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

Noreen1

Laminations wrote: »

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

My point is that you said:

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?

You think it wrong for dock workers to refuse to handle Israeli produce, because they are unelected.
I find it rather inconsistent that you criticise unelected workers for protesting against the actions of an unelected (by the Gazans) Government - for denying the Gazan people choice over whether they can enjoy chocolate, and a host of other items.
Do you see the irony, now?:D

Noreen

Overheal

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.

Perhaps you've never heard of the ACLU or similar organizations?

By your logic, I can force doctors to perform abortions, against their own principle views. I assure you thats not the case. In fact, I think there's only One (1) Doctor in the United States who is still carrying out perfectly legal, though entirely controversial, late term abortions.

Sesshoumaru

I don't support the dock workers union actions in refusing to handle Israeli goods/ships. If I had the power to I would fire every last one of them immediately. They can go collect their social welfare every week with a clear conscience. Problem solved!

Sesshoumaru

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps you've never heard of the ACLU or similar organizations?

By your logic, I can force doctors to perform abortions, against their own principle views. I assure you thats not the case. In fact, I think there's only One (1) Doctor in the United States who is still carrying out perfectly legal, though entirely controversial, late term abortions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/24/warren-hern-america-late-abortion

I think you'll find that people acting upon their moral conscience has removed that choice from many doctors. So nice that so many women are put through such great ordeals through no choice of their own because others choose to follow their moral conscience.

danbohan

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You'd have a job proving it,and fair enough if you want to be dictated to by port workers.

I however, make up my own mind ,and certainly won't be led by a coterie of workers who seem to think that they have any credibility in the correct and proper way to conduct working relationships and the principle of an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

I'll take my lead from other source, horse, if I want an example of honesty and fair play:cool:

I'll take my lead from other source, horse, if I want an example of honesty and fair play

yes, Israel is a real example to the world on that front !

rugbyman

I think it is entirely reasonable for a docker to absent himself from work if he has a moral ,or any other,problem with the cargo,or the owners of it. this would involve him receiving no pay for the period involved.
For the group, to which he belongs, to decide that the cargo will not be handled at all by his employer is outrageous.
I have read through all of this thread and cannot see any justification for those who believe the union is right.
In fact ,if Israel were not involved in this debate ,I would say that the right of the unions to block cargo would not be half as vigorously supported.

Regards,
Rugbyman

Scofflaw

rugbyman wrote: »

I think it is entirely reasonable for a docker to absent himself from work if he has a moral ,or any other,problem with the cargo,or the owners of it. this would involve him receiving no pay for the period involved.
For the group, to which he belongs, to decide that the cargo will not be handled at all by his employer is outrageous.
I have read through all of this thread and cannot see any justification for those who believe the union is right.
In fact ,if Israel were not involved in this debate ,I would say that the right of the unions to block cargo would not be half as vigorously supported.

Regards,
Rugbyman

Or so vehemently rejected...probably some of the dance partners would change places. Again, though, the unions have the right of collective action.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Overheal

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/24/warren-hern-america-late-abortion

Thats the guy alright.

I think you'll find that people acting upon their moral conscience has removed that choice from many doctors.

And they did that in many ways illegaly. And thats a shame.

But here, in the context of Swedish Ports and Israel, those people acting on their moral conscience will in turn remove options from Israel.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I don't support the dock workers union actions in refusing to handle Israeli goods/ships. If I had the power to I would fire every last one of them immediately. They can go collect their social welfare every week with a clear conscience. Problem solved!

Except in this case theres a Union involved. Which when you think about it is just the inverse of a company. Companies that frequently throw their weight around to serve their own economic, political, or philosophical agenda. Companies that would otherwise, in this case, help Israel prosper for pure economic reasons, because thats what suits them.

Laminations

Noreen1 wrote: »

My point is that you said:

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?

You think it wrong for dock workers to refuse to handle Israeli produce, because they are unelected.
I find it rather inconsistent that you criticise unelected workers for protesting against the actions of an unelected (by the Gazans) Government - for denying the Gazan people choice over whether they can enjoy chocolate, and a host of other items.
Do you see the irony, now?:D

Noreen

it would be ironic, nay hypocritical, if I did indeed support israels blockade againt Gaza but I don't so it's neither ironic nor hypocritical. Now conversely for you to support an indiscriminate boycott/embargo in protest of an indiscriminate blockade, well that's inconsistent at best

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or so vehemently rejected...probably some of the dance partners would change places. Again, though, the unions have the right of collective action.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd be against any union nominating themselves to be my moral compass regarding any issue. Israel has little to do with my stance seeing as I'm against their position and actions, I'm not about to copy their actions to combat them. However pro Palestinians would be far less inclined to support union workers holding them to ransom for any other cause, such as reversal of government paycuts.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

I'd be against any union nominating themselves to be my moral compass regarding any issue. Israel has little to do with my stance seeing as I'm against their position and actions, I'm not about to copy their actions to combat them. However pro Palestinians would be far less inclined to support union workers holding them to ransom for any other cause, such as reversal of government paycuts.

The unions aren't nominating themselves your moral compass, they're undertaking an action according to their own moral compasses which happens to affect you, and the act remains entirely different in intent, in effect, and in moral context from the Gaza embargo. One is complete control over what is allowed in and out of Gaza by non-Gazans in order to affect/punish Gaza, the other is a partial embargo on traded goods by one country by people from that country.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Overheal

Union members could also per the Union's Laws, override the decision made to enact the boycott. The rules for doing that depend on Swedish Union Law and the Union's Rules.

Nick Dolan

Scofflaw wrote: »

The unions aren't nominating themselves your moral compass, they're undertaking an action according to their own moral compasses which happens to affect you, and the act remains entirely different in intent, in effect, and in moral context from the Gaza embargo. One is complete control over what is allowed in and out of Gaza by non-Gazans in order to affect/punish Gaza, the other is a partial embargo on traded goods by one country by people from that country.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The union in this case is imposing their moral view on Sweden, if they stop imports you cant choose not to support the boycott . I think the onus is on them to petition the goverment to be allowed to boycott, and not the publics perogative to convince the goverment to change the law (If ive put that right). You have to absolutely be an automaton at work, otherwise your saying its ok for shopkeepers to refuse to serve foreigners, for cops to not investigate crimes against convicted offenders etc. I also dont think that the dockworkers action is different from the Israeli one just because it results in less suffering and hardship, i see it as sides on the same coin.

Macha

Nick Dolan wrote: »

The union in this case is imposing their moral view on Sweden, if they stop imports you cant choose not to support the boycott.

I think Scofflaw has already pointed out that unionised dock workers are not the only method of bringing goods into a country therefore the dockworkers are not "stopping imports".

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I think the onus is on them to petition the goverment to be allowed to boycott, and not the publics perogative to convince the goverment to change the law (If ive put that right).

Er..isn't that the point of living in a democracy?

Nick Dolan wrote: »

You have to absolutely be an automaton at work, otherwise your saying its ok for shopkeepers to refuse to serve foreigners, for cops to not investigate crimes against convicted offenders etc. I also dont think that the dockworkers action is different from the Israeli one just because it results in less suffering and hardship, i see it as sides on the same coin.

So you're basically equating the Gazan blocade that is causing 90% of water to be undrinkable, 80% of Gazans to queue for food aid, 40% unemployment, millions of litres of untreated sewage to spill into the sea, results in women giving birth at checkpoints, people being refused entry for medical treatment for cancer etc etc as exactly the same as Sweden's unionised dockworkers refusing to import thinks like rubber and a few chemicals for a week.

If you can't see the difference, I don't really know what to say.

Scofflaw

Nick Dolan wrote: »

The union in this case is imposing their moral view on Sweden, if they stop imports you cant choose not to support the boycott . I think the onus is on them to petition the goverment to be allowed to boycott, and not the publics perogative to convince the goverment to change the law (If ive put that right). You have to absolutely be an automaton at work, otherwise your saying its ok for shopkeepers to refuse to serve foreigners, for cops to not investigate crimes against convicted offenders etc. I also dont think that the dockworkers action is different from the Israeli one just because it results in less suffering and hardship, i see it as sides on the same coin.

No, while you have the right to follow the dictates of your conscience, it's also open to challenge by law if it appears to be the case that you're actually motivated by, say, racism. Again, it's not simply a carte blanche to behave as you like.

There are certain jobs where you are generally expected to simply follow the rules rather than your conscience - soldiers are the best example (although most states recognise the right of conscientious objection), and then we shade along through the police, emergency, and medical services. Those occupations in which one is entirely free to exercise one's conscience are fully civilian occupations, such as dockwork.

Even in the armed forces, though, the individual is still expected to exercise their conscience and judgement - that's why the excuse of "following orders" is not accepted in cases of war crime, genocide, etc.

On that subject, of what is legally allowed, I have to point out again that collective punishment against a civilian population is not legal, and that a dockworkers' embargo is not considered by any authority to constitute such action. Why do you think they're considered differently in law?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nick Dolan

Whats the legal position on this, are the workers legally entitled to boycott or are people saying its ok because its ethically a good thing to do. Im sure you can strike for pay and conditions and such but what about moral grounds? if its the case they can stop work for moral reasons then couldnt they stop work anytime they felt depressed / angry / bored. I reckon you could say the dockworkers are discriminating against Israel. You can argue its in response to an illegal blocade but thats like saying its ok to beat up someone onvicted of a serious crime. Depends where things stand of course.

Scofflaw

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Whats the legal position on this, are the workers legally entitled to boycott or are people saying its ok because its ethically a good thing to do.

Legally entitled.

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Im sure you can strike for pay and conditions and such but what about moral grounds? if its the case they can stop work for moral reasons then couldnt they stop work anytime they felt depressed / angry / bored.

Moral grounds are pretty clearly distinct from feeling depressed, angry, or bored.

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I reckon you could say the dockworkers are discriminating against Israel. You can argue its in response to an illegal blocade but thats like saying its ok to beat up someone onvicted of a serious crime. Depends where things stand of course.

No, it's like getting an ASBO against someone - it's a legal action, not an illegal one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Palmach

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, while you have the right to follow the dictates of your conscience, it's also open to challenge by law if it appears to be the case that you're actually motivated by, say, racism. .............
On that subject, of what is legally allowed, I have to point out again that collective punishment against a civilian population is not legal, and that a dockworkers' embargo is not considered by any authority to constitute such action. Why do you think they're considered differently in law?

cordially,
Scofflaw

If your contract says you handle goods how do you decide what motivates people in refusing to handle certain goods from certain countries? If they refused to handle Chinese goods because of the Chinese occupation of Tibet, most certainly illegal, is one sure the dockers aren't motivated by bias against orientals? What is their motivation for singling any nation for a boycott?

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

If your contract says you handle goods how do you decide what motivates people in refusing to handle certain goods from certain countries? If they refused to handle Chinese goods because of the Chinese occupation of Tibet, most certainly illegal, is one sure the dockers aren't motivated by bias against orientals? What is their motivation for singling any nation for a boycott?

If one was biased against orientals one would presumably attempt to apply an equal proscription to handling Japanese, Korean, or Taiwanese goods. Singling out China for its occupation of Tibet would suggest you're against the occupation of Tibet - and that is also the political effect of such an embargo, since that is how it is then reported on.

It would be hard to motivate union members to vote on racial grounds without that being extremely obvious - although individual members might vote for a Chinese embargo simply because they don't like the Chinese, it's not possible to make that the voting issue without saying so to a large number of people.

cordially,
Scofflaw