out before they reached the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone just challenge a law here, or is there the same concept of only being able to challenge a law that you have been charged with?
I think I saw earlier this evening that it has already been appealed to the Supreme Court and the SC has given the State 60 days to respond
ReplyDeleteThe law, as far as I can tell, does not say anything about the call for boycott being due to nationalistic reasons.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is 100% correct. The definition of boycott in the law is:
"הימנעות במתכוון מקשר כלכלי, תרבותי או אקדמי עם אדם או עם גורם אחר, רק מחמת זיקתו למדינת ישראל, מוסד ממוסדותיה או אזור הנמצא בשליטתה, שיש בה כדי לפגוע בו פגיעה כלכלית, תרבותית או אקדמית".
Or in English (brushed up version of the translation on the ACRI site):
"intentionally avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with an individual or other body only because of their links to the State of Israel, one of its institutions or territory under its control, in a manner liable to cause economic, cultural or academic damage."
(emphasis added)
I would have thought that "Only because of their links to the State of Israel" excluded a call to boycott due to chillul shabbat. On the other hand, it sounds as if maybe Chinuch Atzmai does fit the definition...
you may be right. I didnt see the original text of the law, and only read articles that explained it. I didnt notice a mention of it.
ReplyDeleteI was eading in the evening some are concerned that this law will boomerang and be used against such fights as the recent cottage cheese boycott and the like. According to this that wont be possible. At least not easily