In the early 1980s, Margaret Thatcher described the African National Congress as a “typical terrorist organisation” and one of her MPs said that Nelson Mandela should be shot. In sharp contrast, British councils took a stand against apartheid by boycotting South African goods. Mayors around the world signed a declaration calling for the release of the man who would become not only his country’s leader, but a global icon of democracy and justice. These efforts helped to shift public attitudes towards the struggle for freedom.
In an increasingly globalised world, it seems only logical that local authorities have a role in international affairs. Yet proposed legislation now in front of parliament, the economic activity of public bodies (overseas matters) bill, attempts “to prevent public bodies from being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign states when taking certain economic decisions” – even when the censured conduct is a breach of international law.
Uyghur activists have already warned that the bill could restrict efforts to hold China responsible for human rights abuses. Outrageously, the legislation says that decision-makers may not even publish a statement that they “would intend to act in such a way were it lawful to do so”. The lawyer George Peretz KC noted that it would apparently be illegal, for example, for a council leader to explain why it was buying goods from a Chinese firm operating in Xinjiang if asked.
The communities secretary, Michael Gove, says it is “simply wrong that public bodies have been wasting taxpayers’ time and money pursuing their own foreign policy agenda”. The declaration of principle is a canard. This frighteningly broad legislation has one specific target: the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The bill would allow ministers to rule that particular countries or territories do not come under the legislation – except in the case of Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, or the occupied Golan Heights. That would outlaw decisions from Swansea, Lancaster and Leicester councils, among others, targeting activity in settlements. The government’s own risk advice to businesses states that: “Settlements are illegal under international law … [there are] clear risks related to economic and financial activities [there], and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity.”
Mr Gove alleges that economic campaigns by public bodies lead to antisemitic rhetoric and abuse. Recent years have seen high levels of hate crime, and antisemitism cloaks itself in many guises. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has welcomed the challenge to “unnecessary and inappropriate targeting of Israel”. But legitimate criticism of illegal settlements and an increasingly extreme far right Israeli government must not be silenced, and economic sanctions are a reasonable means of expressing dissent. The Union of Jewish Students and other Jewish youth groups that oppose the BDS movement have nonetheless rejected this bill as infringing the democratic right to non-violent protest.
This is a cynical Conservative trap laid for the opposition. Principled objection to this alarming bill, from any level of the party, can be portrayed as evidence that Labour is just not serious about addressing prejudice in its ranks. But the legislation is not only a partisan diversion from the serious task of tackling antisemitism. It is also an assault on basic democratic freedoms.
