[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by Nick Dolan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Legally entitled.

Originally Posted by Nick Dolan

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Dolan

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]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

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]

Originally Posted by Palmach

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