Shannon demonstration

by Daithi Mon Oct 07, 2002 21:50 macsithd at tcd dot ie

This is my personal opinion and not that of any organisation.

I call on all concerned activists to protest in the strongest terms the support shown for blatant discrimination by the Irish Anti-War Movement this week.

There has been copious coverage in the media (Irish and international) of the refusal of an Irishman involved in the tourist industry, Brian O'Shea of Kerry, to do business with a citizen of Israel. In a bulletin, the IAWM referred to this incident in a dismissive fashion and called for "messages of solidarity" to be emailed to O'Shea.

Let me make myself clear. This is one of the most disgraceful things that I have ever heard from any apparently progressive group. In essence, the IAWM is defending the rights of a private business owner to discriminate at will. For years the fight for an Equal Status Act went on in Ireland, but now this. Mr. O'Shea never stated what his position would be if a Palestinian citizen of Israel wished to rent a cottage. Would he still refuse to do business? This would be xenophobic, not to mention foolish given his apparent sympathy with the Palestinian people. Or does this boycott extend only to Jewish citizens of Israel? This is of course anti-Jewish prejudice of the worst order.

Furthermore, I have never come across a legitimate boycott where individual citizens of the country being targeted are treated like this. Certainly, there have been trade boycotts, and refusals to deal with official business of the nation, or with teams representing that nation, but this goes beyond any concept of principled political action and is pure discrimination. A concerned citizen could refuse to visit Israel, but to attempt to boycott individual citizens, and to refuse to deal with a single person, no matter what their views on or connections to the current conflict, is reprehensible and shameful, and has nothing to do with the valuable and essential anti-war actions of the IAWM, needed more at this time than ever.

Le meas,

Daithi Mac Sithigh

by Ray Tue Oct 08, 2002 09:18

- This is of course anti-Jewish prejudice of the worst order.

I can't agree. The hotelier in question said he wouldn't take bookings from Israeli citizens. That's completely different from refusing to take bookings from Jews. That makes it a political, rather than religious, action.

Boycotts always affect individual citizens. Nike shareholders are individuals. MacDonalds franchisees are individuals. South African fruit exporters are individuals. The current boycott of Israeli academia affects individuals. Not all of the individuals affected by a boycott may support the policies that are being protested against.

Personally, I think this guy should have accepted the booking. And then imposed a round-the-clock curfew on his guest.

by Daithi Tue Oct 08, 2002 10:35

Ray, thanks for the comment. I was saying that if it was citizen based, it was xenophobic and self-defeating (as he would end up refusing to deal with, for an example, an active Arab peace campaigner on an Israeli passport - which I find highly unlikely), but if it was narrower than that, it was clearly religion based.

On the point of the individual target - in all the examples you cite, it is the business activities of the "person" being targeted - what's happening here is personal. It would be like the Dunnes boycott being carried out in a way that, instead of refusing to handle and sell the fruit, the staff refused entry or to serve anyone who was South African.

So it would have been justified to make a political point by refusing to deal with tour operators or to pay for ad space in publications in the nation being boycotted but this goes too far, in my opinion.

(Anyway, if the IAWM - many socialists, if I recall) do establish this point - that you can refuse service on the basis of nationality - they undermine the basis of one of the seven grounds of prohibited discrimination under Equal Status. A hotelowner could refuse to serve a Nigerian - "it's not his race, I'm protesting the actions of the Nigerian government".

by Ray Tue Oct 08, 2002 10:55

- Ray, thanks for the comment. I was saying that if it was citizen based, it was xenophobic and self-defeating

The nature of boycotts is that they paint with a broad brush. A boycott of South African produce would have effected black exporters and workers, and anti-apartheid white exporters.

- (as he would end up refusing to deal with, for an example, an active Arab peace campaigner on an Israeli passport - which I find highly unlikely), but if it was narrower than that, it was clearly religion based.

If he had allowed black South Africans to stay in his hotel, but not white South Africans, would that have been racist?

- On the point of the individual target - in all the examples you cite, it is the business activities of the "person" being targeted

I don't think this is an important distinction to be honest. A boycott is a boycott. Besides, during the apartheid years musicians and sportspeople also boycotted South Africa. That didn't target business activities.

- (Anyway, if the IAWM - many socialists, if I recall) do establish this point - that you can refuse service on the basis of nationality - they undermine the basis of one of the seven grounds of prohibited discrimination under Equal Status.

Relying on the law to enforce equality (or anything, for that matter) is a bad idea. You don't defeat racism (or fascism) by trying to get it declared illegal, or by trying to get the police to arrest 'bad' people. You do it by tackling the ideas directly.

- A hotelowner could refuse to serve a Nigerian - "it's not his race, I'm protesting the actions of the Nigerian government".

1) The Israeli refused service wasn't a refugee, was he?
2) Equal Status Act or no, racial discrimination is alive and well in Ireland. But when the police are racist, and refugees have no economic or political power...

by Daithi Tue Oct 08, 2002 13:03

Yes - if he'd served black or not white that would have been racist - so whatever way this action was configured it still constitutes discrimination in my mind. (The only bit that's unclear was whether it was race- or national origin- or religion-based).

By the way, Ray, what did I say about refugees? I hope you're not implying that all Nigerians are refugees. You and I know that non-white tourists, citizens, and refugees alike are suffering at the hands of racism. I agree that the law is never enough to challenge racism, but I believe that anyone engaging in business can be regulated by the State - there are certain communal values that private rights should not infringe. I truly believe that the position of Irish travellers and other groups will improve under the Equal Status act, as an interim measure towards the long-overdue change in attitudes.

by Ray Tue Oct 08, 2002 13:45

- Yes - if he'd served black or not white that would have been racist

I don't think its racist so much as that it recognises that the person in question has been discriminated against because of their race. Its one thing to say that there's no difference between black people and white people (which is true), and another to say (during the apartheid years) that there's no difference between a white South African and a black South African. That statement is clearly false.

So a landlord that discriminates between people on the basis of their colour is discriminating on the basis of a fundamentally imaginary quality. A landlord who discriminates between _South Africans_ on the basis of their colour is discriminating between people on the basis of an imaginary quality _which has been recognised in law_. One is racist, the other is politically aware.

In this recent case, the landlord was not distinguishing between Jews and everybody else (or Jews and Arabs). There was never any suggestion that Jewish people from other countries were unwelcome - or even that he ever asked what religion his guests were. So you can't really describe it as 'anti-Jewish prejudice'. He did distinguish between Israelis and everybody else. That's a distinction based on political actions, not religion or race.

- By the way, Ray, what did I say about refugees? I hope you're not implying that all Nigerians are refugees.

It wasn't my intention, though I could see how it could be interpreted that way. My point was more that the people who are more likely to be refused service are refugees, and there its not just that they're black, but that they're poor too.

by Daithi Tue Oct 08, 2002 14:07

Yes, I accept that he was probably acting purely politically, and directed towards Israel, not Jews.

However...

I still don't find it acceptable. It opens up a general exemption to anti-discrimination laws. If a landlord of a pub was to refuse to serve English people based on his "boycott because of the North" or any political opinion, it would be, according to your argument, justifiable as a boycott. The law that bans national origin discrimination (which of course doesn't apply to produce boycotts etc) is then worthless.

You can't draw a distinction between "boycotts we like" and "boycotts we don't like", think of "No Irish" signs, again if political awareness is an excuse for discrimination an English hotel owner would be allowed to justify refusing to rent rooms to Irish tourists because of some action of the Irish government. I suspect that the vast majority of well-meaning IAWM members didn't know that they supported this type of action.

by Ray Tue Oct 08, 2002 15:29

- You can't draw a distinction between "boycotts we like" and "boycotts we don't like",

So you're ruling out the use of boycotts then, in all circumstances.

You _can_ draw a distinction between boycotts-you-support and boycotts-you-oppose, as long as you do it on a case-by-case basis, and don't try to write it into the law.

The difference between your position and mine is that you seem to believe in the possibility of drawing up a perfect set of laws that, when enacted, will be sufficient to safeguard 'social justice'.
I'm inclined to think that any set of laws you draw up will, in their application at least, reflect the inequalities and prejudices of a society. 'Equality before the law' is, and always will be, a fiction, as long as political and economic power is unequally distributed.

The way to defend boycotts you like is not to argue that they are, or should be legal, but to argue that they're right. That means defending them yourself instead of looking to the police or courts to do it for you.
The way to attack boycotts (or fascism, or strike-breaking, or war, or privatisation...) is not to argue that they are, or should be, illegal, but that they're wrong. That means stopping them yourself instead of looking to the police and courts to do it for you.

by Aoife Ni Fhearghail - IAWM - personal note Tue Oct 08, 2002 15:47 aoifenf at hotmail dot com D8 087 7955013

The Irish Anti-War Movement does not yet have any position on the situation in the Killarney holiday village. While supporting the boycott campaign we have not worked out how this applies in individual situations. It was brought up at a steering committee meeting last night and we're looking into the situation - however, I had already jumped the gun when I posted the bulletin before yesterday's meeting.

Apologies therefore to the rest of the IAWM committee for not checking their views on this first. Comments I wrote on this yesterday were my own personal opinions and should not have been included in a general anti-war email.

Personally I stand over them completely. The journalist in question is not to my knowledge involved in any of the Israeli peace movements nor am I aware of any statement from him distancing himself from the actions of the Sharon regime. Perhaps further research will show that Mr Bender has refused military service, doesn't buy settlement produce, writes articles condemning the occupation and has called for Sharon to be tried as a war criminal.

Although I'm sincerely hopeful that I am wrong I do not believe that this is the case. The government and Bord Failte's response smacks of the grossest hypocrisy. While they fail to condemn the atrocities committed by the Israeli State, they are literally falling over themselves to extend a 'cead mile failte' to Mr Bender - I'm not sure what percentage of the GFP comes from Israeli tourists but clearly this is more important to the current government than promoting justice for the people of Palestine.

Again, these are my opinions only and do not represent the Irish Anti-War Movement

Aoife Ni Fhearghail
087 7955013

by William A Finnerty Tue Oct 08, 2002 16:39

Mr O'Shea in Killarney Cottages was wrong in his treatment of the visitor from Israel. Let me put it like this, I booked into a hotel in Chester once only to be told when I wrote down my Dundalk, Co. Louth address to F off and get out. Naturally I was shocked and asked why I was being thrown out only to be told I was a provo scumbag. Now I totally disagree with Sinn Fein/PIRA terrorism yet just because I was from Dundalk they made assumptions about me. I have often marched against Sinn Fein/PIRA and signed petitions etc, but they didn't know this.

by Nicholas McMurry - Too many to mention Tue Oct 08, 2002 17:55 nicholas at avernus dot net

Do not discriminate against individuals. Mr. O'Shea did not bother to find out the politics of his potential guest.

Boycott Nike for sure, but that does not mean refusing to have anything to do with any Nike shareholder - it means not buying the produce of a crap institution.

There are amazing peace and justice groups in Israel - Bt'salem, Rabbis for Human Rights etc. etc. etc. Please do not tar them all with the same brush.

I hope everybody turns out for Shannon on Saturday. 2000 Belgians stormed a NATO base the other day. The British had about 0.75% of their entire population in London the other Saturday. In Irish terms that would be about 30,000 (including Northern Ireland).