Swedish Ports ban israeli Ships from docking in response to flotilla attack

Laminations

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

I presume there is more than one person involved in the Swedish dockers Union, I'd wager a large bet that they're are many people involved in the union. The union put forth a proposition to the membership which was democratically voted on.

So the "me" part in your argument is pretty fallacious. The actions carried out by the union aren't done by a single individual, rather the actions are done by a rather large number of workers who are exercising their democratic right to protest.

Unions do not have a mandate to decide upon these issues for the rest of the population. I dont care whether there is a democratic process involved within the decision making, a unions role should be limited to ensuring workers rights and conditions. I'll rephrase the question, should dockworkers be allowed limit the supply of chocolate or condoms or porn based on a unionised moral position (democratic or not)

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

well I don't accept that that is what living in a democracy entails. And you still haven't answered my question on chocolate. If I was in a position to prevent it, should it be my right to stop you accessing chocolate for reasons deemed important by me? Would you support me forcing my morals on you?

If you refused to allow me chocolate for your own moral reasons, as opposed to simply imposing a ban in order to demonstrate your power to do so, I would indeed respect that. I respect the right of people to do as their conscience dictates, even if it is to my disadvantage. Usually, I wouldn't even try to persuade someone go against their moral judgement, because to do so is to do violence to their conscience, and I am, I think, a reasonably persuasive person.

Am I getting the feeling you consider that a little strange?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pauleta

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

I love the way you use the idea of Irish neutrality as your reason for not supporting a boycott of Israel while also simultaneously dismissing proponents of a boycott as the "same people" complaining about uninspected U.S war planes re-fueling in Shannon.

Are you trying to be intentionally ironic or are you just totally dim-witted and ignorant of what the term "neutrality" actually means?

When did i dismiss the people protesting about U.S planes? I was pointing out that these are most likely from the same protest groups who were complaining that we were not acting in a neutral way. Its not very Neutral to be taking the side of a certain group in a war by boycotting the produce of one the countries involved. Why would they expect the country to be neutral if they are not neutral themselves?

Also i would appreciate if you didnt try an insult me just because my opinion differs to yourself. It shows a lack of class, integrity and in general mediation and fair mindedness which is a fine trait to have on a politics board. Im sorry but i just cant take you seriously anymore.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you refused to allow me chocolate for your own moral reasons, as opposed to simply imposing a ban in order to demonstrate your power to do so, I would indeed respect that. I respect the right of people to do as their conscience dictates, even if it is to my disadvantage. Usually, I wouldn't even try to persuade someone go against their moral judgement, because to do so is to do violence to their conscience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wow, well I've argued side by side with you against libertarianism but I do believe in 'live and let live' to a basic degree. You do not get to make my moral decisions for me, even if you think you are doing right, I have not given you that power. I have given government that power through my membership of this society. You can intervene if I am contravening agreed upon rules, if I am on the wrong side of the law but the bit you say (in bold) is scary. You can by all means try to convince people to behave 'morally' (based in what you think is moral) as I have done and continue to do with regard to FF voting, but to suggest I should have the right to stop them voting based on my morals?? The implications for the bit in bold are just scary

Laminations

Scofflaw, does your position leave you respecting the right of the church to keep condoms out of Africa? You wouldn't want condom fearing holy men to go against their conscience?

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Wow, well I've argued side by side with you against libertarianism but I do believe in 'live and let live' to a basic degree. You do not get to make my moral decisions for me, even if you think you are doing right, I have not given you that power. I have given government that power through my membership of this society. You can intervene if I am contravening agreed upon rules, if I am on the wrong side of the law but the bit you say (in bold) is scary. You can by all means try to convince people to behave 'morally' (based in what you think is moral) as I have done and continue to do with regard to FF voting, but to suggest I should have the right to stop them voting based on my morals?? The implications for the bit in bold are just scary

Um, the implications for the bit in bold are not by any means unlimited! Chocolate is one thing, voting is another. It's not acceptable to exercise your conscience to the extent of denying other people their rights - but there is no such right as "never being affected by other people's decisions".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Scofflaw, does your position leave you respecting the right of the church to keep condoms out of Africa? You wouldn't want condom fearing holy men to go against their conscience?

Hmm..no, I wouldn't respect the right of the Church to keep condoms out of Africa. I respect their right to try (although if I had the power to stop them I would use it, and they'd just have to try harder), and I certainly respect the right of individuals not to distribute condoms. I don't consider that they should be allowed to prevent other people doing so, or to teach dangerous falsehoods in respect of sex, and I don't consider organisations as having rights at all, only people.

Not many clear lines there, I'm afraid! I tend to see morality in terms of the balancing of conflicting rights.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

I certainly respect the right of individuals not to distribute condoms. I don't consider that they should be allowed to prevent other people doing so

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok and I agree but now replace 'condoms' with 'Israeli produce' and you get an inconsistency in your position. Dockworkers are preventing others from distributing this produce. They are giving people no choice. This unionised stance amounts to an embargo, not a boycott.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not many clear lines there, I'm afraid! I tend to see morality in terms of the balancing of conflicting rights.

cordially,
Scofflaw

so do I but the right that takes precedence is the right to choose. The state has some mandate to choose for it's citizens, limiting individual rights but dockworkers or any other group does not, the most they can do is convince throgh rational debate

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Ok and I agree but now replace 'condoms' with 'Israeli produce' and you get an inconsistency in your position. Dockworkers are preventing others from distributing this produce. They are giving people no choice. This unionised stance amounts to an embargo, not a boycott.

There's no inconsistency there - the dock workers have the right not to handle Israeli goods if their consciences dictate that they do not. If all the dockworkers agree not to handle Israeli goods, then you have a de facto embargo, but that's an accident of positioning that cannot be allowed to prevent them exercising their consciences. People will still receive other goods, so they are creating no hardship for the people they have a duty to - in this case the people of Sweden - and as I said earlier, if the Swedish electorate object strongly to the dockworkers' action, they can pressure their politicians to make it illegal.

The Swedish dockworkers have no duty of care for the Israeli exporters, and they have no duty to ensure that Swedish consumers have access to the products of any particular country.

so do I but the right that takes precedence is the right to choose. The state has some mandate to choose for it's citizens, limiting individual rights but dockworkers or any other group does not, the most they can do is convince throgh rational debate

I wouldn't agree that there is such a thing as the right to choose in any abstract sense. Choose what, exactly? Where are the limits of that right? If I go into McDonalds, must I be allowed to choose between a Big Mac, a cheeseburger, and killing the girl behind the counter? Does my choice there have to be respected?

Again, I presume there are limits on that 'right', and I'd be interested to see what they are, because I certainly wouldn't recognise a 'right' to a choice of consumer products!

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no inconsistency there - the dock workers have the right not to handle Israeli goods if their consciences dictate that they do not.

They don't have any such right. These dockers are employed to do a job, if they refuse to do their jobs they should be disciplined and if necessary fired.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They don't have any such right. These dockers are employed to do a job, if they refuse to do their jobs they should be disciplined and if necessary fired.

That's mere assertion driven by rejection of their stance, and as a general principle it dismisses entirely the right of collective action as well as the operation of the individual conscience.

regards,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no inconsistency there - the dock workers have the right not to handle Israeli goods if their consciences dictate that they do not. If all the dockworkers agree not to handle Israeli goods, then you have a de facto embargo, but that's an accident of positioning that cannot be allowed to prevent them exercising their consciences. People will still receive other goods, so they are creating no hardship for the people they have a duty to - in this case the people of Sweden - and as I said earlier, if the Swedish electorate object strongly to the dockworkers' action, they can pressure their politicians to make it illegal.

The Swedish dockworkers have no duty of care for the Israeli exporters, and they have no duty to ensure that Swedish consumers have access to the products of any particular country.



I wouldn't agree that there is such a thing as the right to choose in any abstract sense. Choose what, exactly? Where are the limits of that right? If I go into McDonalds, must I be allowed to choose between a Big Mac, a cheeseburger, and killing the girl behind the counter? Does my choice there have to be respected?

Again, I presume there are limits on that 'right', and I'd be interested to see what they are, because I certainly wouldn't recognise a 'right' to a choice of consumer products!

cordially,
Scofflaw

A maverick union embargo is worse than a state mandated embargo, and how do you see no inconsistency? On the one hand you think people should not have the right to prevent others from distributing material (which would involve selling and buying), you try and qualify that by saying you believe in their right to try but not to succeed. But then you agree with dockworkers, and call it their right to prevent others from selling or buying Israeli produce? It's not good enough to say, 'if people don't like it, they can complain', it'll probably only affect a minority. And the bit I've put in bold sounds remarkably like the Israeli justification for the list of banned goods to Gaza; in the Israeli case it would be a lie (although what I'm reading recently says that there is no shortage of variability in Gaza, that people are starving through poverty, a lack of affordability)

Bottom line on this for me is, if an ethical issue arises in your job, you decide you can or can't continue working there. I wouldn't want the meat supply to Ireland to stop because meat workers became born again vegans. If dockworkers have issue with israels actions in this conflict they are free to exercise a personal (or collective) boycott, I'd disagree with their approach but I'd respect their position, and their right to boycott. But an embargo is denying others that choice. It's basically a similar 'collective action' based on 'individual conscience' that is responsible for the blockade on Palestine and I don't believe in fighting fire with fire (even if it's a match against a woodland blaze) as bringing more fire to the table won't ease tensions

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

A maverick union embargo is worse than a state mandated embargo, and how do you see no inconsistency? On the one hand you think people should not have the right to prevent others from distributing material (which would involve selling and buying), you try and qualify that by saying you believe in their right to try but not to succeed. But then you agree with dockworkers, and call it their right to prevent others from selling or buying Israeli produce?

And in both cases I'm supporting people's right not to go against their conscience. I appreciate you're trying to draw a parallel between the Church forbidding the distribution of condoms in Africa and the dockworkers preventing the distribution of Israeli produce, but you're comparing different bits of the question in suggesting that I'm being inconsistent. I accept the right of members of the Church not to bring condoms into an African country, even if that results in a de facto embargo. But if someone wants to bring condoms into the country without involving the Church, they have the right to do so, and the Church has no right to prevent them.

Similarly, if someone wants to bring Israeli goods into the country without involving the dockworkers, they have the right to do so, and the dockworkers have no right to prevent them. Neither here nor in Sweden are unionised dockworkers the only method of getting goods into the country.

Laminations wrote: »

It's not good enough to say, 'if people don't like it, they can complain', it'll probably only affect a minority. And the bit I've put in bold sounds remarkably like the Israeli justification for the list of banned goods to Gaza; in the Israeli case it would be a lie (although what I'm reading recently says that there is no shortage of variability in Gaza, that people are starving through poverty, a lack of affordability)

Except that Israel does control everything that goes in and out of Gaza, and is creating hardship amongst a people they have a duty of care towards. Another vital difference is that any 'hardship' the dockworkers inflict, they share.

Laminations wrote: »

Bottom line on this for me is, if an ethical issue arises in your job, you decide you can or can't continue working there. I wouldn't want the meat supply to Ireland to stop because meat workers became born again vegans. If dockworkers have issue with israels actions in this conflict they are free to exercise a personal (or collective) boycott, I'd disagree with their approach but I'd respect their position, and their right to boycott.

Again, that denies the right to collective action, which is a well-established right (most recently reiterated in the COFR), and for good reasons.

Laminations wrote: »

But an embargo is denying others that choice. It's basically a similar 'collective action' based on 'individual conscience' that is responsible for the blockade on Palestine and I don't believe in fighting fire with fire (even if it's a match against a woodland blaze) as bringing more fire to the table won't ease tensions

The Gaza blockade is not an example of collective action in the same way as the union action - it is State policy, enforced if necessary by military force as we've just seen, against another people. And pressure of exactly this kind was part of what brought apartheid to an end - this isn't a move designed to 'ease tensions', but a move to put pressure on Israel to come to the table in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Noreen1

Laminations wrote: »

Would you accept me telling you that you can't have chocolate because I deem it wrong? Not that I could limit your consumption in my position (only through trying to convince you through debate) but what if I was in a position? Would it be ok for me (completely unelected) to directly limit your choices based on my morals?

It's fortunate for you that you don't live in Gaza, then! :P:P:D

Noreen

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's mere assertion driven by rejection of their stance, and as a general principle it dismisses entirely the right of collective action as well as the operation of the individual conscience.

regards,
Scofflaw

I said the exact same thing regarding passport office workers when they refused to do the work that they were employed to do so don't try putting assertions on me that aren't valid.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I said the exact same thing regarding passport office workers when they refused to do the work that they were employed to do so don't try putting assertions on me that aren't valid.

I stand corrected - it's mere assertion driven by ideologìcal position, and as a general principle it dismisses entirely the right of collective action as well as the operation of the individual conscience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

I stand corrected - it's mere assertion driven by ideologìcal position, and as a general principle it dismisses entirely the right of collective action as well as the operation of the individual conscience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its driven by the fact that people should do the job that they are employed to do and if they refuse to service a section of customers or suppliers because of some idealogical or political notion then they should get another job.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

And in both cases I'm supporting people's right not to go against their conscience. I appreciate you're trying to draw a parallel between the Church forbidding the distribution of condoms in Africa and the dockworkers preventing the distribution of Israeli produce, but you're comparing different bits of the question in suggesting that I'm being inconsistent. I accept the right of members of the Church not to bring condoms into an African country, even if that results in a de facto embargo. But if someone wants to bring condoms into the country without involving the Church, they have the right to do so, and the Church has no right to prevent them.

Similarly, if someone wants to bring Israeli goods into the country without involving the dockworkers, they have the right to do so, and the dockworkers have no right to prevent them. Neither here nor in Sweden are unionised dockworkers the only method of getting goods into the country.



Except that Israel does control everything that goes in and out of Gaza, and is creating hardship amongst a people they have a duty of care towards. Another vital difference is that any 'hardship' the dockworkers inflict, they share.



Again, that denies the right to collective action, which is a well-established right (most recently reiterated in the COFR), and for good reasons.



The Gaza blockade is not an example of collective action in the same way as the union action - it is State policy, enforced if necessary by military force as we've just seen, against another people. And pressure of exactly this kind was part of what brought apartheid to an end - this isn't a move designed to 'ease tensions', but a move to put pressure on Israel to come to the table in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok, granted the ports are not the only way to bring goods in or out so I'll concede that the bnoycott only makes getting Israeli produce more difficult rather than preventing it completely, so it is still somewhat comparable to the churches resistence to handing out condoms, it makes them harder to get.

And yes I agree, the Swedish boycott and the Israeli blockade are not at all comparable in terms of magnitude, severity, hardship etc. but they are comparable in terms of principle. Hence I said bringing a match to combat a forest fire.

Both aim to pressurise a people into action, the boycott aims to pressurise Israeli people/workers/manufacturers into dropping support for the Israeli government, forcing the government to the table as you say, while the Israeli blockade aims to pressurise a civilian population into dropping support for Hamas to force a stop to the rocket fire. Both are wrong. If Hamas did not exist would the blockade continue? What reason would the Israelis have? Now this in no way is me saying that the existence and actions of Hamas justifies the blockade and mal-treatment of a people, just like I wouldn't justify the actions of Hamas by the terrible things Israel have done and are doing. It highlights the similarity in approach that a boycott has to the Israeli blockade - 'we'll continue in our action until you stop what you are doing', it sounds an awful lot like what an activist might declare but it is also the Israeli mentality and it is a wrong mentality.

Just so we are clear, in principle you agree with pressurising a civilian population to get at their government, you just have concerns once it becomes a stranglehold?

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

It's fortunate for you that you don't live in Gaza, then! :P:P:D

Noreen

there are many places I am fortunate not to live in, and yes Gaza is one. What is your point?

Tabnabs

A fair bit of trade between Ireland and Israel including

http://www.borlines.com/schedules/wcwkly.pdf

and by the Israeli shipping company Zim

• Salerno – Liverpool – Dublin – Antwerp – Limassol – Ashdod – Haifa
1/2 calls per week

and the Italian Grimaldi company from

Cork to
Esbjerg, Wallhamn, Antwerp,
Southhampton, Malta, Piraeus,
Izmir, Ashdod, Limassol,
Alexandria, Palermo, Salerno,
Savona, Setubal, Portbury

So there is scope to boycott.

It seems the Swedish Governmenthttp://www.thelocal.se/27086/20100607/ is not so keen to back the dockers

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Ok, granted the ports are not the only way to bring goods in or out so I'll concede that the bnoycott only makes getting Israeli produce more difficult rather than preventing it completely, so it is still somewhat comparable to the churches resistence to handing out condoms, it makes them harder to get.

And yes I agree, the Swedish boycott and the Israeli blockade are not at all comparable in terms of magnitude, severity, hardship etc. but they are comparable in terms of principle. Hence I said bringing a match to combat a forest fire.

Both aim to pressurise a people into action, the boycott aims to pressurise Israeli people/workers/manufacturers into dropping support for the Israeli government, forcing the government to the table as you say, while the Israeli blockade aims to pressurise a civilian population into dropping support for Hamas to force a stop to the rocket fire. Both are wrong. If Hamas did not exist would the blockade continue? What reason would the Israelis have? Now this in no way is me saying that the existence and actions of Hamas justifies the blockade and mal-treatment of a people, just like I wouldn't justify the actions of Hamas by the terrible things Israel have done and are doing. It highlights the similarity in approach that a boycott has to the Israeli blockade - 'we'll continue in our action until you stop what you are doing', it sounds an awful lot like what an activist might declare but it is also the Israeli mentality and it is a wrong mentality.

Just so we are clear, in principle you agree with pressurising a civilian population to get at their government, you just have concerns once it becomes a stranglehold?

I've supported here the right of people to take action according to their conscience individually, and collectively. The Israeli blockade of Gaza is not a moral action (that is, it is not undertaken for moral reasons, or at the dictates of anyone's conscience).

Swedish dockworkers refusing to handle Israeli goods is a moral act - it says "we cannot in good conscience handle your goods while you are engaged in an action we consider immoral". To equate that with a state denying a civilian population basic goods like cement and pencils as what amounts to collective punishment for supporting an organisation the state is fighting is not possible. Both are pressure, certainly, but one is the kind of pressure exerted by a friend who disapproves of your course of action, the other is the pressure exerted by a garrotte.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its driven by the fact that people should do the job that they are employed to do and if they refuse to service a section of customers or suppliers because of some idealogical or political notion then they should get another job.

In other words, when people are employed they should become conscienceless automatons. Do you really believe this stuff?

regards,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

In other words, when people are employed they should become conscienceless automatons. Do you really believe this stuff?

regards,
Scofflaw

The Israeli goods are not affected by sanctions, are not harmful to the dockers and are not illegal therefore there is no reasonable excuse for them not to load or unload these goods.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The Israeli goods are not affected by sanctions, are not harmful to the dockers and are not illegal therefore there is no reasonable excuse for them not to load or unload these goods.

I can think of a few
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=51

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The Israeli goods are not affected by sanctions, are not harmful to the dockers and are not illegal therefore there is no reasonable excuse for them not to load or unload these goods.

The state of Israel is engaged in actions objectionable to the conscience of the dockworkers - the produce is Israeli.

regards,
Scofflaw

Ash.J.Williams

Colpriz wrote: »

Well done to the Swedes, is time we all showed Israel they cant get away with that sh*t, it sends a message to the USA too

The irish haven't the balls to do anything against Israel

BlaasForRafa

Scofflaw wrote: »

The state of Israel is engaged in actions objectionable to the conscience of the dockworkers - the produce is Israeli.

regards,
Scofflaw

That is not a reason for them not to do their jobs. As I said before they should be disciplined or sacked. Lots of people don't like dealing with this or that type of customer but they have to do it because its their job.

Memnoch

And yes I agree, the Swedish boycott and the Israeli blockade are not at all comparable in terms of magnitude, severity, hardship etc. but they are comparable in terms of principle.

Absolutely not, there can be no comparison between the violence and threat of force employed by the Israeli Govt. to the principle of peaceful protest.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That is not a reason for them not to do their jobs. As I said before they should be disciplined or sacked. Lots of people don't like dealing with this or that type of customer but they have to do it because its their job.

We're not talking about dislike, we're talking about conscience. Do you believe that people should leave their consciences behind at the door when they come into work?

regards,
Scofflaw