Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Written evidence submitted to the Public Bill Committee by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) (EAPBB18)

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 

PSC Director,   Ben Jamal

" The knowledge that local authorities…were banning apartheid products…and that the universities…had cut their links - was a great inspiration to us in our struggle. "

Nelson Mandela, Cardiff, 1998

Summary

PSC believes that the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (hereafter, anti-boycott bill), threatens to erode local democracy, restrict freedom of expression, and undermine campaigns for social and climate justice.

PSC has convened a coalition of more than 70 civil society organisations including trade unions, charities, NGOs, faith groups, climate justice, human rights, and solidarity organisations, who have come together in opposition to this bill.

Although it threatens to undermine a wide range of campaigns that use boycott or divestment tactics for progressive causes, government statements have made clear that the principal target is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in support of Palestinian rights.

It is disappointing that, instead of taking concrete steps to uphold human rights and international law and encouraging public authorities to do likewise, the government seems determined to shield Israel from accountability, as well as companies complicit in its occupation, by legislating to silence and stigmatise those trying to achieve change through peaceful and democratic means.

In this submission, we explain the true nature and origins of the BDS campaign and outline some of our concerns with the proposed legislation.

See also:

PSC’s briefing on the bill available here: https://www.palestinecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/Anti-Boycott-bill-PSC-briefing-updated-June-2023.pdf

Right to Boycott statement signed by 70 civil society organisations: https://righttoboycott.org.uk/ 

 

Contents

· Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), paragraphs 1-3

· Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), paragraphs 4-9

· The 2005 Palestinian BDS call, paragraphs 10-14

· Campaigners targeted by the anti-boycott  bill: East Sussex Pension Fund and Elbit Systems, paragraphs 15-21

· Foreign policy implications and international responsibilities, paragraphs 22-25

· United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, paragraphs 26-28

 

· Freedom of expression and the "gagging clause", paragraphs 29-35

· Conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, paragraphs 36-39

· Right to Boycott coalition, paragraphs 40-42

· Conclusion, paragraph 43

Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC)

1. With over 8,000 members, more than 70 branches, and 15 national affiliated Trade Unions, PSC is by far the largest organisation in Britain dedicated to securing Palestinian human rights. For more than 40 years, PSC has campaigned to end Israel’s flouting of international law, continued military occupation of Palestine, and systematic discrimination against Palestinians. PSC is founded on the principle that Palestinians should have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. We build support for the Palestinian struggle to achieve the implementation of their inalienable rights.

2. PSC is committed to equality and opposes all forms of racism, including Islamophobia, antisemitism, and anti-Palestinian racism.

3. As a campaigning organisation, PSC believes that our actions can effect change. Israel’s military occupation and wider system of oppression and discrimination can only be maintained for as long as the international community fails in its responsibilities to safeguard and promote the rights of the Palestinian people. As a key ally of Israel, Britain is well placed to have a significant impact. To that end, we seek to build a mass campaign to realise our goals through peaceful pressure and democratic means. Since 2005, a key element of this work has been supporting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)

4. BDS campaigns have been used by social movements throughout history and across the world to pressure regimes, institutions, or companies to change abusive, discriminatory, or illegal practices. In this way, individual citizens have helped to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade, obtain civil rights, and champion freedom and equality.

5. The best-known boycott was the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa. Millions of people in Britain, including around 120 local authorities and many universities were part of that movement. [1]

6. Visiting Britain in 1998, Nelson Mandela described the "knowledge that local authorities…were banning apartheid products from canteens and schools - and that the universities…had cut their links" as "a great inspiration to us in our struggle." [2]

7. Although the principal target of the bill is campaigns against Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights and international law, other movements who use boycott or divestment tactics will also be impacted. Civil society groups have warned that this law could curtail campaigns against deforestation, pollution, and the exploitation of children and workers in countries where these practices are tolerated by authorities or where they are unethical but not explicitly illegal.

8. Despite claims that, in principle, the right to engage in boycott is protected, while only campaigns that "single out" a particular state would be prevented, in practice, this could make it near impossible to exercise that right in many real-world situations or to effect real change. Boycotts work when they are targeted and specific. When human rights are violated, that happens in a certain place. An equivalent might be to claim that workers still had the right to strike while introducing a law prohibiting any strikes that target individual workplaces or employers.

9. According to a legal opinion on the bill obtained by the Labour Party from Richard Hermer KC, "Had legislation of this nature been in effect in the 1980s it would have rendered it unlawful to refuse to source goods from apartheid South Africa." [3]

The 2005 Palestinian BDS call

 

10. The Palestinian-led BDS movement is a global campaign initiated in 2005 following a call from Palestinian civil society for the international community to use the tactics of boycott, divestment and sanctions to oppose Israel's ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights and international law.

11. The call was issued with the initial endorsement of over 170 organisations representing the three major components of the Palestinian people: the refugees in exile, Palestinians under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the Palestinian citizens of the Israeli state. [4]

12. Inspired by the South African example, the Palestinian BDS call urges nonviolent pressure on Israel, including through pressuring international companies or institutions that are propping up Israel's system of oppression, until it complies with international law by meeting three demands:

i. End the colonisation and occupation of all Palestinian land and dismantle the apartheid wall.

ii. Recognise the fundamental rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.

iii. Respect, protect and promote the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.

13. BDS campaigns are driven by the moral imperative to do no harm; to ensure companies, financial institutions, and governments are not contributing to the denial of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people. Over nearly two decades, PSC has been at the forefront of building support for BDS in Britain, including leading campaigns that call on public bodies to take action to divest from companies proven to be complicit in Israel’s violations of international law.

14. We are concerned at the false narratives which have been promulgated, including in parliamentary debate in the context of this Bill, which seek to delegitimise the Palestinian led BDS campaign. To correct this misinformation for the benefit of committee members and demonstrate that BDS campaigns provide members of the public with a meaningful, legitimate, and effective way to challenge complicity in the violation of Palestinian rights, an example BDS campaign is explained below.

Campaigners targeted by the anti-boycott bill: East Sussex Pension Fund and Elbit Systems 

15. The government’s own Impact Assessment for the anti-boycott bill offers the decision of East Sussex Pension Fund to divest from Elbit Systems as an illustration of the kind of BDS campaign it wishes to prohibit. It, therefore, provides a useful case study here. [5]

16. Elbit Systems produces a range of weapons and military technology, used by Israel and other repressive states, to violate international law and human rights. It is associated with the production of banned cluster munitions. Because of this, it has been subject to divestment and exclusion by a range of financial institutions and institutional investors, including pension funds in Norway, Holland, and Sweden.

17. Throughout 2020, members of the pension fund and East Sussex residents asked questions at East Sussex County Council meetings requesting the pension fund address their concerns about its investments in Elbit Systems and other companies named by the United Nations OHCHR as involved in activities contributing to violations of international law. They also asked the fund to "implement screening and due diligence procedures to ensure that scheme members' money is not used to support the violation of international law in future." [6]

18. The fund, then chaired by a Conservative Party councillor, acknowledged the concerns, and in response committed that a "further review of the Funds position will take place, and this will be considered by the Committee."

19. Subsequently, in February 2021, East Sussex Pension Fund confirmed it had no longer held exposure to Elbit Systems following changes to its investment portfolio.

20. In taking this step, East Sussex Pension Fund had responded to the wishes of its members as to how their money should be used. This course of action is typical of the local government divestment campaigns that this legislation seeks to prevent. Ordinary citizens engaged in local democracy and motivated by high moral standards argued that public funds should not be invested in companies involved in violations of international law anywhere in the world. After specific evidence of human rights abuses was presented, the investment was rightly withdrawn.

21. As one Scheme Member of East Sussex Pension Fund, commented at the time, "I’m relieved no more of my deferred wages will be invested in Elbit Systems, whose weapons are used to oppress Palestinian civilians."

Foreign policy implications and international responsibilities  

22. The government has claimed that boycott and divestment decisions unduly focus on Israel but, in fact, it is the bill that singles out Israel by name alongside the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" and "Occupied Golan Heights", as territories that the law explicitly protects from public sector boycotts, leaving no room for any future minister to grant an exception. By doing so, the bill actively promotes impunity for violations of international law and well-documented human rights violations committed against Palestinians.

23. Any suggestion that, alone among peoples facing oppression and human rights violations around the world, Palestinians should be singled out and denied the right to appeal to people of conscience for support is not only wrong but runs counter to the UK’s legal obligations and must be rejected.

24. Despite assertions that foreign policy is unchanged, for the first time, a piece of British legislation will require Israel and the territories it illegally occupies to be treated in the same way, departing from decades of international consensus on the illegality of settlements. [7]

25. This approach runs contrary to Britain’s international commitments including under UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016) which requires states, in their "relevant dealings," to distinguish "between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967." This bill would explicitly forbid UK government ministers and public authorities from making that distinction when taking procurement or investment decisions. [8]

United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders

26. Moreover, the anti-boycott bill is a flagrant violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms  (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders). [9]

27. Specifically, this relates to Article 1 ("Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels."), Article 10 ("No one shall participate, by act or by failure to act where required, in violating human rights and fundamental freedoms and no one shall be subjected to punishment or adverse action of any kind for refusing to do so."), and Article 12 ("Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to participate in peaceful activities against violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.").

28. Similarly, the government’s own National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights calls for active steps to prevent adverse human rights impacts, while its policy on support for human rights defenders states that human rights defenders are essential because "they document and report human rights violations and are often the only ones who speak up for vulnerable and marginalised groups, bringing public attention to abuses and violations of human rights" and "play a role in ensuring responsible action by the private sector on human rights which is good for business and communities." [10] These are the very motivations and actions that would be prevented by the anti-boycott bill.

Freedom of expression and the "gagging clause"

29. BDS tactics are a part of the right to protest and take peaceful action for a cause, hallmarks of freedom of expression. Even those who do not participate in such campaigns, including many opponents of the bill (see below), affirm the right of others to make that choice.

30. As the former UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression, David Kaye, has stated, advocating boycott, divestment, and sanctions has "long been understood as a legitimate form of expression, protected under Article 19(2) of the ICCPR." [11]

31. The imposition of fines on public bodies who merely take into consideration issues such as foreign states’ record on human rights when making procurement and investment decisions, would interfere with the right to freedom of expression of individuals within those organisations, especially in the context of democratically elected bodies such as local councils.

32. Furthermore, this bill would curtail the rights of voters to hold their electoral representatives accountable for financial decisions and exercise informed voting choices. Shockingly, clauses in the bill will serve to gag local representatives and prevent them from explaining their position to the electorate. Clause 4(1) forbids all those subject to the proposed new law from even stating, for instance, at a hustings event during an election, that they would support taking a moral stance if it were permissible to do so.

33. Its application to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the concentration of substantial powers in Westminster, could undermine the devolution settlements and disempower elected mayors.

34. Previous attempts to silence local authorities – including the notorious "Section 28" which banned the "promotion of homosexuality" – prove that central government does not always know better than communities and their elected representatives.

35. Contrary to the government’s own stated commitment to free speech on campus, preventing universities from making ethical investments, or just openly discussing their potential merits, will seriously curtail academic debate.

Conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism

36. The government states "that such boycotts may legitimise and drive antisemitism". This claim is wrong and can only serve to stoke fear and division.

37. It is profoundly irresponsible to suggest that antisemitism is caused by divestment from companies involved in breaches of international law. Such rhetoric draws a false equivalence between Jewish people and the policies of the state of Israel and discriminates against Palestinians by holding them to a different standard to any other group whose rights are being violated. No reasonable observer would similarly claim that Black South African opposition to apartheid was driven by hatred of white people.

38. Any boycott discriminating against a section of the community would already be illegal under equalities laws, and rightly so. The call for BDS comes from Palestinian civil society and aims to pressure those complicit with violations of their rights. It targets only complicity, not identity.

39. In fact, 14 of Israel’s leading civil society organisations have already written to the government to oppose the anti-boycott bill [12] and many Jewish groups and individuals agree. Even many of those who are implacably against BDS believe that this law would curb democracy and undermine debate. At its recent conference, the Union of Jewish Students voted overwhelmingly to oppose the government’s plans for an anti-boycott bill describing them as a "curtailment" of "the democratic right to non-violently protest" and "a setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace." [13]

Right to Boycott coalition

40. In response to the anti-boycott bill, more than 70 civil society organisations have signed a statement calling on the government to immediately scrap this proposal, on MPs to vote against it, and on civil society to mobilise in support of the right to boycott in the cause of justice, saying:

41. "As a group of civil society organisations made up of trade unions, charities, NGOs, faith, climate justice, human rights, cultural, campaigning, and solidarity organisations, we advocate for the right of public bodies to decide not to purchase or procure from, or invest in companies involved in human rights abuse, abuse of workers’ rights, destruction of our planet, or any other harmful or illegal acts. We therefore oppose the government’s proposed law to stop public bodies from taking such actions." [14]

42. This diverse group of organisations signing the statement, along with a range of others, are motivated to publicly oppose the plans for a variety of reasons. Many of the organisations opposing the bill do not use boycott and divestment tactics themselves but agree that plans for an anti-boycott bill will stifle a wide range of campaigns and present a threat to freedom of expression, and the ability of public bodies and democratic institutions to spend, invest and trade ethically in line with international law and human rights.

Conclusion

43. As this submission has highlighted, the anti-boycott bill threatens to erode freedom of expression, weaken democratic participation, and undermine campaigns against human rights abuses and major breaches of international law. Moreover, government rhetoric in favour of the bill has rested on a wholesale mischaracterisation of the BDS movement for Palestinian rights. PSC is the leading organisation in Britain undertaking campaigns calling on public bodies, including Universities and the Local Government Pension Scheme, to divest from companies that are complicit in Israel's violation of the rights of the Palestian people. As such, it would be entirely remiss of the committee not to hear directly from PSC.

For further information, contact:

PSC Deputy Director, Ryvka Barnard

August 2023