School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[Derec]

So, you've read a post here before.

No, I know who Arabs are independently of this forum. Unlike you apparently, as you lumped them together with Afghans.

Highly doubtful

I certainly would know whom I have talked to.

Actually I am quite correct.

To quote you, "highly doubtful".

For example, did you know that certain genetic traits can be attributed to individuals who come from very tight (under 20 miles) geographic regions?

They can, but that does not mean they are in this case.

You have no idea what the cultural, religious, or ethnic differences between any of the countries, much less between areas or ethnic groups within these countries are, why they are important, what they say about history, etc.

And you are some sort of Arabist expert, are you?

What I certainly know is that PLO invented Palestinian identity to further their goal of fighting (and destroying) Israel.
PLO leaders themselves admit it. Let me give you the quotes again.

This last one is the Hamas leader Fathi Hamad.

This is from the horses' mouths.

 

[ruby sparks]

What do you mean "still". It's well on its way to becoming an apartheid state again, with revered power structure. They have already started to dispossess white farmers.

The Bantu were there in the 4th century CE, so they're only taking back what's rightfully theirs.

 

[repoman]

What do you mean "still". It's well on its way to becoming an apartheid state again, with revered power structure. They have already started to dispossess white farmers.

The Bantu were there in the 4th century CE, so they're only taking back what's rightfully theirs.

Actually, didn't the white people (British?) bring in the Bantus from further north?

 

[Derec]

The Bantu were there in the 4th century CE, so they're only taking back what's rightfully theirs.

They should give it back to the descendants of australopithecines. Lucy was there first!

 

[ruby sparks]

What do you mean "still". It's well on its way to becoming an apartheid state again, with revered power structure. They have already started to dispossess white farmers.

The Bantu were there in the 4th century CE, so they're only taking back what's rightfully theirs.

Actually, didn't the white people (British?) bring in the Bantus from further north?

Not according to wiki.

- - - Updated - - -

The Bantu were there in the 4th century CE, so they're only taking back what's rightfully theirs.

They should give it back to the descendants of australopithecines. Lucy was there first!

Lol. Yeah. Next, some idiot will be saying the Jews have some sort of right to go back to Israel because they were there before the 1st C BCE.

 

[Bomb#20]

How can this be legal?

James Madison answered that way back in post #52.

Ms. Amawi is facing an anti-discrimination law, and her situation is legally no different from a bakery owner facing a law against boycotting gay weddings. ...

Except this law in question does not appear to distinguish between the person and their contracting business.

Sure it does. Axulus explained this to you in post #119.

It restricts what they can do and say about any company tied to Israel,. She might be in violation of the statute, if she posted on her person twitter account anything that was designed to create a negative perception of a companies that did business with Israel.

How?

Here's the text Ms. Amawi was asked to initial, straight out of Exhibit A from Ms. Amawi's lawsuit:

Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code, the Contractor affirms that it: 1. Does not currently boycott Israel; and 2. Will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract​

As you can see, the text she is asked to initial says "it". Not "she". So how do you figure she might be in violation of the statute, if she posted something on her personal twitter account?

This is especially true, b/c the statute is so broad and inclusive to include not merely how she interacts with customers of her company, but "any action" (which includes speech), which is in any way intended to "inflict economic harm upon" "commercial relations with" Israel (which includes personal comments that other people should not support various companies).

Where are you seeing that? Here's chapter 2270 of the statute. It says:

PROVISION REQUIRED IN CONTRACT. A governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it:

(1) does not boycott Israel; and

(2) will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.​

Not "she". "It".

The other critical difference is that this statute restricts consumer behavior, rather than restricting the behavior of a company toward potential consumers. If a similar logic were applied to the more general anti-discrimination laws, then the baker would not be allowed to choose not to go to a bar simply b/c it is run by gays, or even to suggest to a friend that they not go to such a bar.

Huh? The state is the consumer here. If a similar logic were applied to the more general anti-discrimination laws, then the baker would be allowed to boycott gays to his prejudiced heart's content and the school district would simply have to buy a cake for its superintendent's retirement party from some less homophobic baker. Where are you seeing any language in the statute prohibiting the owner from doing anything she pleases outside of her speech pathology business?

 

[ruby sparks]

Except this law in question does not appear to distinguish between the person and their contracting business.

Sure it does. Axulus explained this to you in post #119.

It restricts what they can do and say about any company tied to Israel,. She might be in violation of the statute, if she posted on her person twitter account anything that was designed to create a negative perception of a companies that did business with Israel.

How?

Here's the text Ms. Amawi was asked to initial, straight out of Exhibit A from Ms. Amawi's lawsuit:

Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code, the Contractor affirms that it: 1. Does not currently boycott Israel; and 2. Will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract​

As you can see, the text she is asked to initial says "it". Not "she". So how do you figure she might be in violation of the statute, if she posted something on her personal twitter account?

This is especially true, b/c the statute is so broad and inclusive to include not merely how she interacts with customers of her company, but "any action" (which includes speech), which is in any way intended to "inflict economic harm upon" "commercial relations with" Israel (which includes personal comments that other people should not support various companies).

Where are you seeing that? Here's chapter 2270 of the statute. It says:

PROVISION REQUIRED IN CONTRACT. A governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it:

(1) does not boycott Israel; and

(2) will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.​

Not "she". "It".

The other critical difference is that this statute restricts consumer behavior, rather than restricting the behavior of a company toward potential consumers. If a similar logic were applied to the more general anti-discrimination laws, then the baker would not be allowed to choose not to go to a bar simply b/c it is run by gays, or even to suggest to a friend that they not go to such a bar.

Huh? The state is the consumer here. If a similar logic were applied to the more general anti-discrimination laws, then the baker would be allowed to boycott gays to his prejudiced heart's content and the school district would simply have to buy a cake for its superintendent's retirement party from some less homophobic baker. Where are you seeing any language in the statute prohibiting the owner from doing anything she pleases outside of her speech pathology business?

I mostly agree and am leaning towards thinking that she would have been able to sign the contract without restricting her rights to be anti-Israel outside of her job.
Though perhaps it actually isn't entirely clear in the law? 'Will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract' is a bit ambiguous, perhaps more so when the 'it' is an individual contractor and not a company.

 

[ruby sparks]

How about this? According to this report (below), individual homeowners in Texas applying for post-Hurricaine Harvey financial assistance to repair their properties were asked to sign a similar no-boycot declaration:

"Mayor of Dickinson says residents are angry, upset and confused that hurricane relief grants included a provision forbidding aid-seekers from boycotting Israel".
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/rec...as-suburb-hit-with-hurricane-israel-1.5459316

 

[repoman]

Dual loyalty regarding the Jewish senator who sponsored a federal anti-boycott bill

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-boycott-crime-bill-settlements-senators-support-law-a7852101.html



It is all about dogs in the fight as Mel Gibson said



I fucking love Mel

 

[Toni]

No, I know who Arabs are independently of this forum. Unlike you apparently, as you lumped them together with Afghans.

You misunderstand: I included Afghans because it hasn’t been clear to me that you made a distinction between Arabs and Afghans. You are, after all, the person who asserted that there were no differences between groups of people in the Middle East.

I certainly would know whom I have talked to.

Sure. I guess it’s just that any insights or understanding you might have gained seem to be pretty well obscured by your....posts.

For example, did you know that certain genetic traits can be attributed to individuals who come from very tight (under 20 miles) geographic regions?

They can, but that does not mean they are in this case.

How would you know?

You have no idea what the cultural, religious, or ethnic differences between any of the countries, much less between areas or ethnic groups within these countries are, why they are important, what they say about history, etc.

And you are some sort of Arabist expert, are you?

For a number of years, I worked in an extremely international setting where Arabic was the dominant language spoken, along with English, French among other languages. I worked with people from all over the world, including from quite a number of Arab countries. My friends, coworkers and neighbors include people from all over the world.

 

[laughing dog]

As you can see, the text she is asked to initial says "it". Not "she". So how do you figure she might be in violation of the statute, if she posted something on her personal twitter account?

If the oath does not apply to her, then why was she expected to sign the oath?

 

[ruby sparks]

As you can see, the text she is asked to initial says "it". Not "she". So how do you figure she might be in violation of the statute, if she posted something on her personal twitter account?

If the oath does not apply to her, then why was she expected to sign the oath?

My guess is administrative oversight. Plus legal uncertainty (on the part of those drawing up these declarations which are to be signed) about what this (new) law covers and what it doesn't. If all goes well, then cases like the OP one (and the Hurricane Harvey Assistance one) should clarify. I think it likely that they will clarify that the law only applies to companies or to individuals acting while doing their job, and that it does not restrict personal liberties. I don't see how that could be made to stick in a country like the USA.

Whether it's then unfair to companies could still be asked.

I'm guessing that it would only be companies working with or for government in some way. So then the question could become whether specifically that is unfair or unreasonable or unjustified or not.

As a law of that sort, I guess it's predicated, in overt principle at least, on there being antisemitism which should be countered. Which I believe there is. I'd guess there are less overt motives too. There usually are. Often to do with money, geopolitics and business interests.

In my head, I'm connecting this with the decision to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. The current US administration seems to be more openly pro-Israel than previous administrations.

 

[ruby sparks]

You can see from the reports that both the school board employing the woman in the OP and the local council officials administering the post-hurricane Harvey assistance were reluctant to be including such a no-boycott declaration, and in the latter case were not in favour of it. In that case their lawyers advised them that it was safer to include it in light of the new law which appeared to require it, but which may need to be clarified.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have posted links to multiple genetic studies over the years. I don't have time right now to dig them all up again but you can find them if you look. Here's a sample:

Anything from Haaretz should be presumed false unless it's bad for the Palestinians.

I have consistently argued against their having an exclusive ancestral claim, and against the absurd proposition that Jerusalem means more to Jews in the diaspora than it does to the people who actually live there.

Then why did Jordan ethnically cleanse "East Jerusalem" when they took power? If the people living there were Palestinians what cleansing would they do?

Only if they want it to. But if they want to go back to the homes they were driven out of at gunpoint, then that's what should happen. Same for the Jews driven from their homes, and the Rohingya driven from theirs, and the Bosnian Muslims and the Albanians and the Yazidis and the Tutsi and every other ethnic/religious/racial group that suffered that same violation of human rights.

1) Few were driven out at gunpoint.

2) You actually feel that way about the Jews? Because when Jews try to reclaim the houses they were driven out of in East Jerusalem the usual gripes are about driving out the Palestinians.

Individuals might own houses, livestock, and other property, but the clans owned the communal resources like wells and pastures. That's the kernel at the base of Loren's claims that the majority of the property Israelis stole was 'government owned'. The grazing land was owned by the clans and managed for the benefit of the entire community.

No, I'm talking about actual government owned land. An awful lot of land was being used by non-owners. Think of the western United States were there's an awful lot of cattle grazing on public lands. And there was land that was privately owned by non-residents and bought from the absentee landlords by the Jews.

Israel did not find a desert. Israel was built upon the existing infrastructure of a Palestinian society that had developed under centuries of largely peaceful Ottoman rule into what was then a modern, if somewhat small and only moderately wealthy region.

Much of the land given to Israel was the Negev. A desert.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For the millionth time: when Israel is attacked for doing things like defending itself from aggression or even daring to exist, that means it is being attacked for being Jewish.

For the millionth+1 time, Israel isn't being attacked for doing things like defending itself from aggression or even daring to exist. It is being criticized for stealing land and resources, violating international law and human rights conventions, and for the oppression of the people of Palestine.

If you can't tell the difference between ethnic cleansing and defending oneself, your worldview is seriously impaired.

I plan on responding to your previous post asking for information on the genetic studies done on Jewish and Middle Eastern populations tomorrow. See you then.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Legitimate self defense actions are routinely portrayed as aggressive.

Look at all the dead Palestinian "children". Mostly 16 and 17 year old members of terrorist organizations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There has been conflict ever since, as one would expect from a terrorist illegal intrusion into lands you do not own, and beginning in 1973 Israel because it had gained such a huge power advantage thanks to US gifts began slowly stealing land and has continued with that stealing until today.

Repeating this continued stealing bit ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

But the UN map is still the fair map despite Israeli aggression and theft. It will always be the fair distribution of land.

The 1967 map is not the fair distribution of land but it is what the Palestinians have agreed to take for awhile.

Since 1967 nobody has been asking for the 1948 map. The reason is simple--it's not about the map, but about trying to get concessions out of Israel. They don't actually want a partition, that would destroy their reason for war.

 

[untermensche]

The UN map is still the fair map despite Israeli aggression and theft. It will always be the fair distribution of land.

Saying Israel will not accept it does not mean it is not fair.

 

[Bomb#20]

As you can see, the text she is asked to initial says "it". Not "she". So how do you figure she might be in violation of the statute, if she posted something on her personal twitter account?

If the oath does not apply to her, then why was she expected to sign the oath?

She was expected to sign the declaration because she owns the company, and companies do not have bodies of their own, so whenever a government asks a company to do something, an authorized officer of the company is expected to perform the requested action on the company's behalf. You knew this.

If the oath does not apply to her, then why was she expected to sign the oath?

My guess is administrative oversight. Plus legal uncertainty (on the part of those drawing up these declarations which are to be signed) about what this (new) law covers and what it doesn't. If all goes well, then cases like the OP one (and the Hurricane Harvey Assistance one) should clarify.

It is certainly true that governments are full of bone-headed officials who give incorrect instructions to the public because they can't follow directions themselves. (The feds even find it necessary to warn the public that having relied on incorrect instructions from the IRS isn't a defense from tax law prosecution.) It looks like that's what happened with the Hurricane Harvey fund in Dickinson, Texas; in fact the city repealed the Israel provision a few days after the story broke and outsiders alerted Dickinson's mayor to the fact that she was an idiot.

On the other hand, what Ms. Amawi was asked to agree to appears to have been exactly what Texas' anti-discrimination law requires.

I think it likely that they will clarify that the law only applies to companies or to individuals acting while doing their job, and that it does not restrict personal liberties. I don't see how that could be made to stick in a country like the USA.

Yes, that's how I think this will go down too.

Whether it's then unfair to companies could still be asked.

Certainly -- just as it can still be asked whether it's fair to bakers who are Christian fundamentalists to require them to participate in what they perceive to be sacrilegious parodies of their religion's holy sacraments, as a condition of being allowed to practice their profession. What's fair, and who it matters that we be fair to, are questions fought out in legislatures and the court of public opinion.

I'm guessing that it would only be companies working with or for government in some way.

That's currently the case, yes. Of course, any time a legislature pleases it can pass a law to make agreeing your business won't boycott Israel a condition of getting a business license, just as legislatures have already done in the case of various other discrimination targets. When a lot of irrational people want to boycott you, it pays to have friends in high places.

 

[laughing dog]

She was expected to sign the declaration because she owns the company, and companies do not have bodies of their own, so whenever a government asks a company to do something, an authorized officer of the company is expected to perform the requested action on the company's behalf. You knew this.

I know there is no mention of any company in the article. She is an independent contractor which means, in this case, she is the company. Do you have any independent evidence that shows she is not the company or that is a corporation or is your position based solely on speculation?

 

[James Madison]

This anti-speech, anti-liberty law has nothing to do with BDS. It forbids people from engaging in any activity (including voicing objections) for any reason (including personal conscience with no connection to BDS) that might cause any economic harm to Israel or any company in Israel or that does business with Israel.
It is nothing short of fascist and would be thought horrifyingly unacceptable by all those who do not support a fascist state.

The law does not seem to do that. Can you point out the part of the law that you believe does this?

[P]"Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code:

1. “Boycott Israel” means refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory"[/P]

IOW, it covers any and all activities (hint: speech is an activity) that is done with any intent (no matter the underlying motive or any relation to BDS), to cause any level of negative impact on any type of commercial/economic interactions with Israel, which by definition includes criticism of companies that do business with Israel.

The language is extremely broad, inclusive, and unqualified, which means that covers every type of action, and every type of negative impact, and every type of connection (including only indirect) to Israel.

The law’s prohibition is in relation to a company, a business, that is in a contractual relationship with the state of Texas. The pathologist, in her private, individual capacity, can boycott Israel and advocate for such a boycott.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk