{UAH} "Democratic parties" have sought Boycotts/Sanctions.
|
12:01 AM |
No comments |
Mr Sam Musoke,
thanks
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Sam Musoke wrote:Joseph, I totally agree that individuals and civil societies have a right to support or boycott any entity of their choice. Democratic political parties are exempt from organizing retaliatory boycotts as this is undemocratic. Therefore, FDC is wrong to initiate boycotts against supporters of contra parties. It's the same thing when Bernie supporters invade Trumps campaign, this is ok as long as it is not initiated and ordered by Bernie Sanders.
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 4:37:11 PM UTC-6, Joseph Musoke wrote:Again, the entertainers (and other NRM enablers) have a right to praise the current state of affairs in Uganda. The people who do not agree with the current state of affairs in Ugnada have a right to boycott the services/products of all enablers...all enablers! The key would be identifying services/products that NRM enablers do not monopolise i.e it should be services/products that boycotters can do without. The boycott can only be effective if it is well targeted.
In defence if the enablers, one can safely say that they will not starve...there are enough people that approve of police conduct and will gladly oppose the boycott. Bebe Cool "eloquently" explained this point. And that is okay too.
It is that simple.
I am glad you now agree that "individuals and civil societies have a right to support or boycottany entity of their choice". That has been my point from the beginning of this discussion. I have to confess that I haven't had time to look up FDC's statement on this matter so I can't really say much about it.
However, I am curious as to how you come to the conclusion that "democratic political parties are exempt from organizing retaliatory boycotts". Who exempts them?
I am aware of so many "democratic political parties" that organised boycotts/sanctions...in the U.S, both the Republican party and the Democratic party are actively seeking ways to boycott Iranian products. They have done so in the past against Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Russia, Zimbabwe, apartheid South Africa, etc. In November, 2015, democratic political parties in Europe worked for the passing of a law to boycott products made in occupied territories (Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and West Bank). etc. Another example from is the democratic party: it doesn't hold events in (i.e it boycotts) venues where owners do not allow employees to join unions.thanks
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, Sam Musoke wrote:Joseph, I totally agree that individuals and civil societies have a right to support or boycott any entity of their choice. Democratic political parties are exempt from organizing retaliatory boycotts as this is undemocratic. Therefore, FDC is wrong to initiate boycotts against supporters of contra parties. It's the same thing when Bernie supporters invade Trumps campaign, this is ok as long as it is not initiated and ordered by Bernie Sanders.
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 4:37:11 PM UTC-6, Joseph Musoke wrote:Again, the entertainers (and other NRM enablers) have a right to praise the current state of affairs in Uganda. The people who do not agree with the current state of affairs in Ugnada have a right to boycott the services/products of all enablers...all enablers! The key would be identifying services/products that NRM enablers do not monopolise i.e it should be services/products that boycotters can do without. The boycott can only be effective if it is well targeted.
In defence if the enablers, one can safely say that they will not starve...there are enough people that approve of police conduct and will gladly oppose the boycott. Bebe Cool "eloquently" explained this point. And that is okay too.
It is that simple.
thanks
0 comments:
Post a Comment