Letters: Bizarre idea to ban ethical boycotts

Your front page article of 15 February highlighted dangers to democracy if the Government goes through with stopping public bodies from including ethical considerations in their procurement policy.

While your article understandably focuses on a UK response to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) on Israel or Israeli settlements, the matter is much wider than that.

As a Jewish woman, I reject the implication that calls for boycott against a government that violates international and humanitarian law is anti-Semitic. We need to be principled (and even-handed) in our treatment of foreign regimes. I consider that implying that the Israeli regime meets Jewish values is anti-Semitic.

Making it illegal to boycott goods from Israeli settlements is not only dreadful, but also bizarre, since the UK government – and the US government, along with the UN, EU and almost every government in the world – considers that Israeli settlements built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal and a barrier to peace.

If boycotting settlement goods is made illegal, then what action is permissible to show our commitment to human rights? BDS is a peaceful means to register that doing business with illegal entities is reprehensible.

The Government has condemned Israeli settlements as a barrier to peace, but if refusing to trade with illegal entities is to be made illegal by that same government, then exactly what actions are permissible to back up the words of the Government?

Leah Levane

St Leonard’s on Sea, East Sussex

You report that a decision by Leicester City Council to boycott goods made in illegal settlements on the West Bank is now subject to judicial review because it has been alleged that it “amounts to a get out of town order to Leicester Jews”.

It of course does nothing of the sort. Imagine the outcry if it did.

People making such assertions are either pursuing an agenda of their own, nothing to do with the facts, or are insane.

Conrad Cork

Leicester

It’s not only campaigns against illegal Israeli settlements that could be threatened by the controversial clamping down on local councils making decisions based on ethics. This attack on local democracy could also encompass those progressive councils who are shedding their controversial investments in fossil fuel companies that not only trash the climate, but are also embroiled in numerous global human rights controversies.

Fossil fuel divestment provides local councils with the opportunity to re-invest in clean energy projects owned and run by the community, as happens across Germany. Although the Government is failing to support industries and initiatives that are needed to address the climate crisis, they mustn’t also prevent local councils from doing what’s necessary.

Kevin Smith

Global Justice Now

London SW9

The mooted rules for investment and procurement by public bodies are likely to prove very difficult to enforce.

For instance, if a local authority pension fund does not have an explicit policy of boycott but in practice does not hold any investments in particular sectors or companies, could it be said to be acting unlawfully?

If legal compliance required such holdings, there would need to be an official list specifying what qualifies (as is the case with qualifying venture capital trusts).

Furthermore there may need to be clarification as to whether a purely nominal holding was required or whether it needed to be substantial. If the latter this too would need to be defined.

More generally, this sets a dangerous precedent in that a future government could cite it if it were to choose to compel public bodies to invest their pension funds in particular infrastructure projects.

Donald Roy

London SW15

The death of US Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia (“Justice hangs in the balance”, 15 February) is being followed by the extreme caterwauling of conservatives and polite liberals about the passing of a great legal mind. But before joining in the knee-jerk eulogies, just consider what he actually achieved.

Scalia was against just about every sensible democratic political proposal of the last half-century, from environmental protection, healthcare and abortion to minority rights. His opposition consisted of subjecting all these issues to a line by line analysis of what he considered an 18th-century text said.

The fact that to the authors of this text the problems of the 21st century would have seemed like science fiction troubled him not at all. The Constitution was gospel, and like all religious fanatics he both spouted the text parrot-fashion and bent its meaning solely to support his own deep irrational prejudices.

Your quote from the Bush v Gore 2000 election, where democracy was finally defeated by the political bias of Scalia and his cronies, sums up the depth of legal analysis achieved by this “extraordinary individual and jurist”.

Steve Edwards

Wivelsfield Green, East Sussex

So the junior doctors have now had a contract imposed upon them courtesy of Jeremy Hunt. These of course are individuals whose prime motivation is to save lives and help others yet their shabby treatment will increase their flow to countries where the working conditions are superior and where they are valued.

The imposed doctor’s contracts and the recent proposal to abolish bursaries for student nurses and midwives will unquestionably deter many from entering these professions, thus plunging the NHS farther into chaos.

Just why is it that this government appears to take an almost sadistic delight in both denigrating and imposing deteriorating working conditions on public servants such as medical professionals, police officers, firefighters and probation officers?

Contrast these professionals with the “snout in the trough” parliamentary politicians who have enjoyed increases in their pay packets far beyond that of public servants, who still claim for ridiculous items on “expenses” and whose public approval ratings are truly abysmal.

Chris Hobbs

London W7

How ironic. We have NHS management (“Green light for tax avoiders to run NHS”, 9 February) cowering in fear of litigious, bullying tax-avoiding suppliers, and allowing them to undercut suppliers who have the moral integrity to pay reasonable amounts of tax.

Are these the same managers who bully whistleblowers, and pay out a fortune in legal fees and compensation to defend their sharp employment practices or their connivance in unsafe working? But then, that was always true of bullies. So much for ethical leadership.

David Fleming

Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

As the mother of a junior doctor, I have only got one thing to say: resign en masse and keep your courage. I bet you anything that you will get what you want very quickly.

Janet Kirkley

Bungay, Suffolk

I disagree strongly with Alice Jones about financial education in schools (Notebook, 12 February). Lily Allen has a valuable point in suggesting that schools teach children about mortgages, national insurance etc. This is nothing to do with being a “money-obsessed celebrity” but good common sense.

My husband is seriously ill now and he has always expertly managed a low income. I will need a full-time job until pension age 66, and to manage the household finances myself. He is trying valiantly to teach me. At age 60 I dearly wish we had been taught the basics of financial independence at school.

Susan Denning

Rodborough, Gloucestershire

It is with some delight that I read that only the super rich will play golf at Wentworth, to the exclusion of the only slightly rich. I eschewed the long form of the game many years ago. My decision to embrace the most democratic form of golf now seems even more enlightened as I only have to concern myself with windmills, frogs’ mouths and pirate boats.

Frank Maskell

Bedford

Yet again some moron has been shining a laser pen at a passenger aircraft, causing it to return to Heathrow. Why do we need them? The answer is, we don’t. So ban the darned things before an aircraft is downed by them, and make it illegal to own one. Go back to the old wooden pointer.

John Hudson

Derby