Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Catsmokinpot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Catsmokinpot


    bonkey wrote: »
    I'd have no problem with a union (or anyone) requesting that people freely participate in a boycott.

    When a union adopts a policy however, it is doing more then that.
    It's quite clear to me (From the previous actions Israel has taken) that governments of the world will do very little about the things that Israel does, perhaps out of the fear that they might be seen as singling them out in some way.

    Maybe what is needed was for a non-governmental civilian entity with a little bit of power to take a stand against Israel, now if the governments of the world have some balls they will join in.


  • Options
    #63
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I approve, Sweden, I approve.

    The Gaza situation is so incredibly clouded and screwed up, its almost refreshing to see simple Cause and Effect taking place for a change. That is, Causality that doesn't involve rocket attacks.


  • Options
    #64
    ScouseMouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,070 ✭✭✭ScouseMouse


    gandalf wrote: »
    Well if the Irish Unions want to regain any semblance of respect with the General Public here this would be a very good place to start.

    Agreed. At the moment they are a bit of a joke. That ejit with the beard who started on pat kenny, really showed himself to be a complete fool.


  • Options
    #65
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    How so? Better working conditions aren't universal; they only affect the workers' place of work. On the other hand, refusing to handle Israeli goods affects everyone in the locality, including those who do not want to participate in the boycott. It amounts to making a decision on everyone's behalf without a mandate or without any authority.



    Of course they do. But the employer shouldn't have to employ those who refuse to do the job they're being paid to do.

    Unions do push for changes to labor laws on national level though.

    Generally its for better pay and conditions solely for their members but not always.


  • Options
    #66
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    I would love those in favour of supporting the union workers 'right' to decide political policy or national morality to respond to my previous points, points which gave largely been ignored
    Laminations wrote: »
    So I'm completely against Israeli sanctions but I'm not so dumb as to think they are simply there to keep out weapons (I've seen countless people ask why they ban chocolate). The sanctions are used as a pressurising measure, so they force Palestinians to forgo things as long as rocket fire continues, the sanctions are indiscriminate. Likewise a boycott is a pressurising action and is also indiscriminate, it hits all Israelis regardless of their views on the conflict so I can support neither sanction nor boycott.

    Secondly if you want to boycott be my guest but to suggest that a union should be our moral compass and make this decision for us is bizarre. And what if Irish unions decided to back Israel and refuse palestinian produce? You only support a union action because it likely coincides with your view, I had a lovely Palestinian falafel yesterday at the maritime festival and if I wanted to wash it down with an Israeli wine i'll be damned if some union worker had decided I couldn't or shouldn't. Since when do we look to unions for the moral highground? And related to my first point, since when is fighting an indiscriminate sanction with an indiscriminate boycott the moral highground?

    You all need to start thinking rationally, if unions decided what comes in and out of a country then we are in big trouble.

    We need to end the sanctions through political pressure without using the Israeli people as a proxy for this. We need to end rocket attacks through mediation, via international bodies which we should pressure to get more involved and we can lobby the US government to reexamine their unwaivering support for Israel, again without putting Americans through hardship. This idea of punishing a people for the sins of an elite (be they elected or not) is quite frankly wrong


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    How so? Better working conditions aren't universal; they only affect the workers' place of work. On the other hand, refusing to handle Israeli goods affects everyone in the locality, including those who do not want to participate in the boycott. It amounts to making a decision on everyone's behalf without a mandate or without any authority.

    Unions have, over the years, repeatedly taken action in favour of general national laws, such as minimum wages, working hours, right to strike, etc.
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Of course they do. But the employer shouldn't have to employ those who refuse to do the job they're being paid to do.

    That is, I'm sure you'll agree, between them and their employer!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #68
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Unions have, over the years, repeatedly taken action in favour of general national laws, such as minimum wages, working hours, right to strike, etc.



    That is, I'm sure you'll agree, between them and their employer!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Unions are fully entitled to lobby for workers rights, that's their purpose. It's an entirely different kettle of fish when they go all Mary White (the anti porn biddy) and strong arm a population into taking a moral stance

    EDIT: Mary Whitehouse. Mary White is the corpse dug up by the greens


  • Options
    #69
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Should a union go on strike for, say, better conditions? Is that not "making what amounts to national policy"?
    Yes and no. Its taking a stand on national policy which directly effects them. They have every
    Do workers have a right to decide not to handle the goods of an organisation they oppose?
    I don't believe so, no....but let me ask you a question in return if you disagree.

    Does an employer have a right to fire members of the union for refusing to do their job?


  • Options
    #70
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Memnoch wrote: »
    And when governments are too cowardly to act?

    In a democracy? Vote for someone else. Try to elect someone who isn't too cowardly to act. If that fails, accept the democratic decision that was made, and the policy which ensues.
    I can't believe your saying that peaceful, civil protest is somehow equitable to the kind of violent action engaged by Israel.
    Not only have I not said that, I've clarified that I haven't said that.
    We all have a right to protest on such issues and if the government disagrees strongly enough with us, they can hire someone else etc.
    At least you appear to agree that the Swedish union would be acting against the terms of their employment and that the Swedish government (assuming they are the employer) would be within their rights to fire them.

    So the only point we disagree on is that you feel this is an appropriate form of protest, and I disagree. Lest someone try misunderstanding that, let me clarify by saying that I disagree with the form of protest, and not with the concept of protest, nor to the right to protest.


  • Options
    #71
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    bonkey wrote: »
    In a democracy? Vote for someone else. Try to elect someone who isn't too cowardly to act. If that fails, accept the democratic decision that was made, and the policy which ensues.

    I think that's unfair. Most issues of election in a democracy are local, they are much more about what the government is going to do for "them" in their "area" than the stance it will adopt against Israel. Now, if we had a nationwide vote on such foreign policy decisions, then yes I can accept that we democratically decided to not take action. Democracy is far from perfect. Look at the UK. 60% of the electorate voted for for a left or left of centre government, and what did they get?

    So the only point we disagree on is that you feel this is an appropriate form of protest, and I disagree. Lest someone try misunderstanding that, let me clarify by saying that I disagree with the form of protest, and not with the concept of protest, nor to the right to protest.

    I both agree and disagree with you. I mean, if someone decided to protest based on their own morality that they shouldn't offer services to homosexuals and that this was THEIR way of protesting, then we wouldn't consider that acceptable. So the principle is difficult. Still, they could be fired if they were in breach of their contract to not discriminate.

    I think the right to protest in accordance with our conscience is an important one, as long as it is done civilly and peacefully. As to the form, I'm all for it as it's far more likely to be effective then marches on the Israeli embassy. And as I said before if the government wanted to they could fire the workers. Which of course they won't because there are too many of them in unison.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    springwell7616
    Registered Users Posts: 38 ✭springwell7616


    Fair play to them. Now joe public show hit them where it hurts......in their pockets. Don't buy any produce from Israel.
    Don't come in with the fact that you'd be hitting the ordinary Israeli in the street they're the barstewards that vote their government in!!


  • Options
    #73
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I think the right to protest in accordance with our conscience is an important one, as long as it is done civilly and peacefully..

    We all have this right when we go to buy, that's the freedom we have over our personal consumerism. Like I said I bought a falafel, moreso because I like them rather then for moral support but why should my choice be curtailed by others moral conscience? If it's a democratically mandated stance then fine, I'll abide as I live in a democratic society but for unelected workers to decide my moral position on an issue by limiting my options, that is not right. If the union workers feel so strigly about it they can alter their personal consumerism to reflect their stance but they shouldn't be allowed strongarm their stance onto a nation, and you'd agree with me if they were talking about boycotting Palestinian produce, you only support them because they punish Israelis, something you want encouraged


  • Options
    #74
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Unions have, over the years, repeatedly taken action in favour of general national laws, such as minimum wages, working hours, right to strike, etc.

    Yes, but as bonkey said, that's something that directly affects them. It wasn't the owners of the Swedish ports who killed those protesters.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That is, I'm sure you'll agree, between them and their employer!

    Of course. If I was an employer I'd try to engage with employees if they had some work-related issue that we could try to remedy. If my employees came up to me and said "we're refusing to do x% of the work because the Israeli army killed these protesters", I wouldn't be too impressed.


  • Options
    #75
    Pauleta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭Pauleta


    musings wrote: »
    Swedish port worker unions have banned israeli ships from docking in swedish ports in response to the attacks on the Gaza bound flotilla earlier this week. see story: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/thousands-demonstrate-across-the-world-against-israel-s-gaza-flotilla-raid-1.294295

    Should our ports do likewise?


    No because we are a neutral country and we shouldnt take sides in the Israeli-Palestine dispute. The same people calling for Israeli boycotts were probably complaining about U.S planes in Shannon.


  • Options
    #76
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Yes, but as bonkey said, that's something that directly affects them. It wasn't the owners of the Swedish ports who killed those protesters.

    So people shouldn't protest or object to anything that doesn't concern them?
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Of course. If I was an employer I'd try to engage with employees if they had some work-related issue that we could try to remedy. If my employees came up to me and said "we're refusing to do x% of the work because the Israeli army killed these protesters", I wouldn't be too impressed.

    There are plenty of workplaces where that sort of thing happens, though - people just say "we won't buy from such and such a supplier, or use products from such and such a place". It's quite common in smaller companies. Management obviously have the option to refuse to countenance such a ban, but that's unusual. What's more usual is that management find a way of dressing it up - "organic", "cruelty-free", "FairTrade", "social justice", "carbon neutral", etc, all of which tend to exclude certain companies and/or countries. Refusing to stock South African goods was very common, and was part of the pressure that was brought to bear on the apartheid regime.

    Whether one believes that Israel is right or wrong, I certainly see nothing wrong in principle with the tactic - it has a long historical pedigree, and is extremely common.
    bonkey wrote:
    Do workers have a right to decide not to handle the goods of an organisation they oppose?
    I don't believe so, no....but let me ask you a question in return if you disagree.

    Does an employer have a right to fire members of the union for refusing to do their job?

    I'll assume you're asking after the moral right there, rather than the legal capacity. I think that the employer has the right to protect his/her business, and that that may include firing a member of a union for refusing to do their job. That may not be the best thing for their business, obviously.

    So I personally don't think there's a right and wrong to it - I accept the right of the union or individual not to go against their conscience, and I accept the right of the business owner to protect their business interests. It's then up to the parties involved to negotiate.

    Let me, in turn, ask another question - does a golf club have the right to decide not, say, buy Israeli?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #77
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So people shouldn't protest or object to anything that doesn't concern them?



    There are plenty of workplaces where that sort of thing happens, though - people just say "we won't buy from such and such a supplier, or use products from such and such a place". It's quite common in smaller companies. Management obviously have the option to refuse to countenance such a ban, but that's unusual. What's more usual is that management find a way of dressing it up - "organic", "cruelty-free", "FairTrade", "social justice", "carbon neutral", etc, all of which tend to exclude certain companies and/or countries. Refusing to stock South African goods was very common, and was part of the pressure that was brought to bear on the apartheid regime.

    Whether one believes that Israel is right or wrong, I certainly see nothing wrong in principle with the tactic - it has a long historical pedigree, and is extremely common.



    I'll assume you're asking after the moral right there, rather than the legal capacity. I think that the employer has the right to protect his/her business, and that that may include firing a member of a union for refusing to do their job. That may not be the best thing for their business, obviously.

    So I personally don't think there's a right and wrong to it - I accept the right of the union or individual not to go against their conscience, and I accept the right of the business owner to protect their business interests. It's then up to the parties involved to negotiate.

    Let me, in turn, ask another question - does a golf club have the right to decide not, say, buy Israeli?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    There is a huge difference between a company taking a principled stances versus unionised dock workers forcing a principled stance onto consumers. If dunnes stores stopes stocking Iranian pastachio nuts out of some moral outrage then I could choose to not shop at dunnes and get my pastachios elsewhere but dock workers cutting off the supply to a country removes my choice and makes the moral decision for me. Fine if you agree with them (which in a way I do) but what if dock workers next decide not to unload Chinese produce or specific goods like condoms or porn? They cannot be allowed decide where I stand on these issues by quashing supply


  • Options
    #78
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    I think 6 months at least.


  • Options
    #79
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    There is a huge difference between a company taking a principled stances versus unionised dock workers forcing a principled stance onto consumers. If dunnes stores stopes stocking Iranian pastachio nuts out of some moral outrage then I could choose to not shop at dunnes and get my pastachios elsewhere but dock workers cutting off the supply to a country removes my choice and makes the moral decision for me. Fine if you agree with them (which in a way I do) but what if dock workers next decide not to unload Chinese produce or specific goods like condoms or porn? They cannot be allowed decide where I stand on these issues by quashing supply

    In other words, dock workers cannot decide for themselves, but must, no matter what their conscience dictates, handle goods in such a way as to allow you to exercise your conscience?

    What makes your conscience more important than theirs?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #80
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    In other words, dock workers cannot decide for themselves, but must, no matter what their conscience dictates, handle goods in such a way as to allow you to exercise your conscience?

    What makes your conscience more important than theirs?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Dockworkers, the same as anyone else can exercise their conscience through how they spend their money, through what they buy. It's not me saying my conscience is more important, I'm saying I want to be allowed make that choice. I accept a government curtailing my choices because I give them a mandate to do that, but I don't elect dockworkers to represent me nor to I expect them to be my moral compass


  • Options
    #81
    Noreen1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭Noreen1


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    How so? Better working conditions aren't universal; they only affect the workers' place of work. On the other hand, refusing to handle Israeli goods affects everyone in the locality, including those who do not want to participate in the boycott. It amounts to making a decision on everyone's behalf without a mandate or without any authority.



    Of course they do. But the employer shouldn't have to employ those who refuse to do the job they're being paid to do.


    You don't see the two as being mutually exclusive?

    Noreen


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    Dockworkers, the same as anyone else can exercise their conscience through how they spend their money, through what they buy. It's not me saying my conscience is more important, I'm saying I want to be allowed make that choice. I accept a government curtailing my choices because I give them a mandate to do that, but I don't elect dockworkers to represent me nor to I expect them to be my moral compass

    So we're allowed to exercise our consciences only as consumers? Isn't that a little limited? What are we supposed to do with them the rest of the time?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #83
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So we're allowed to exercise our consciences only as consumers? Isn't that a little limited? What are we supposed to do with them the rest of the time?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Protest? March? Write a letter? Post on boards? And if you don't agree with your job, resign?

    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?


  • Options
    #84
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    Protest? March? Write a letter? Post on boards? And if you don't agree with your job, resign?

    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?

    Everyone who makes a moral decision almost invariably affects someone else. Should people not make moral decisions because they might (or do) impact someone else?

    Should a moderator, for example, deny someone the right to post in a discussion forum because they've posted a "joke" about the Holocaust in a thread on Israel? Is that not a moral decision? Does it not result in someone being denied something?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #85
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Everyone who makes a moral decision almost invariably affects someone else. Should people not make moral decisions because they might (or do) impact someone else?

    Should a moderator, for example, deny someone the right to post in a discussion forum because they've posted a "joke" about the Holocaust in a thread on Israel? Is that not a moral decision? Does it not result in someone being denied something?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    A person understands and accepts the limitations on their behaviour when they sign up here or likewise when they live in a democracy. Nowhere did I sign up to having dock workers make moral choices for me. Should I be allowed deny you of chocolate for whatever reason I deem important? I don't think you can honestly say that your behaviours should be limited in such ways, without your explicit or implicit consent


  • Options
    #86
    ANarcho-Munk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,397 ✭✭✭ANarcho-Munk


    Pauleta wrote: »
    No because we are a neutral country and we shouldnt take sides in the Israeli-Palestine dispute. The same people calling for Israeli boycotts were probably complaining about U.S planes in Shannon.


    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?


    But anyway, I for one support the Swedish dockers and I hope something similiar can be mobilised here in Ireland. It's apparent at this moment that the main players in the international community are not going to stand up to Israel. The task must then fall to us as citizens and consumers to take matters into our own hands and do what little (however small and symbolic it may be) we can do.


  • Options
    #87
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    I fully accept peoples individual right to boycott or protest but not to force their stance on others. I accept their right but disagree with a boycott as an indiscriminate boycott is no way to fight against indiscriminate sanctions. Two wrongs don't make a right, they usually exacerbate the situation.


  • Options
    #88
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    A person understands and accepts the limitations on their behaviour when they sign up here or likewise when they live in a democracy. Nowhere did I sign up to having dock workers make moral choices for me. Should I be allowed deny you of chocolate for whatever reason I deem important? I don't think you can honestly say that your behaviours should be limited in such ways, without your explicit or implicit consent

    This is a democracy, so if we want to make it illegal for unions to make such decisions, we put pressure on our elected representatives to do so. If a majority of people feel the same way, then such laws will be brought in. Until such time as the majority forbid it, then by the rules of democracy, the majority is implicitly consenting, and that consent binds you too.

    That obviously doesn't mean you can't object - obviously, such objections would be the starting point for a campaign to have such actions declared illegal - but it does mean your consent is implicitly given as part of the 'democratic contract'.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #89
    Nick Dolan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭Nick Dolan


    ANarcho-Munk wrote: »
    But anyway, I for one support the Swedish dockers and I hope something similiar can be mobilised here in Ireland. It's apparent at this moment that the main players in the international community are not going to stand up to Israel. The task must then fall to us as citizens and consumers to take matters into our own hands and do what little (however small and symbolic it may be) we can do.

    People have the individual right to protest or not to protest. But dockworkers blocking imports removes an individuals right to not protest. What if say pilots decided to support Palistinians by not flying to Israel?


  • Options
    #90
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    This is a democracy, so if we want to make it illegal for unions to make such decisions, we put pressure on our elected representatives to do so. If a majority of people feel the same way, then such laws will be brought in. Until such time as the majority forbid it, then by the rules of democracy, the majority is implicitly consenting, and that consent binds you too.

    That obviously doesn't mean you can't object - obviously, such objections would be the starting point for a campaign to have such actions declared illegal - but it does mean your consent is implicitly given as part of the 'democratic contract'.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ANarcho-Munk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,397 ✭✭✭ANarcho-Munk


    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?

    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.


Advertisement