BYM responds to anti-boycott bill
‘Missing from the government’s analysis is the fact that some public bodies, such as local authorities, have a public mandate of their own and are accountable to their voters in local elections.’
The Anti-Boycott Bill ‘will prevent concerned citizens from using the few instruments they have to call attention to global injustice’, a Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) staff member highlighted this month.
Billy Vaughan, public affairs officer for BYM, said that the bill fails to take into account that some public bodies have a public mandate that is separate from central government’s. ‘Missing from the government’s analysis is the fact that some public bodies, such as local authorities, have a public mandate of their own and are accountable to their voters in local elections.’ He highlighted how local councils led the boycott of South Africa. ‘We now know that the local authorities who took a stand against Apartheid were on the right side of history. Had the Anti-Boycott Bill been in force during the 1980s, it is likely such campaigns would have been illegal.’
The article, for Bond, a UK network for international development, argues that we should all be concerned about the impact on democracy and community action, saying: ‘Public bodies are often the first port of call for communities who want to draw attention to global injustices.’ While taking part in the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, Billy said he heard repeatedly from Palestinians that ‘actions by the international community matter hugely. Any action condemning the Israeli occupation was welcomed, no matter how symbolic or small-scale’.
The UK government has introduced the bill in response to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, arguing that BDS can ‘lead to community tensions and a rise in antisemitism’. Billy Vaughan said that the impact assessment for the bill cites no evidence of this.
Comments
Please login to add a comment
