About Katie Miranda

Katie Miranda is an illustrator, jewelry designer, calligrapher, and cartoonist living in Portland, OR. Her Arabic calligraphy jewelry and apparel are favorites of people in the Palestine solidarity community. Katie runs Palbox: a quarterly subscription box containing Palestinian goods benefiting the Northern California branch of the International Solidarity Movement. Connect on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram

Other posts by .


Posted In:

31 Responses

  1. Ossinev
    June 15, 2016, 11:32 am

    Since he recentlysaid “We are Israel and Israel is us” the caption could equally have read”hey man back off you are just trying to confuse and distract me. How can I boycott myself ?”

    Also a very interesting opinion piece in of all places the NYT highlighting the double standards compared with his fathers beliefs and actions and his own actions vis a vis other US States in the context of LGBT rights.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/opinion/andrew-cuomos-anti-free-speech-move-on-bds.html?_r=0

    BOYCOTT UGLY APARTHEID ISRAEL
    SUPPORT BDS
    TELL YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS ABOUT BDS

  2. just
    June 15, 2016, 11:49 am

    Simply brilliant, Katie! Thank you so much.

  3. Mooser
    June 15, 2016, 11:56 am

    “My political future….”

    Well, I would have thought that anybody who was thinking about a political future would retain at least a vestige, maybe just the appearance of, well, political independence? You don’t want to look like “Stand with Israel” owns you.

    • Citizen
      June 16, 2016, 7:35 am

      Yeah, just find an excuse not to attend AIPAC conference & offer a video instead to be played at that conference.

  4. ritzl
    June 15, 2016, 5:51 pm

    Cuomo to NY: “There but for the grace of ME, go YOU.”

  5. Kay24
    June 15, 2016, 6:26 pm

    This is very good. I wish someone would send this to pro occupation supporter, Cuomo.

  6. Blownaway
    June 15, 2016, 6:46 pm

    The recent record of presidential aspirants who pander to Israel has not been so good. Now hopefully Hillary has the same outcome.

  7. ToivoS
    June 15, 2016, 9:10 pm

    If Cuomo actually has ambitions to run for President someday this anti-BDS legislation will come back to haunt him big time. Perhaps he didn’t notice but that Sanders supporters were within the under 40 year olds, while Hillary carried those by a huge majority of those over 50. Methinks that the Sander’s wing of the Democratic Party will be even stronger in 8 years. Does he really think he can win with those people not only not supporting him but motivated to make sure he does not win.

  8. Boris
    June 16, 2016, 1:10 pm

    So, if I am not buying Katie Miranda books I am against the first amendment?

    • Annie Robbins
      June 16, 2016, 1:18 pm

      thus far, not aware she’s published any books boris.

      • MHughes976
        June 16, 2016, 3:20 pm

        If she does (but where is Grumpy Cat?) I will be in the queue to buy. But those who want to boycott her are within their own rights of free speech. A state-organised boycott or counter-boycott raises different issues, since it is a grand utterance organised by state power, rather than procedding from individual conscience.

    • ToivoS
      June 16, 2016, 3:48 pm

      Oh silly Boris you simply do not think straight. Of course you have the right to boycott Katie’s work. In fact you have the right to advocate to others that they do not read Katie. That is protected by the 1st amendment. Just like I have the right to not buy Israeli goods, which I have exercised for three decades now. Indeed the BDS organizations have the right to encourage others to not buy Israeli goods. That is what the 1st amendment is all about.

      I am really interested, Boris, in what habara school you attended that teaches you such silly nonsense?

      • Jon66
        June 17, 2016, 7:52 am

        Toivo,

        I don’t think it’s that clear cut. If I own a restaurant and organize a boycott and refuse to serve African Americans that would be illegal. If I own a bakery and refuse to buy flour from a gay man that would be illegal in some states and not in others. If I refuse to do business with a Turkish American because my grandfather is Armenian that is illegal. If the government wishes to add Israel to the protected class I think there is some basis for that. I have no idea if it would be supported by the court but I don’t think it’s beyond reason.

        In practical terms, it’s also easier to prove a boycott through a refusal to sell rather than a refusal to buy.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 17, 2016, 8:58 am

        If the government wishes to add Israel to the protected class I think there is some basis for that.

        define “protected class”. is that like protecting the rich or some endangered species?

        and when you say “israel” what do you mean? the zionist regime? all israeli citizens? or just israeli nationals as defined by israel’s high court? iow, the jews. i guess that would include the settlements.

        maybe we should rewrite the 1st amendment to the constitution and include an exception for class of people protected from the fallout resulting from our (everyone elses) freedoms protected under the first amendment? or we could just scrap the first amendment altogether — for the protection of israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 17, 2016, 9:35 am

        jon, none of your examples fall under the general rubric of boycotts in pursuit of humanitarian and social justice goals protected under the first amendment.

        this is why pro israel lobbiests, advocates and hasbara agents continually claim (and insert into legislation) that those seeking justice and equality in Palestine/Israel by way of non violent protest are discriminating against Israel due to “anti-Jewish” bigotry completely disregarding and ignoring gross human and civil rights violations that decades of occupation entail.

        http://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/04/2016-03-31%20AB%202844%20opposition%20memo.pdf

        the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled that boycotts in pursuit of humanitarian and social justice goals are a form of political speech entitled to the highest protection under the First Amendment. The court has further held that government at any level must not deny economic benefits, including public contracts, in retaliation for political beliefs.

        what “class” is protected under the 1st amendment to pursue gross human rights violations against another people for decades? none.

      • Mooser
        June 17, 2016, 11:10 am

        ” If the government wishes to add Israel to the protected class I think there is some basis for that.”

        Thanks, “Jon 66”! There’s nothing like a big belly laugh in the morning. You got class, “Jon 66”. It ought to be protected!

        Let the cry go forth: “Add Israel to the protected class!”

      • Jon66
        June 17, 2016, 12:46 pm

        Annie,
        Protected class has a specific definition in the law. I have no idea why you would associate it with protecting rich people.

        From the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-
        “Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law.”

        I recognize that the Supreme Court has ruled that boycotts may be legal in some circumstances. How would you feel about some right wing organization organizing a boycott of Muslim businesses in the U.S. In order to promote some social justice goal or boycott gay business for the same end.
        I’m not saying that all boycotts are illegal or unethical but U.S. Let established that we as citizens can boycott some businesses at some times, but not others. If a business is a public accommodation it must serve the public and not discriminate. If that’s a reasonable position, and I think it is, then the question is whether or not the anti-BDS position is a good idea, not whether it is illegal.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 17, 2016, 1:40 pm

        I recognize that the Supreme Court has ruled that boycotts may be legal in some circumstances. ….U.S. Let established that we as citizens can boycott some businesses at some times, but not others

        nah, you’re being too vague. and this has nothing to do with “basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps.”

        it’s a state being boycotted because of political decisions. it makes no difference what race or religion the oppressors are (they could be chinese!), it is that their policy decisions are targeting and discriminating based on the ethnicity of the oppressed. and they are using collective punishment. again, if a person is boycotting in pursuit of humanitarian and social justice goals it is protected speech.

        How would you feel about some right wing organization organizing a boycott of Muslim businesses in the U.S. In order to promote some social justice goal

        that’s not analogous. bds doesn’t target “jewish businesses” in the US — never has. and i don’t have to imagine how i would feel if some right wing organization organized a boycott of Muslim businesses in the U.S. In order to promote some social justice goal — because our government already profiles muslims and targets mosques and sets up people based on their ethnicity entrapping them into targeting synagogues of all things! check out the documentary newburgh sting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Newburgh_Sting and this is to allegedly protect americans! but nothing of the sort exists to target americans who support settlement expansion, against the policy of the US government.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 17, 2016, 1:53 pm

        juxtaposing the idea that bds is about “any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin” is entirely dependent on the idea israel is being singled out not because of the occupation or their actions, but because they are jewish. it totally relies on the idea those who advocate for human rights are bigoted, as opposed to the most logical conclusion for anyone w/a brain, which is that israel’s policies are what is racist. this completely explains the ongoing humping of the “antisemitism” “jews are victims” theme. reminds me of something Sari Nusseibeh wrote:

        that special luster of an idealistic nation to be admired has vanished. I can no longer see it anywhere. It has become replaced, in my mind – sorry to say – by what appears to have become a scientifically skilled colonialist group of self-serving thugs, bent on self-aggrandizement, capitalizing on world-guilt for past pains and horrors suffered, and now hiding behind a religious fiction to justify all the pain and suffering it does to my own people, our heritage and culture

        http://www.haaretz.com/peace/1.599063

        and he’s a so called “moderate”. israel even threw him in jail once as you recall — because he stepped out of line. thugs — that’s who you’re protecting.

      • Jon66
        June 17, 2016, 3:08 pm

        It’s the individual people and businesses within the state, not the state itself that is being boycotted. These individuals are being boycotted because of their national origin whether or not they participate in the things the BDS movement finds objectionable. They are not US citizens or in U.S. Territory so they are not covered under our discrimination laws but there’s no reason why the government cannot extend such protections. In weighing the balance between the right to boycott and the governments right to limit economic discrimination I have no idea how the courts will react. But I don’t see the government involvement in prohibiting discrimination against individual Israelis as any different than the government intervention to prevent discrimination of other people due to national origin. Of course if there is no law barring boycotts, then they are legal.

      • Mooser
        June 17, 2016, 1:56 pm

        “what “class” is protected under the 1st amendment”

        Exactly. When people decide Zionism has no class, there’s not a thing the 1st Amendment can do about it. Not a damn thing.

      • Mooser
        June 17, 2016, 6:32 pm

        . “They are not US citizens or in U.S. Territory so they are not covered under our discrimination laws but there’s no reason why the government cannot extend such protections.”

        You are really getting desperate now, and absurd

        You want the US Government to extend anti-discrimination protection to illegal settlements?
        Zionist settlers should be a “protected class”? Me ken brechen!

    • Katie Miranda
      June 16, 2016, 7:26 pm

      I support your first amendment right to boycott me, Boris.

      State sponsored boycotting by a dude who went on a Netanyahu ass-licking trip to Israel right before he was up for re-election then wrote an unconstitutional order benefiting a foreign country while penalizing his own constituents, not so much…

      The Supreme Court ruled that boycotts are protected free speech: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/886/case.html

      • just
        June 16, 2016, 7:32 pm

        Outta the park, Katie!

        Thanks.

      • Boris
        June 17, 2016, 12:13 am

        So, I am not a lawyer, but it appears that New York state boycotting boycotters is also protected by the First Amendment.

        And if you don’t like the dude who enacted his executive actions, then just vote him out of his office. Easy!

      • ritzl
        June 17, 2016, 10:53 am

        Boris, it’s hard to tell if you read Katie’s link or not, but here is the decision (right up top):

        Held:

        1. The nonviolent elements of petitioners’ activities are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. Pp. 458 U. S. 907-915.

        (a) Through exercise of their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, association, and petition, rather than through riot or revolution, petitioners sought to bring about political, social, and economic change. Pp. 458 U. S. 907-912.

        (b) While States have broad power to regulate economic activities, there is no comparable right to prohibit peaceful political activity such as that found in the boycott in this case. Pp. 458 U. S. 912-915.

        Assuming for a second you’re not just making stuff up, you (and Cuomo and company) appear to be arguing that a state’s “right” to boycott (Ie. impose an economic penalty on) protected political activity/speech is NOT a “prohibition” under Claiborne, nor would it be legally construed as an imposition of “liability” (read further at the link) on protected activity/speech.

        Gosh the intent of Claiborne was crystal clear – protected speech CANNOT be financially penalized – tortiously – as a form of prohibition. But Claiborne didn’t rule on a whether a state can financially penalize protected speech directly (ie. non-tortiously) and/or whether Cuomo’s EO157 constitues a liability or prohibition as covered in the ruling.

        Maybe it’s so glaringly laughably legally obvious that something like EO157 IS an unconstitutional prohibition of protected speech that no case has ever made it to the Supreme Court on the issue, or, Cuomo and Company think they have found a loophole where they are going to contend that a STATE imposing a financial penalty (or any penalty) on protected speech is NOT an unconstitutional “prohibition” of that speech because Claiborne donly ealt with liabilities between private parties.

        Can a state or any government body simply declare protected speech unprotected by taxing it? If so you may be right that NY has a “right” to boycott boycotters. Seems like a bizarre, and frankly un-American, argument though.

        TBD.

      • ritzl
        June 17, 2016, 11:10 am

        Eh. Nevermind. Boris is just wrong. It’s not even a discussion. My bad.

        “In Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois,11 the Supreme Court held that the government could not deny employment opportunities to punish public contractors in retaliation for political beliefs.”

        https://ccrjustice.org/ccr-national-lawyers-guild-and-palestine-legal-urge-california-legislators-oppose-anti-boycott-bills

        Thanks to Annie for the CCR link.

      • MHughes976
        June 17, 2016, 11:28 am

        I agree that the issue seems to speech by bodies or powers wielding public authority. It’s not a question of a personal opinion expressed by the Guv, to which he has a right regardless of his unpleasant relationship with Netanyahu, but of an expression by the state in some respect where it is under his control. The issue is different from that of speech by individuals or groups from which individuals are free to resign. These utterances ‘by powers’ are on behalf of people several of whom may disagree but who cannot resign from the body politic, so in a certain sense it overrides individual choice, Ie freedom. It is even somewhat coercive towards those citizens who hold the opposite opinion, holding that opinion up to official scorn, which private utterance does not.
        I see that Katie accepts that individuals may boycott her art, but I don’t think she is logically compelled to accept that a state-organised boycott would be OK. In fact it would pretty obviously be monstrous.

      • Mooser
        June 17, 2016, 12:22 pm

        Remember the ‘list of BDS offenders’ NY State is supposed to compile “within 90 days”?
        Or even a list which purports to be that list.

      • oldgeezer
        June 17, 2016, 3:10 pm

        @Boris

        Geeze boris. I am neither a lawyer nor a US citizen but the constitutional amendments are about placing limitations on the power of government. Government isn’t entitled to first amendment rights.

Leave a Reply