BRICUP Newsletter 136 July/August 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BRICUP Newsletter 136 July/August 2020 www.bricup.org.uk [email protected] CONTENTS P 8. Urgent call about the harassment P 2. Apartheid Off Campus - two major of Palestinian scientists successes for the new student network Scientists for Palestine The Editor P 9. COVID 19 in Palestine P 2. Baldassi & Others v. France: From the Jewish Voice for Peace Health Article 10 protects the right to call for a boycott of goods from Israel P 9. Update from the UK Palestine Robert Wintemute, BRICUP Mental Health Network (UKPMHN) ‘Café Palestine’ and ‘Settler Colonialism: the P 5. Important Victory for the US Palestine/Israel case’ Campaign to Boycott Israeli Martin Kemp, UKPALMHN Universities Announcement from USACBI P 10. News from The European Co- Ordination of Committees and P 5. Palestinian rights activists celebrate Associations for Palestine (ECCP) political victory in Germany after Humboldt 3 trial Sue Blackwell, BRICUP delegate to ECCP Editor P 10. News from The Association of Academics for the P 6. Don’t mention Palestine: Respect of International Law in divestment as a legitimacy problem Palestine (AURDIP), Les Levidow- BRICUP P 10. Belgian Campaign for the P 8. The arrest of BDS coordinator Academic Boycott of Israel (BACBI) Mahmoud Nawajaa The Palestinian BDS Committee: US Campaign for the academic and Cultural boycott of Israel (USACBI) armed and adapted to demolish Palestinian homes. Booking Holdings Inc. is in the United P 11. Books and Articles Nations database of companies involved in Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank. More details can be found here. P 11. SIGN THE COMMITMENT UK Scholars for human rights in ***** Palestine IN COURT P 12 . NOTICES Baldassi & Others v. France: Article 10 protects the right to call for a boycott of goods from Israel Robert Wintemute, BRICUP -who gave some CAMPUS NEWS advice to the lawyers for the applicants Apartheid Off Campus - two major Reprinted with permission from the Strasbourg successes for the new student network Observers website, The Editor Criticism of the policies of a government, and calls for peaceful action intended to put pressure Apartheid off Campus (Facebook page here) is a on it to change its policies, would normally be student-led independent network that advocates considered political expression protected by for Palestinian human rights and for UK Article 10 of the European Convention on Human universities to cut ties with Israeli apartheid. Rights. But, since at least 1973, when Israel’s Since its launch earlier this year, over 250 Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, wrote that “[a]nti- individual students have joined, and the AOC Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism”, campaign now has associations with a large attempts have been made to characterise criticism number of campus-based student groups across of the Government of Israel’s treatment of the the UK. (Mondoweiss have recently reported on Palestinians as “anti-Semitic” (“anti-Jewish”), and AOC’s activities) therefore as a form of hate speech. Describing These include SOAS and the University of West Israel-Palestine as a situation of “apartheid”, and London, where campaigns to bring an end to calling for a boycott of goods from Israeli partnerships with the Hebrew University of settlements (built illegally in occupied Palestinian Jerusalem (HUJ) have just resulted in the territory) or from anywhere in 1949-67 Israel, is termination of their student exchange especially likely to trigger this programmes. The HUJ is located in occupied East characterisation. In Baldassi & Others v. Jerusalem, on stolen Palestinian land, and the France (11 June 2020), the European Court of exchange students therefore stay in halls of Human Rights ruled unanimously (7-0) that residence situated on land illegally occupied by Article 10 protects the right to call for a boycott Israeli settlers. Many leading UK academic of goods from Israel. institutions, including the universities of Oxford, Criminal prosecutions for peaceful political Manchester and Leeds, run these exchange expression schemes and have been accused by Amnesty International of “actively linking themselves to a The eleven applicants were supporters of whole system of illegality, discrimination and the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestments, or exploitation” for doing so. More details can be Sanctions (BDS) against Israel (similar to those found here and here. applied to Apartheid South Africa prior to 1994), until Israel complies with its obligations under The University of Manchester has also just international law, especially in relation to its divested more than $5 million illegal settlements and the right of Palestinian from Caterpillar and the parent company of travel refugees to return to their homes. The applicants site Booking.com. Caterpillar supplies participated in two demonstrations at the same bulldozers to the Israeli army which have been 2 supermarket on 26 September 2009 and 22 May violent or caused any damage. Instead, they had 2010, at which they urged consumers not to been convicted of calling for a boycott of Israeli purchase goods imported from Israel. There was goods (paras. 71-72). no violence or damage, but they were charged The Court then noted that, as interpreted and with inciting economic discrimination against applied in this case, French law prohibits any call producers of goods in Israel. France appears to be for a boycott of products because of their the only Council of Europe member state in geographic origin, whatever the content of the which criminal prosecutions of this kind have call, its motivation, or the surrounding taken place (a 12 February 2010 Ministry of circumstances (para. 75) (It would appear that Justice circular encouraged prosecutions). consumer boycotts based on geographic origin The trial court, the Tribunal correctionel de had been tolerated in France, except in the case of Mulhouse, acquitted the applicants on 15 Israel, which might have raised an issue under December 2011, having been convinced of the Article 14 combined with Article 10.) But the absence of incitement to racial or anti-Semitic French courts did not demonstrate that, in the hatred. The court of appeal, the Cour d’appel de circumstances, the conviction of the applicants for Colmar, convicted them on 27 November 2013, calling for a boycott of products from Israel was imposing suspended fines of 1000 EUR per necessary in a democratic society to achieve the participant for each demonstration, and ordering legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others the collective payment of 28,000 EUR in (para. 77). compensation to four intervening non- Reasoning taking into account the circumstances governmental organisations. The supreme civil was all the more essential in this case, in which court, the Cour de Cassation, upheld their Article 10 requires a raised level of protection of convictions on 20 October 2015, concluding the right to freedom of expression. On the one (without giving reasons) that the convictions were hand, the actions and words for which the “necessary in a democratic society” under Article applicants were criticised concerned a subject of 10(2). general interest, respect for public international The Chamber’s reasoning under Article 10 law by the State of Israel and the human rights Was the clear interference with the applicants’ situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, Article 10(1) right to freedom of expression (the and was part of a contemporary debate, in France imposition of criminal penalties) “necessary in a as in the whole international community. On the democratic society” for the protection of the other hand, these actions and words were a form “rights of others” under Article 10(2)? The Court of political and activist expression. The Court has began by observing that a boycott is a means of stressed on numerous occasions that Article 10(2) expressing protesting opinions. A call to boycott, leaves very little room for restrictions on freedom which seeks to communicate these opinions, of expression in the area of political discourse or while calling for specific actions linked to them, questions of general interest (para. 78). therefore enjoys in principle the protection of As the Court recalled in Perinçek v. Switzerland, Article 10 (para. 63). by its nature political discourse is a source of However, a call to boycott combines the polemics and is often virulent. It remains expression of a protesting opinion and incitement nonetheless of public interest, unless it to differential treatment, which means that it degenerates into a call for violence, hate, or might constitute a call for discrimination against intolerance. That is the limit not to be others. A call for discrimination is a form of call crossed. That is also what the United Nations for intolerance which, like a call for violence or a Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or call for hate, is one of the limits not to be crossed belief stressed, in relation to a call to boycott, in in exercising freedom of expression. But inciting his report (para. 79). The Court rejected the to treat differently is not necessarily the same as French Government’s argument that the inciting to discriminate (para. 64). applicants’ actions could be categorised as comments calling for hate, violence, The applicants were not convicted of having made discrimination, or intolerance (para. 52). As racist or anti-Semitic statements, or for having compensation for the violation of Article 10, the incited hatred or violence. They had not been 3 Court ordered France to pay each applicant 7380 54.. other types of considerations, such as those EUR (paras. 85-86). relating to the observance of international law, may also be relevant in that context. Comparative human rights law Baldassi & Others in 2020 reaches the same 55.. consumers’ purchasing decisions may be conclusion as the Supreme Court of the United informed by [ethical] considerations relating to States in National Association for the the fact that the foodstuffs … come from Advancement of Colored People v.