Should our MPS belong to these groups

[untethered]

That seems to me to be endorsment of human rights abuses, and it would be troubling for our promotion of human rights as a signatory to the Amsterdam treaty.

The MPs that are members of these groups are acting in a personal capacity. They do not represent the government, even though some of these individuals may be part of it.

 

[scott_forester]

ok
so you are happy with the endorsement of countries with appalling human rights abuses

and that communication is not enough, endorsment is neccessary?

That seems to me to be endorsment of human rights abuses, and it would be troubling for our promotion of human rights as a signatory to the Amsterdam treaty.

But anyhow thanks for your input Scott.

I take it you don't purchase goods from countries that have less that pristine human rights records?

 

[lovelondon]

I suspect you are equating membership of these groups with an absolute and uncritical endorsement of all the actions of Israeli governments, past, present and future.

Put that way, your position looks a little silly.

A "Friends of X" group is usually a broad alliance of people interested in (in both senses of the word) and supportive of the general success of X. It will contain people with diverse political viewpoints. For any given action of the government of X, some will support it and others will oppose it.

For example, I might set up a Friends of Zimbabwe group. Does this equate to a cheerleading group for Mr Mugabe? It might, it might not. You'd have to see what the group actually did.

The real answer to your question, however, is that we live in a democracy and that means that we have freedom of political expression and association. We do not go around banning groups just because they don't conform to your notions of political acceptability, nor should we.

yes, i agree endorsment is not a blanket thing, there are always some aspects we disagree on but in general we would like to see prosperity .

But at some stage chastisment in order to send a clear signal is a positive principle

How can we champion human rights when our elected politicians are endorsing in such a high profile way a country with such appaling human rights abuses

If our politicians are not seen as promoting the values we are signatory to, then how can we ask anyone to improve their human rights.

 

[lovelondon]

The MPs that are members of these groups are acting in a personal capacity. They do not represent the government, even though some of these individuals may be part of it.

But that is a thin line argument. Teachers who belong to BNP are members in their own capacity, but rightly so they should not be Teachers, or Policemen

does not the same principle apply.

What do you think? where should the limit be drawn?

 

[lovelondon]

I take it you don't purchase goods from countries that have less that pristine human rights records?

Yes I try, but i am not such a public face for Britain and the EU, and so what i do doesn't matter here or there except for my own consciouns

 

[untethered]

yes, i agree endorsment is not a blanket thing, there are always some aspects we disagree on but in general we would like to see prosperity .

But at some stage chastisment in order to send a clear signal is a positive principle

And what happens if some of these people disagree with your political perspective on this? Should we ban their political association?

How can we champion human rights when our elected politicians are endorsing in such a high profile way a country with such appaling human rights abuses

If our politicians are not seen as promoting the values we are signatory to, then how can we ask anyone to improve their human rights.

Don't "human rights" include freedom of political expression and association?

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

 

[untethered]

Yes I try, but i am not such a public face for Britain and the EU, and so what i do doesn't matter here or there except for my own consciouns

Neither are MPs acting in a personal capacity.

 

[untethered]

But that is a thin line argument. Teachers who belong to BNP are members in their own capacity, but rightly so they should not be Teachers, or Policemen

does not the same principle apply.

No. There is a world of difference between being a state employee and an elected political representative.

What do you think? where should the limit be drawn?

I don't see any problem with the current arrangements.

 

[lovelondon]

No. There is a world of difference between being a state employee and an elected political representative.



I don't see any problem with the current arrangements.

Yes there is a big difference between state employee and elected political representative.

An elected political representative is there to reprsent values such as the promotion of human rights.

it is much more important for polliticians to be seen to be doing the right thing.

How on earth can MP's give such a public endorsement by being "labour friends of israel" and "conservative friends of israel" when Israel has such an appaling human rights record.

This is giving the green light to commit attrocities left right and centre.

With No accountability there is nothing

 

[lovelondon]

And what happens if some of these people disagree with your political perspective on this? Should we ban their political association?



Don't "human rights" include freedom of political expression and association?

So you are saying that in upholding human rights ideals we should allow political parties that call for the genocide of say the Irish?

 

[untethered]

Yes there is a big difference between state employee and elected political representative.

An elected political representative is there to reprsent values such as the promotion of human rights.

You seem to have missed the quotations from the UDHR which explicitly state freedom of expression and association as human rights.

Or should we just concern ourselves with the human rights that you value most?

it is much more important for polliticians to be seen to be doing the right thing.

And who gets to decide what this "right thing" is? You?

How on earth can MP's give such a public endorsement by being "labour friends of israel" and "conservative friends of israel" when Israel has such an appaling human rights record.

See my earlier comments about the nature of these organisations and the political diversity of their members.

This is giving the green light to commit attrocities left right and centre.

I think you'll need to explain how holding the general view that you want a certain country to succeed is a tacit carte blanche for the transient government of that country to act as it pleases contrary to any particular view, norm or law.

With No accountability there is nothing

If you don't like the political stance of your MP, don't vote for them in the next election.

 

[untethered]

So you are saying that in upholding human rights ideals we should allow political parties that call for the genocide of say the Irish?

Before you embarrass yourself further on this thread, perhaps you could take the trouble to find out what these groups do, precisely.

You might want to start with this article by Nick Palmer MP from Labour Friends of Israel entitled "Israel's friends must say 'stop'":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/01/israelandthepalestinians-labour

Sometimes friends need to tell you when you've gone too far. This is one of those times. Israeli policy towards Gaza is wrong in principle, erratic in practice and now damaging to longer-term peace prospects.

 

[lovelondon]

Before you embarrass yourself further on this thread, perhaps you could take the trouble to find out what these groups do, precisely.

You might want to start with this article by Nick Palmer MP from Labour Friends of Israel entitled "Israel's friends must say 'stop'":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/01/israelandthepalestinians-labour

Yes and if they do not listen then they should take concrete actions such as resigning from the labour friends of Isreal, as endorsment is an affront to what they are to represent

I think it is you that is making embarrassing points.
such as
state employees should not belong to organisations that promote an unjust ideology, but our elected representatives can

that
human rights extends to allowing organisations and groups that act against the very human rights that you use to justify membership

that
politicians personal endorsements have no impact on their ability to act as a member of parliment

No wonder Israel is able to commit the attrocities it does

 

[teuchter]

But that is a thin line argument. Teachers who belong to BNP are members in their own capacity, but rightly so they should not be Teachers, or Policemen

does not the same principle apply.

What do you think? where should the limit be drawn?

There is a rather long thread on here where I have argued that teachers should be allowed to be BNP members. I also think MPs should be allowed to be members of any organisation they like.
On the other thread I asked whether teachers should be allowed to be members of the catholic church and if so, why this should be allowed but not membership of the BNP. No-one seemed able to give me a definitive set of criteria which one could use to decide which organisations are ok and which aren't. Can you? Either for mps or for teachers?

 

[untethered]

Yes and if they do not listen then they should take concrete actions such as resigning from the labour friends of Isreal, as endorsment is an affront to what they are to represent

You still haven't explained how membership of these groups is necessarily an endorsement of all these states' governments' actions.

Now perhaps you could do that before we go any further.

Yes, you may think various people "should" do this or that. But that is a very different thing from your general proposition that these groups should be banned. Such a thing would be a fundamental breach of human rights, whether you realise it or not.

 

[lovelondon]

There is a rather long thread on here where I have argued that teachers should be allowed to be BNP members. I also think MPs should be allowed to be members of any organisation they like.
On the other thread I asked whether teachers should be allowed to be members of the catholic church and if so, why this should be allowed but not membership of the BNP. No-one seemed able to give me a definitive set of criteria which one could use to decide which organisations are ok and which aren't. Can you? Either for mps or for teachers?

I think the criteria that is used is the GENERAL cultural values of the country
so culturally the Catholic Church is fine, whereas support for Zimbabwe and Iran is a no no.

There is no clear demarciation

 

[untethered]

I think the criteria that is used is the GENERAL cultural values of the country
so culturally the Catholic Church is fine, whereas support for Zimbabwe and Iran is a no no.

There is no clear demarciation

The country or the government? Are you capable of making this distinction?

I'd like to see Zimbabwe emerge as a peaceful, democratic and prosperous country. I'd happily join a "Friends of Zimbabwe" group that was full of similar people and provided, obviously, that its membership didn't comprise solely of uncritical supporters of ZANU-PF.

What would be wrong with that?

 

[lovelondon]

You still haven't explained how membership of these groups is necessarily an endorsement of all these states' governments' actions.

Now perhaps you could do that before we go any further.

Yes, you may think various people "should" do this or that. But that is a very different thing from your general proposition that these groups should be banned. Such a thing would be a fundamental breach of human rights, whether you realise it or not.

They don't need to be banned to send the right message, the MP's just need to resign as members.
That is if you think they are endorsing Israel when Israel is committing gross human rights violations and is not listening to anyone

 

[untethered]

They don't need to be banned to send the right message, the MP's just need to resign as members.

You're still labouring under the huge delusion that members of these groups uncritically support the Israeli government.

Did you read the Nick Palmer article? What did you get from it?

That is if you think they are endorsing Israel when Israel is committing gross human rights violations and is not listening to anyone

Did Nick Palmer's article look like an endorsement of the assault on Gaza?

 

[lovelondon]

You're still labouring under the huge delusion that members of these groups uncritically support the Israeli government.

Did you read the Nick Palmer article? What did you get from it?



Did Nick Palmer's article look like an endorsement of the assault on Gaza?

and did it acheive anything?

actions speak louder than words

You don't see Britain asking Zimbabwe to politely do whatever, they impose sanctions, endorese boycotts and political activism against them etc.

 

[untethered]

and did it acheive anything?

I don't know. Perhaps you could write to Nick Palmer and ask him.

actions speak louder than words

Translation: stop talking, walk out and lose any influence whatsoever.

You don't see Britain asking Zimbabwe to politely do whatever, they impose sanctions, endorese boycotts and political activism against them etc.

All political activity is a combination of argument, persuasion, diplomacy and more tangible actions.

Here you're confusing, once again, the actions of a government with those of individual MPs.

 

[lovelondon]

Seems like me and ken are on the same track

seems like me and ken are on the same track. Is that a good thing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/04/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinians

"But the Israeli government has made clear it has no intention of agreeing to such a reasonable way out. That is why international pressure to end the killing is essential. The present US administration will do nothing; it is to be hoped that Barack Obama will take a different approach when he takes office. In the meantime, it falls to the European Union and our own government to act.

As a first step, European ambassadors should be recalled from Israel until the military offensive stops. And Britain should lead by example. Second, the European Union/Israel trade agreement should be suspended, as its human rights provisions have clearly been violated.

Third, if these measures do not bring rapid results, further and stronger action will be required. Europe is a critical trade partner for Israel. We have the economic leverage to end this conflict. We should use it."

 

[untethered]

seems like me and ken are on the same track. Is that a good thing

All of which is about government action and has no connection to whether individual MPs should continue to belong to groups which effectively say no more than they're interested in issues with respect to a particular country.

 

[lovelondon]

All of which is about government action and has no connection to whether individual MPs should continue to belong to groups which effectively say no more than they're interested in issues with respect to a particular country.

so all our elected representatives are part of friends of israel because they like going to barmitzas?

Who are you kidding. It is completely political and they are members in that capacity.

 

[teuchter]

I think the criteria that is used is the GENERAL cultural values of the country

And how exactly do you determine what those are?

 

[untethered]

so all our elected representatives are part of friends of israel because they like going to barmitzas?

Who are you kidding. It is completely political and they are members in that capacity.

This is getting very tiresome. Yes, of course they're political groups. I haven't suggested otherwise.

So let's break it down, given that we now know that these groups contain members with diverse political views.

For those in a "Friends of Israel" group that support the current action in Gaza, presumably they would have no call to resign from that group in protest. I doubt you would find this surprising.

For those members that oppose the action in Gaza, they could choose to resign in protest (a fairly weak one given the scale of international condemnation, let's be honest) or they could maintain their memberships and use their personal positions and group memberships as a platform for making their criticisms, as Nick Palmer has done.

Either way, your whole premise is that membership of these groups constitutes an uncritical support for all the actions of the governments of these states. Given that we can now see that it doesn't, I really don't know what else there is to discuss.

 

[lovelondon]

And how exactly do you determine what those are?

weight of public opinon

 

[lovelondon]

This is getting very tiresome. Yes, of course they're political groups. I haven't suggested otherwise.

So let's break it down, given that we now know that these groups contain members with diverse political views.

For those in a "Friends of Israel" group that support the current action in Gaza, presumably they would have no call to resign from that group in protest. I doubt you would find this surprising.

For those members that oppose the action in Gaza, they could choose to resign in protest (a fairly weak one given the scale of international condemnation, let's be honest) or they could maintain their memberships and use their personal positions and group memberships as a platform for making their criticisms, as Nick Palmer has done.

Either way, your whole premise is that membership of these groups constitutes an uncritical support for all the actions of the governments of these states. Given that we can now see that it doesn't, I really don't know what else there is to discuss.

Again your assumptions are flawed
resigning membership is not based on uncritical support, but critical support
and is neccessary to bring the Israeli state into line with respect for human rights.

we base our (or should base) our trade and association of Israel based on benchmarks of respect for human rights.
And is the same criteria that should apply to our elected representatives membership of these lobby groups.

 

[teuchter]

weight of public opinon

Does this mean we have to have a referendum on absolutely every decision the government makes?

 

[untethered]

Again your assumptions are flawed
resigning membership is not based on uncritical support, but critical support
and is neccessary to bring the Israeli state into line with respect for human rights.

So if every single member of the Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel groups resigned, do you think that would make a material difference to the policies of the Israeli government in Gaza?

Anyway, given that you hold the views you do and presumably think something must be done about the situation in Gaza, rather than trying to persuade me of a view in which you'll never succeed, why not use your time more productively (supposedly) by writing to the various members of these groups encouraging them to resign?

Do be sure to report back here on the responses you get.