Lord Peter Hain Criticizes UK Bill Banning Boycotts on Israeli Settler Products

British Labour Lord Peter Hain has vociferously opposed the introduction of a new Bill by the UK’s Conservative Party that could restrict the ability of UK public bodies to participate in the boycott of products from Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Speaking to the House of Lords, Hain argued that such a Bill, the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, echoes the counterproductive legislations of the past which attempted to thwart British public authorities from rejecting apartheid South Africa.

Lord Hain highlighted that the proposed legislation not only undermines the freedom to protest against acts deemed unjust or oppressive but also seems to contradict the UK’s previous position on international law, such as UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which deems Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories illegal.

The Bill's provision would restrict councils, pension funds, and universities from exercising ethical spending choices based on human rights considerations, including those involving China's Uyghurs or Myanmar’s Rohingya. Hain drew parallels to similar unsuccessful efforts in the 1980s, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to prevent boycotts of South African goods, noting the defiance of local authorities that made substantial contributions to the anti-apartheid movement. He also emphasized the historical importance of the right to boycott as a principle that significantly influenced positive change in South Africa, demonstrated by consumers’ widespread refusal to purchase South African goods.

Hain's vivid recall of the anti-apartheid movement includes grassroots actions such as labeling South African products and pressuring institutions for divestment, which he pointed out were essential elements leading to the dismantling of apartheid. He urged his colleagues in the House of Lords to reject the Bill and uphold the capability of democratically elected bodies to support human rights globally.

The story has been met with various reactions, reflecting the complex and divisive nature of international boycotts in relation to geopolitical and ethical dilemmas facing public bodies in the UK and around the world.