21st century taxation without representation: the power of Bacha’s ‘Boycott’
Image from ‘Boycott’, showing Bahia Amawi (centre) outside court.
From the very moment that the founding fathers rebelled against British tyranny, America has forged its image as a bastion of liberty. Across the land, its people speak of no place in their lives for what they call ‘big government’; an excessively large and unconstitutional division of the powerful that meddle in the everyday lives of the average citizen. Readers may remember the Gadsden flag flying high amongst the ranks of Trump supporters as they desecrated the Capitol on January 6th 2021. The flag depicts an angry rattlesnake on a yellow background, coiled tightly in an attack pose and ready to strike at any unprepared adversary. Adorned on the flag is the simple message: ‘DONT TREAD ON ME’.
Gadsden flag
The flag is named after politician Christopher Gadsden (1724–1805), who designed it in 1775 during the American Revolution. (source)
The problem arises with who Americans think is treading into their lives. What most of western society doesn’t understand is that power no longer comes from government, but who controls the purse strings; corporations and lobbyists. The concept we hold of power in the 21st century is now fundamentally wrong – we no longer live in a realist world system of zero-sum games where a country’s sovereignty can only be directly threatened by another country with military power. It is now commonplace that unelected people use underhanded and legally questionable tactics to subvert democracy and determine how we go about our days by using the private sector as a proxy for their work. In this Neoliberal world of credit and corporations, it is capital that trumps congress.
How have the people been hoodwinked? What can we do to put it right?
Julia Bacha’s insightful film ‘Boycott’ aims to explore just these questions. Just like last week’s ‘Silence Heard Loud’, ‘Boycott’ is also currently being screened for the 2022 Human Rights Watch Film Festival. As a recap, Human Rights Watch is an international NGO that defends people at risk of human rights abuse and relentlessly presses those in power for change. Their annual film festival provides a platform for victims to talk about their own experiences with human rights violations in a direct story-telling and exposé form. They prioritise space for identities, viewpoints, and experiences usually marginalised within the film industry, with an aim to encourage individuals on both sides of the camera lens to acknowledge human rights issues and make a difference in fixing them.
Bacha’s film focuses on one piece of legislation as an example of this unconstitutional meddling into society on the part of the private sector. This piece of legislation happens to arrive at an unlikely intersection with another long fight for human rights, too complex and sensitive to fully explain in one article; the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
The anti-boycott bill
Between 2015 and 2021, 33 U.S states passed legislation or executive orders punishing individuals or companies that boycott companies which are complicit in Israel's occupation of Palestine. Boycotting in this sense means the withdrawal from commercial relations with a country, organisation, or person, as a punishment or protest.
Boycotting is deeply embedded in the American democratic process and was a vital tool in the 1950’s and 1960’s civil rights movement. The people had no other power but the dollar, so they chose to boycott white supremacist companies. A bitter battle ensued between boycotters and these companies which went all the way to the supreme court, where the judges agreed unanimously for the right to boycott.
One of the states that passed this legislature was Arkansas. Bart Hester, the Republican majority leader for Arkansas, sponsored anti-boycott bill 25-1-503, which prohibited public entities contracting with and investing in companies that boycott Israel. To get money owed for work, Arkansas people had to sign a pledge in their contracts not to boycott Israel. The legislature enjoyed a landslide win, with 69 yeas, 3 nays, and 0 presents.
A fortunate few saw this bill as a sledgehammer aimed at the first constitutional amendment, which protects freedom of speech. Pretty soon there was pushback in the states affected.
Alan Leveritt, publisher of the Arkansas Times in Little Rock, was able to ignore the clause in his contract for some time, until a client told him that he wouldn’t get business from him again until it was signed. The state government is a huge source of income for the Arkansas Times, with schools, health centres and hospitals sponsoring it. Leveritt was furious, saying that he had a right to boycott whoever or whatever he wanted. The Arkansas Times ran an expose on the bill, saying it had no relevance or bearing on Arkansas, and Leveritt sued the state of Arkansas.
In Austin Texas, Bahia Amawi was fired from her job as a children’s language specialist and speech pathologist for not signing the clause. Amawi’s family lives in the occupied territories, and she has witnessed first-hand how the occupiers antagonise the west bank and make it as hard as possible for Palestinians to have livelihoods. She could not stay silent, and her activist group issued a major 1st amendment challenge of Texas law to repeal the legislation.
The bill also sailed through Arizonian legislature with widespread support. Mik Jordal, who gives legal advice to inmates in Arizona, was shocked to see the signature space on his contract. Also witnessing first-hand human rights abuses in the west bank, he was incensed enough not to sign it and filed suit against the state. He carried on his services without getting paid.
All three of these people courageously took a stand for what they thought was right.
Boycott Divestment and Sanctions
At the same time, a grassroots Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement grows across the world. The BDS urges the international community to stop investing in companies complicit in Israel’s border regime, thus putting pressure on Israel to recognise Palestinian human rights. America gives Israel $4 billion a year to fund their border control, representing the largest recipient of American cumulative monetary assistance to any foreign country since WWII.
As the BDS movement explains, this $4 billion is taxpayer’s money, and they have a right to air their opinions on how this money is being used. The anti-boycott legislation directly opposes this right. Wars have been started, and mythologies about freedom have been perpetuated for less. To explain, the anti-boycott legislation represents 21st century taxation without representation; rulers taking your money for their own bidding and not giving you a say. This is the very same scheme that spurred the Sons of Liberty to throw chests of British tea into the Boston Harbour in protest of British occupation during the revolution.
A fierce debate rages between the BDS movement and pro-Israel organisations. This match-up is disproportionate, with public engagement and education on the matter having the backing of powerful lobbyists. A freedom of information request found that Israel has an entire ministry just to fight the BDS movement overseas. All sorts of American pro-Israel organisations and corporations were getting funding from the Israeli government to denounce BDS using an NGO as a middle organisation as to not raise suspicion – Eagle’s Wings, Hasbara Fellowship, the America-Israel friendship league, Israel Allies. This is all technically legal, but very morally questionable. An activist explains that, all in all, the Israeli Government has allocated millions of dollars in order to change the American political discourse about Israel and subvert the democratic process.
With the backing of lobbyists, state leaders are then happy to put forward the idea that the issue is simply black and white. Charles Schumer, Democratic senator for New York, calls BDS ‘intensely biased’ and claims that it intends to ‘delegitimise the state of Israel’. Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, claims that ‘if you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you’.
‘She didn’t sue her state for Israeli values or Palestinian values, but for American values’
As always, the fallout of these powerful projects only hurts the people. As Amawi explains, she didn’t sue her state for Israeli values or Palestinian values, but for American values – to fight, protect and preserve the free speech that the founding fathers envisioned. Amawi is one of the only speech pathologists that speaks Arabic in the Austin area, so people are losing a very important service when she is prohibited from working. She feels like she is letting her community down. Similarly, Leveritt is concerned about the human collateral of his lawsuit. The newspaper business is tough enough for normal family people with mortgages to pay, and this case could end the Arkansas Times. If they were to lose, Leveritt would have some very difficult decisions to make. These are brave people taking a stand, and the human cost is great.
Pictured: Alan Leveritt (centre) agonises over the cost of his case.
Arkansas majority leader Hester disregards the objections to the bill, saying that he didn’t need the locals’ opinion on the matter. He feels like it doesn’t infringe on first amendment rights at all, and even views it as a ‘win’ if the Arkansas Times loses state funding because he doesn’t agree with any of their views. At best, this is complacency, but at worst, it points to something severely wrong with the governance system in America. Elected officials are supposed to defend the constitution, but here they are, perceivably selling their first amendment rights to a foreign country with this bill. However, as Americans, the brave claimants have their day in court.
The hearing
All 3 are very confident of a win on the day of the court hearing, because the boycott is a well-known form of political speech.
The judge at Little Rock disagrees and lets the boycott bill stand. Everyone involved in the case sees it as an insult to free speech. They immediately appeal the decision, because it is contrary to the binding precedent set by the boycotters of the 1950’s in the supreme court. If the government has the power to stop the BDS boycott simply because they don’t like the message, they could do the same to boycotts of the NRA. Where does it stop? The bill is clearly being used as a hook to prohibit free speech, and it could be used to fit any group as a template.
In the eighth circuit court of appeals in St Louis, Missouri, they argue their appeal. Finally, they win.
In a landmark case, the eighth circuit court of appeals rules against the law in Texas and Arkensas, and the district court in Arizona also rules that the law is unconstitutional. The court of appeals states that:
‘The relationship between Israel and Palestine is the subject of intense international debate. The anti DBS law threatens to manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion. This the first amendment does not allow’.
Relief washes over the claimants. But for them, this just represents the chance to go back to their livelihoods. Amawi received a new work contract without the boycott section and went back to teaching children. Leveritt went back to the court for a rehearing, and his case could still go all the way to the supreme court. Jordal received his first cheque in the mail for a year and continues to organise.
Although great progress was made with this important case, there is still so much more to do to remove the corruption in western governance. In 2021, as predicted, Texas passed laws punishing those boycotting fossil fuels and firearms. The architects of the fossil fuel bill have pointed to the anti-BDS law as their template. Four states have already introduced similar legislation.
The founding fathers would never have guessed that the constitution would need to be defended in this way. They wrote it to protect their own interests, with other genders and ethnicities only allowed a small piece of the freedom that they spoke so passionately about. But by keeping freedom available to everyone, these three activists represent everything that is good about democracy. They are the American dream as it should exist today – open, transparent, tolerant, multicultural, progressive. For that dream to be actualized, we need to look at our existing power structures and render what isn’t fit for purpose. Bacha’s illuminating film teaches us that we need to question everything that we know about power, or failing this, that history is doomed to repeat itself.
If you too value our fragile democracy and wish to uphold it for everyone, consider joining us at Find Others to exercise your rights and make your complaints heard. We are the lucky few who have the freedom to take action.