Human rights group threatens Australian professors against Israel boycott

[davidhaslanded]

A human rights group has delivered a strong warning to Australian professors after they called to boycott Israel.

A Tel Aviv-based civil rights group warned Australian supporters of a proposed boycott against Israel on Thursday that their activities were racist, and in violation of Australian Federal anti-discrimination laws. Recently, faculty and students at Sydney University called for the severing of links with Israeli institutions.

http://www.yourjewishnews.com/2013/06/n27665.html

[DetlefK]

1. Terrible article. Who boycotts who, how and why???

I didn't get it.

[shaayecanaan]

2. Bring it on...

Somehow I dont think they'd be stupid enough to actually start legal proceedings, but it would be fun if they did.

[azurnoir]

3. Shurat Ha'din attempted to seize Iranian antiquites that were on loan to the Univerity of Chicago

and attempted to sue Jimmy Carter both cases were eventually lost or thrown out of court

[shaayecanaan]

4. Ah right, that makes sense...

A bit of a Church of Scientology outfit, then.

FWIW, the Australian laws that they reference have very little application to consumer boycotts.

A secondary boycott (to which Section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act refers) generally takes place in labour disputes.

For instance, a car maker sacks its union workforce and starts manufacturing cheap cars using non-union labour. The car maker then attempts to export those cars, but the waterfront workers union, acting in solidarity with the auto workers union, instructs its workers to refuse to load any containers from that particular car maker. That would amount to a secondary boycott by the waterfront workers union, although it still may be lawful. An essential element of a secondary boycott is that you are boycotting goods from a party with whom you personally have no dispute.

The section specifically says that a first person must not conspire with a second person to prevent a third person from acquiring or supplying goods to a fourth person.

In this case, the BDS people are urging consumers to boycott goods from Israel. I don't think consumers generally would be considered a distinct person for the purposes of the provision. Even if there were, there is nothing secondary about the boycott. BDS are urging people to boycott products without recourse to a second party.

[King_David]

5. Not sure why they would waste their time in Australia tho

Nice beaches and beer but not an influential world powerhouse unless we talking the leaders in the study of Malignant Melanoma and even then...