Israel Advocacy Group tries to sue Lorde for not playing in Tel Aviv

Sounds like BDS did the Lorde's work.
 
From the OP:
The 2011 law authorises civil suits to recover damages from "anyone who publishes a public call for a boycott of the state of Israel, and its content and circumstances may reasonably be expected to lead to a boycott".

If this is not fascist, what is?

And continues:
It is seeking about £9,000 ($12,800) in damages on behalf of three teenage Lorde fans who it said suffered "emotional injury" as a result of the cancellation.

Seriously? Emotional injury?

And what's weirder:
Even if the plaintiffs are successful, it is not clear how the ruling can be enforced abroad. But Shurat Hadin said it hoped it would be covered by existing legal agreements between Israel and New Zealand.

The zionists believe they can sue people from a different nation based on Israeli law? I really hope the world is paying attention to this idiocy.
 
Suing Lorde after crucifying the Lord. These Jews are relentless.
 
And for those out of the loop, and for those who deny the power of AIPAC/the zionist regime in America, there is a federal law against boycotting Israel. Many states have followed suit.

The people from Kansas have recently spoken on this:
January 30, 2018

TOPEKA, Kan. — The American Civil Liberties Union won an early victory today in its federal lawsuit arguing that a Kansas law requiring a public school educator to certify that she won’t boycott Israel violates her First Amendment rights.


A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law while the case filed in October proceeds. It is the first ruling addressing a recent wave of laws nationwide aiming to punish people who boycott Israel.
https://www.aclu.org/news/first-judge-blocks-kansas-law-aimed-boycotts-israel
 
MadSquabbles500 said:
Can a whole country sue an individual like that?
Click to expand...
Yes.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/325370

Anyways, suing in one country and attempting to enforce damages abroad is pretty common. It's not as likely to go through in the absence of similar laws + an agreement in the other country, and is similar to how extradition works.

So this is largely symbolic. Saw a civil case a couple years ago where there were contesting proceedings and that was a major issue in the end.
 
abiG said:
From the OP:
The 2011 law authorises civil suits to recover damages from "anyone who publishes a public call for a boycott of the state of Israel, and its content and circumstances may reasonably be expected to lead to a boycott".

If this is not fascist, what is?

And continues:
It is seeking about £9,000 ($12,800) in damages on behalf of three teenage Lorde fans who it said suffered "emotional injury" as a result of the cancellation.

Seriously? Emotional injury?

And what's weirder:
Even if the plaintiffs are successful, it is not clear how the ruling can be enforced abroad. But Shurat Hadin said it hoped it would be covered by existing legal agreements between Israel and New Zealand.

The zionists believe they can sue people from a different nation based on Israeli law? I really hope the world is paying attention to this idiocy.
Click to expand...
1.) It's a stupid law, but it's not fascist within any meaningful use of the word.
2.) "Emotional injury" is a (limited) basis for suit in a number of countries, including much of the US.
3.) People in one country suing people in another country on the basis of law in the first country is also common to most of the world. Hilton v Guyot is the major case here in the US for whether to recognize and enforce a foreign judgement. Also the Uniform Money Judgments Act. This suit would not be enforceable in the US, for example.

In short, these things you're pointing at aren't unusual to Zionism/israel or even unusual in a general sense.
 
abiG said:
And for those out of the loop, and for those who deny the power of AIPAC/the zionist regime in America, there is a federal law against boycotting Israel. Many states have followed suit.

The people from Kansas have recently spoken on this:
January 30, 2018

TOPEKA, Kan. — The American Civil Liberties Union won an early victory today in its federal lawsuit arguing that a Kansas law requiring a public school educator to certify that she won’t boycott Israel violates her First Amendment rights.


A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law while the case filed in October proceeds. It is the first ruling addressing a recent wave of laws nationwide aiming to punish people who boycott Israel.
https://www.aclu.org/news/first-judge-blocks-kansas-law-aimed-boycotts-israel
Click to expand...

1.) The people of Kansas didn't speak; the judges did. The people of Kansas are represented by and elected the people who passed the bill. The judges, who are not representatives, struck it down.

2.) There is no such federal law. I checked. There is a bill, but bills are proposals, not laws themselves, and the vast majority do not become law.
 
Quipling said:
1.) It's a stupid law, but it's not fascist within any meaningful use of the word.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fascists always stand behind freedom of expression.

Quipling said:
In short, these things you're pointing at aren't unusual to Zionism/israel or even unusual in a general sense.
Click to expand...
What other nation has sued people from another country for suggesting the boycotting of theirs?

Quipling said:
2.) There is no such federal law. I checked. There is a bill, but bills are proposals, not laws themselves, and the vast majority do not become law.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
abiG said:
Yeah, fascists always stand behind freedom of expression.

What other nation has sued people from another country for suggesting the boycotting of theirs?

Wrong.
Click to expand...
1.) Lots of nonfascists also restrict freedom of expression. Fascists are authoritarian, but they're not the only ones. This is why I said "meaningful definition." You need to define fascist so broadly that it encompasses all authoritarian systems for your comment to be sensible-at which point the word loses its meaning.
2.) None of the three things that I referred to in your post dealt with boycotts specifically.
3.) Nope.
 
Lol. Fuck em and their 3rd degree authoritarianism. Trying to compell people to do *something* is as bad as it gets.
 
Quipling said:
Yes.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/325370

Anyways, suing in one country and attempting to enforce damages abroad is pretty common. It's not as likely to go through in the absence of similar laws + an agreement in the other country, and is similar to how extradition works.

So this is largely symbolic. Saw a civil case a couple years ago where there were contesting proceedings and that was a major issue in the end.
Click to expand...

interesting, yet this is about someone not singing in your country. What outcome can they expect? Lorde is forced to perform for free. That is a little unfair. Forcing someone to perform in front of people you dont want too. Or will they ask for money? I dont see how. They asking for compensation for her not charging people now because there will be no concert.
 
Way to completely play up the Jewish stereotype, Israel.

Also, hail based Lorde.
 
I would like to sue her for existing.
 
MadSquabbles500 said:
interesting, yet this is about someone not singing in your country. What outcome can they expect? Lorde is forced to perform for free. That is a little unfair. Forcing someone to perform in front of people you dont want too. Or will they ask for money? I dont see how. They asking for compensation for her not charging people now because there will be no concert.
Click to expand...
They're asking for money damages, yeah, and frankly a "small" amount. Small in the scale of suits- it's a healthy chunk of change.

It's mostly on behalf of a couple litigants. Haven't checked the briefing, but you can probably still pull damages from cancelled travel plans, etc. The article mentions a theory of emotional distress that is tied to a bad statute.
Note that even if they could enforce specific performance of the contract (they don't seem to be trying to and probably can't) Lorde would then be entitled to whatever her fee would be. (Like, if a company contracted to build a house and you sued to enforce the contract . . . you still have to pay for the house.). But they're not really suing Lorde anyways. They're suing two other people involved in convincing Lorde not to perform.
 
Jews suing someone? Shocking.
 
Jews gonna sue. Nah, just kidding. But seriously, they will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,064
Messages
55,464,745
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top