School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[RavenSky]

[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

That doesn't seem to be what her employer is telling her

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Well, I know who I won't be hiring to give me legal advice.

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?

According to the statute in question,

(2) "Company" means a for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exists to make a profit.​

A for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exists to make a profit, is not an H. sapiens. Ms. Amawi is an H. sapiens. Therefore she is not the company.

 

[untermensche]

The question remains.

Why this one repressive nation across the globe?

Why is this religious state singled out?

Why should any American be protecting Israel from the consequences of it's decades of crimes?

 

[ruby sparks]

....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.

It still does seem slightly odd to me in some ways, because it seems to imply that criticism of or protest against Israel is discrimination, by which I mean effectively unfair discrimination. Which it isn't of course. There are imo completely valid criticisms of and protests against Israel which are being effectively censored by this law.

 

[ruby sparks]

Therefore she is not the company.

She is the company. In fact, I'm not sure there even is a company for her to be the sole proprietor of at all. To get around this, the law could include 'any individual providing a (relevant) service'. That said, I agree that's a minor technicality. In effect she is the 'company' in this case, when doing the work.

Also 'will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract' could be taken to imply 'will not boycott Israel during the period of time she is working for the school board'. Although I accept that the more usual interpretation would refer only to the hours she is carrying out the contract work (those times when she is the 'company contracted') which is to say that after work hours she is free to attend protest rallies for instance, or not buy Israeli products for domestic use. If the latter is clarified in court, which it surely has to be, I think she will lose her case.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Well, I know who I won't be hiring to give me legal advice.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

According to the statute in question,

(2) "Company" means a for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exists to make a profit.​

A for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exists to make a profit, is not an H. sapiens. Ms. Amawi is an H. sapiens. Therefore she is not the company.

Sorry, proprietorships do not exist independent of their proprietor, so she is the company. Since she appears to be the only person involved, she is the company.

Apparently, that school board's legal counsel did not consult you before making this demand on this woman. I wonder why.

 

[repoman]

The question remains.

Why this one repressive nation across the globe?

Why is this religious state singled out?

Why should any American be protecting Israel from the consequences of it's decades of crimes?

ZOG

 

[Harry Bosch]

The question remains.

Why this one repressive nation across the globe?

Why is this religious state singled out?

Why should any American be protecting Israel from the consequences of it's decades of crimes?

What right does the any citizen of the US to criticize any country when we are the most repressive country in the world?

 

[untermensche]

The question remains.

Why this one repressive nation across the globe?

Why is this religious state singled out?

Why should any American be protecting Israel from the consequences of it's decades of crimes?

What right does the any citizen of the US to criticize any country when we are the most repressive country in the world?

Just because US citizens have no say in what the US government does that is no reason they can't protest against injustice elsewhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Israel accepted it, the Palestinians did not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question remains.

Why this one repressive nation across the globe?

Why is this religious state singled out?

Why should any American be protecting Israel from the consequences of it's decades of crimes?

Do you not realize the US anti-BDS laws are a reaction to Arab laws requiring a boycott of Israel?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question remains.

Why this one repressive nation across the globe?

Why is this religious state singled out?

Why should any American be protecting Israel from the consequences of it's decades of crimes?

ZOG

A reference to ZOG clearly shows you are an antisemite.

 

[untermensche]

The question remains.

Why this one repressive nation across the globe?

Why is this religious state singled out?

Why should any American be protecting Israel from the consequences of it's decades of crimes?

Do you not realize the US anti-BDS laws are a reaction to Arab laws requiring a boycott of Israel?

The desire to boycott Israel is a moral reaction to decades of oppression and theft.

Why is anyone protecting such a criminal nation?

 

[RavenSky]

The question remains.

Why this one repressive nation across the globe?

Why is this religious state singled out?

Why should any American be protecting Israel from the consequences of it's decades of crimes?

Do you not realize the US anti-BDS laws are a reaction to Arab laws requiring a boycott of Israel?

So you think the U.S.A. should be just as bad as the Arab countries in suppressing people's freedoms?

 

[Arctish]

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.

Israel accepted it, the Palestinians did not.

The Zionists accepted UN backing for the creation of the State of Israel. They did not accept the proposed borders. They planned and executed Plan Dalet to have the borders where they wanted them to be and to seize the agricultural and industrial areas they desired. They never accepted the part of the UN proposal that called for a Palestinian State in Eretz Yisrael.

You know this. You have defended their choice to reject the proposed borders and utterly reject the creation of a Palestinian State. Don 't think we don't remember or that we can't find your exact words on this topic in previous threads, because we do and we can.

 

[Bomb#20]

You are forgetting that Israelites lived there since at least early 1st millennium BCE.

Yeah. True. Oh wait. Who has lived in North America since at least the early 1st millennium BCE?

Bristlecone pines.

 

[Arctish]

You are forgetting that Israelites lived there since at least early 1st millennium BCE.

Yeah. True. Oh wait. Who has lived in North America since at least the early 1st millennium BCE?

Bristlecone pines.

 

[Bomb#20]

....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.

It still does seem slightly odd to me in some ways, because it seems to imply that criticism of or protest against Israel is discrimination,

Huh? How are you getting that? It implies that boycotting is discrimination -- which it obviously is, that being the entire point of boycotts. There's not even a suggestion that criticism or protest in general is discrimination.

by which I mean effectively unfair discrimination.

Not seeing how you're getting that either. It implies that boycotting is effectively illegal discrimination, for companies with state contracts. Legislatures aren't in the business of determining what's fair or unfair. That, we must all decide for ourselves.

Which it isn't of course. There are imo completely valid criticisms of and protests against Israel which are being effectively censored by this law.

If you mean criticisms and protests other than supporting a boycott, can you give examples? I can't see how anything in this law censors any business from, say, putting up a sign reading "Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal and it would withdraw if it weren't ruled by scoundrels." This law censors businesses from putting up signs saying "Don't buy Israeli."

If you mean a boycott is a completely valid protest, and "Shame on Acme Corp. for not boycotting Israel." is a completely valid criticism, that's a matter of personal judgment, the Texas legislature disagrees with you, and I won't pretend to be any more qualified to rule on that question than either of you are.

The point, though, is that governments censor companies all the time, and the folks shrieking that free speech is under attack over this incident are, lo and behold, solidly in favor of government censorship of companies. Who among the leftists here supports the Citizens United ruling? Leftist or non-leftist, do any of us at all object to forced speech in the case of requiring Philip Morris to write the Surgeon General's warning on its cancer sticks? If this law censors a speech pathology company from writing "Don't buy Israeli." on the material it gives the people it's serving, on pain of job loss, well, there's another law that censors a bakery from writing "Don't sodomize your boyfriend" on the material it gives the people it's serving, on pain of job loss. Do you feel our courts should be in the business of deciding that one of those acts of business censorship is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, and the other is a perfectly legitimate exercise of state regulation of business, based on the courts deciding that one of those protests is completely valid and the other protest is completely invalid?

 

[Bomb#20]

Therefore she is not the company.

She is the company.

That's an assertion. I made an argument. Do you have a counterargument?

Here's another argument. A for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exists to make a profit, by definition, exists to make a profit. So her company exists to make a profit. Ms. Amawi does not exist to make a profit.

Leibniz's Law says "If x is identical to y, then for any property x has, y has and for any property y has, x has." Since Ms. Amawi and her company do not have all the same properties, she is not the company.

In fact, I'm not sure there even is a company for her to be the sole proprietor of at all.

If there is no company then the law cannot apply to her. The law explicitly states that it applies only to companies. She can freely sign a statement affirming that the company will not do whatever the state prohibits, without constraining any of her activities whatsoever, and she's guaranteed to be being perfectly truthful, since a company that does not exist does not do anything.

Also 'will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract' could be taken to imply 'will not boycott Israel during the period of time she is working for the school board'. Although I accept that the more usual interpretation would refer only to the hours she is carrying out the contract work (those times when she is the 'company contracted') which is to say that after work hours she is free to attend protest rallies for instance, or not buy Israeli products for domestic use. If the latter is clarified in court, which it surely has to be, I think she will lose her case.

Yes, that's pretty much what I expect.

There may potentially also be an issue of what supporting materials she buys for speech therapy. It's likely that there are commercially available products, literature and exercises for Arabic-speaking children with articulation difficulties, made in Israel. After all, Israel has speech therapists and Israel has Arab children. If Ms. Amawi were supplying Texas schoolchildren with an inferior Egyptian product instead of a superior Israeli product, she might be in violation of the law.

 

[repoman]

That's an assertion. I made an argument. Do you have a counterargument?

Here's another argument. A for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exists to make a profit, by definition, exists to make a profit. So her company exists to make a profit. Ms. Amawi does not exist to make a profit.

Leibniz's Law says "If x is identical to y, then for any property x has, y has and for any property y has, x has." Since Ms. Amawi and her company do not have all the same properties, she is not the company.

In fact, I'm not sure there even is a company for her to be the sole proprietor of at all.

If there is no company then the law cannot apply to her. The law explicitly states that it applies only to companies. She can freely sign a statement affirming that the company will not do whatever the state prohibits, without constraining any of her activities whatsoever, and she's guaranteed to be being perfectly truthful, since a company that does not exist does not do anything.

Also 'will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract' could be taken to imply 'will not boycott Israel during the period of time she is working for the school board'. Although I accept that the more usual interpretation would refer only to the hours she is carrying out the contract work (those times when she is the 'company contracted') which is to say that after work hours she is free to attend protest rallies for instance, or not buy Israeli products for domestic use. If the latter is clarified in court, which it surely has to be, I think she will lose her case.

Yes, that's pretty much what I expect.

There may potentially also be an issue of what supporting materials she buys for speech therapy. It's likely that there are commercially available products, literature and exercises for Arabic-speaking children with articulation difficulties, made in Israel. After all, Israel has speech therapists and Israel has Arab children. If Ms. Amawi were supplying Texas schoolchildren with an inferior Egyptian product instead of a superior Israeli product, she might be in violation of the law.

If she was supplying a product that was even of equal cost and quality from Egypt as opposed to Israel she could be in trouble. Especially if that Egyptian company had a paper trail showing that it was strongly trying to asks buyers if they were supportive of BDS before selling.

I think that any company in the US (even not having state or federal contracts) that would open up its books and show a foreign company that they do not trade with Israel as a condition to trade would be in a shitload of trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Administration_Act_of_1979#Federal_Law.2FRegulation_Forbidding_Anti-Israel_Boycotts

https://web.archive.org/web/20100612131929/https://www.bis.doc.gov//complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm