← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 7671 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2003-06-27
2003-06-27 23:01 | User Profile
[url=http://www.unknownnews.net/0626-2.html]http://www.unknownnews.net/0626-2.html[/url]
Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden?
It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question.
Company fined $6,000 for answering customer's question "Is any of this stuff made in Israel?"
by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News June 27, 2003
A Missouri company has been fined $6,000 for answering a customer's question and not reporting to the federal government that the question was asked. The question that's punished by law is: Are any of these products made in Israel, or made of Israeli materials?
The Kansas City Star reports:
The anti-boycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.
We ask: Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden?
It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question.
Only a few years ago, during South Africa's apartheid era, it was considered the height of good moral backbone to ask whether a product came from that country. Today, many Americans are asking such questions about products they suspect came from France, after the French government declined to join "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
The article doesn't make it clear whether these restrictions apply only to US companies selling stuff outside the US, or whether the law applies to everyone. Either way, it's reprehensible.
If K-Mart is having a sale on cheap plastic chess sets and we ask the clerk whether the board or pieces were made in Israel, is the clerk allowed to answer? Must the store promptly file a form with the Bureau of Industry and Security reporting that we asked?
Well, we'll be asking the forbidden question in every store we enter. Not because we're boycotting Israel ââ¬â we're not. Heck, if we were boycotting products from countries whose policies are abhorrent, we'd start by boycotting anything marked "made in USA."
We'll be asking the forbidden question because we believe in freedom. In a free society, the government doesn't tell people what questions they can ask, and what questions they can't, and what questions must be promptly reported to the authorities.
We had heard of this law before ââ¬â banning people from even asking about boycotting Israeli products ââ¬â but we had foolishly assumed it wasn't often enforced.
According to the article, though, "more than $26 million in fines" have been levied for violations of this law, suggesting that enforcement of the Forbidden Question Law is not at all uncommon. The fine in this case was $6,000, so assuming that's average and doing the math, more than 4,000 Americans or American companies have been fined ââ¬â for asking the forbidden question, or failure to report that someone else asked the forbidden question.
North Kansas City company settles charge related to boycott of Israel
by Dan Margolies, Kansas City Star June 25, 2003
Cook Composites and Polymers Co. has agreed to pay a $6,000 fine to settle charges that it violated Commerce Department regulations aimed at countering the Arab boycott of Israel.
The department's Bureau of Industry and Security had charged that, in response to a request from a customer in Bahrain, Cook had furnished information stating that the goods being shipped were not of Israeli origin and did not contain Israeli materials.
The bureau also charged that Cook had failed to report its receipt of the request.
Cook, of North Kansas City, neither admitted nor denied the allegations, but agreed to pay the $6,000 civil penalty.
The antiboycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.
Cook's chief executive, Charles Bennett, was in Paris this week and unavailable for comment. A spokeswoman for the company, Rita Durocher, said the fine marked the first time Cook has had a run-in with a federal agency.
"If you go back and look at our record, we've been flawless with other government agencies," she said.
Cook makes polyester gels and other coating resins. It operates plants throughout North America.
The settlement with the Commerce Department came after the Bush administration in November warned U.S. companies not to heed calls to boycott Israeli goods and services. The warning followed a call by the 22-member Arab League to reactivate its decades-long boycott of Israel.
In a statement released at the time by the department, Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster reminded American companies that the "U.S. government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted against Israel."
Knowing violators of the anti-boycott provisions face fines of up to $50,000, or five times the value of the exports at issue, and possible imprisonment. Offenders can also be denied export privileges.
The Bureau of Industry and Security says it has imposed more than $26 million in fines for violations of the provisions.
More than a decade ago, the Commerce Department sent compliance officers to Kansas City to check out tips that Marion Merrell Dow Inc. and Marley Cooling Tower Co. may have cooperated with the Arab boycott. Nothing came of the investigation, and no penalties were imposed.
In Cook's case, the Bureau of Industry and Security charged that Cook failed to report a letter of credit it received on Dec. 1, 1997, from ABN AMRO Bank in Manama, Bahrain. The letter asked it to confirm that the goods being shipped "are not of Israeli origin nor do they contain any Israeli"material.
The bureau also charged that on Jan. 20, 1998, Cook, through its freight forwarder, provided a U.S. bank with a copy of a commercial invoice confirming that the goods were not of Israeli origin and did not contain Israeli material.
Cook, with 558 employees overall and 120 employees locally, is one of North Kansas City's biggest employers. The company bills itself as the No. 1 producer of gel coats in the world and, together with affiliated companies, the No. 2 producer of resins.
Since 1990, Cook has had a joint venture relationship with the chemicals division of TotalFinaElf, a multibillion-dollar petrochemicals giant based in Paris.
There's much more than this at Unknown News.
2003-06-27 23:27 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Zoroaster@Jun 27 2003, 23:01 * ** Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden?
**
How much will it cost me to answer you? :ph34r:
Here's the [url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=715669&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=1&vc=1&t=-1]Liberty Forum Thread[/url] BTW.
2003-06-28 01:55 | User Profile
**The antiboycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. **
Says a lot. Too much.
So sad, what has happened and what is happening.
2003-06-28 18:00 | User Profile
There is a nice business locally which I know for sure boycotts both Israeli and Arabic goods, and the owner is quite open about it (nice Italian fellow). I guess we're not as heavily oppressed by the thought police up here in Canada as you're getting down there in the USA these days.
It's frightening to realize that the USA is more restrictive in many senses than even socialist Canada.
2003-06-29 21:10 | User Profile
The other question that nobody wants to answer: Why does NO OTHER NATION have this protection? Do people really believwe that some pissant little nation in the Middle East is not only worthy of, but is in need of, this sort of legally mandated protection?
2003-07-10 00:15 | User Profile
America is functionally a jewish dictatorship.