Posts
CRIMINALIZING CRITICISM OF ISRAEL: AN ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
BY
ALLAN C. BROWNFELD
------------------------------
In
the last Congress, legislation was introduced which would, in effect,
criminalize criticism of Israel. The legislation, known as the Israel
Anti-Boycott Act was characterized by The New York Times as "clearly
part of a widening effort to silence one side of the debate.. That is
not in the interests of Israel, the United States or their shared
democratic values."
The
proposal's chief sponsors were Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman
(R-OH). It was promoted by the Republican Party's chief financial
supporter, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. AIPAC, and some Evangelical
groups. It failed to win passage, but is being introduced again in the
current Congress.
Opposition
has been bipartisan. Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders
(I-VT) issued a statement declaring that, "While we do not support the
BDS (boycott, disinvestment, sanctions) movement, we remain resolved to
our constitutional oath to defend the right of every American to express
their views peacefully without penalty or actual punishment by the
government."
Sen. Rand
Paul (R-KY) stated that, "I am not in favor of boycotting Israel...At
the same time I am concerned about what the role of Congress can and
should be in this situation. I strongly oppose any legislation that
attempts to ban boycotts or ban people who support boycotts from
participating in our government..America is the land of freedom of
expression and a hallmark of a truly free country is that it allows
expressions, and actions that we don't agree with,"
Peaceful
boycotts are, Sen..Paul points out, an intrinsic part of our history:
"It was founded amidst a boycott of English tea. Abolitionists
boycotted slave goods. Rosa Parks led the boycott against segregated
busing. The bus boycott lasted for 382 days in 1955 and 1956.
Thousands of black men and women boycotted the Montgomery, Alabama bus
system to end segregation. The law shouldn't be used to shut down
protests or boycotts no matter what the dispute involved....The First
Amendment is not about speech you like and speech you don't like."
In
the 1982 case of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. the Supreme Court held
that the economic boycott of white-owned businesses by blacks was
entitled to First Amendment protection. It argued that "a non-violent,
politically motivated boycott" was political speech and protected.
Twenty
six states have passed laws which penalize those who support a
voluntary, peaceful boycott of Israel because of its 51-year occupation
of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by denying them public contracts or
public employment. Consider the Texas law and its impact upon Bauia
Amawi, a children's speech pathologist in the Austin public schools,
having worked for the past nine years with developmentally disabled,
autistic, and speech -impaired elementary school children. She was told
that she could no longer work with the public school system after she
refused to sign an oath vowing that she "does not" and "will not" engage
in a boycott of Israel "or otherwise take any action that is intended
to inflict economic harm" on that foreign country.
A
lawsuit has been filed on her behalf in December in a federal district
court in Texas alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free
speech. Writing in The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald notes that the oath
Amawi was asked to sign "reads like Orwellian ---or McCarthyite
self-parody, the classic political loyalty oath that every American
should instinctively shudder upon reading. Whatever one's own views
are, boycotting Israel to stop its occupation is a global political
movement modeled on the 1980s boycott aimed at South Africa that helped
end that country's system of apartheid."
The
required certification about Israel, Greenwald points out, "was the
only one in the contract that pertained to political opinions or
activism. In order to obtain a contract in Texas, then, a citizen is
free to denounce and work against the United States, to advocate for
causes that directly harm American children and even to,support a
boycott of particular U.S. states---such as was done in 2017 to North
Carolina---in,protest of its anti-LGBT law---to continue to work. The
sole political affirmation Texans are required to sign in order to work
with the school system's children is to.protect the economic interests
not of the U.S. or Texas--but of Israel."
Laws
similar that in Texas have already been successfully challenged by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Arizona and Kanszs. In
Arizona. in September 2018 a federal district court blocked Arizona from
requiring state contractors to certify that they have not participated
in any boycotts of Israel. The court agreed with the ACLU that the law
violated the contractor's free speech rights under the First Amendment.
Federal District Judge Diane Humetawa declared, "A restriction of one's
ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel
unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to
engage in such a boycott." In the Kansas case, the court held that the
First Amendment protected the right of citizens to "band together and
express collectively their dissent...with the injustice and violence
they perceive, as experienced both by Palestinians and Israelis."
According
to the ACLU, "The Kansas and Arizona decisions send a clear message :
the First Amendment right to boycott is alive and well. But our work
is far from over . Similar contract requirements are on the books in 24
other states." Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute
Center for Constitutional Studies, says: "It is not a proper function
of law to force Americans into,court on foreign commerce they personally
find politically objectionable, whether their reasons for reluctance be
good, bad or arbitrary."
If
the supporters of laws limiting free speech think that by doing so they
will find support in the Jewish community, they may have seriously
mis-assessed public opinion. AIPAC and Sheldon Adelson may embrace such
laws, but the vast majority of American Jews not only believe in free
speech, but also oppose Israel's occupation and support the creation of q
Palestinian state. The Jewish News of Northern California
characterized the Texas law this way: "It has all the appearances of
an overbearing government thought-police pressing down on the little
guy, holding pay checks hostage in order to demand ideological
conformity on the merits of a country two continents away.. What
possible business is it of Texas what a random speech pathologist does
or doesn't think about Israel? Condemnation has been swift and brutal
and in many cases crossed partisan boundaries."
If
Israel and those who support its government have good arguments to make
against the BDS movement, they should make them in the court of public
opinion----not use courts of law to silence their critics. That, after
all, is how a free and democratic society works.
##
------------------------------
Allan C. Brownfeld is a nationally syndicated columnist and is
editor of ISSUES, the quarterly journal of the American Council
for Judaism.
No comments:
Post a Comment