Invalidating this ad is outrageous

By Ted Belman

I find this outrageous.

The Chairman of the Central Election Committee, Justice Elyakin Rubinstein, invalidated on Wednesday the election campaign of the Power to Israel party, headed by Aryeh Eldad, Michael Ben-Ari, Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben-Gvir.

One of the ads in the campaign that was invalidated contains the word “trust” written in Arabic, and below it are the words “there are no rights without obligations”, a play on the campaign used by the Yisrael Beytenu party in the 2009 elections: No loyalty, no citizenship”.

Rubinstein’s decision was made after a complaint was filed to the Committee by former MK Mossi Raz, who is running on the Meretz list for the Knesset. In his official decision, Rubinstein wrote that “the ad is meant to humiliate one group in Israel, the Arab population. As such, it is highly likely that it will hurt the feelings of this population.”

He added, “A racist expression such as this may also affect the feelings of the Jews, which were and unfortunately are still used as a target of racist persecution around the world. In the balance between freedom of expression and the values ??mentioned, the latter is more important. Freedom of expression applies, of course, also on insulting expressions.”

According to this decision free speech is to be limited if it humiliates or hurts feelings of a particular population. Evidently YB slogan in Hebrew was okay but this one in Arabic was not. It used to be that free speech protected offensive speech.

The members of the Power to Israel party responded

“Justice Rubinstein’s ruling is contrary to the opinion of the Attorney General and he determined that he has the right to intervene in the content published on billboards,” said a statement from the party. “It cannot be that use of one of the country’s official languages is considered ??racist. The demand to exercise obligations in exchange for rights is a basic requirement in any normal country.”

More to come:

Earlier this week, another party running in the elections, the leftist Eretz Hadasha, filed an appeal calling to disqualify Ben-Ari, Ben-Gvir and Marzel from running for the Knesset.

The party claimed that the three are guilty of incitement, racism and violation of democracy. In the appeal, the Power to Israel members are called the “Flowers of Kahane” because of their support for the legacy of Rabbi Kahane.

It was anti-democratic to outlaw Kahane and the Kach Party. And this invalidation is undemocratic because it limits, unnecessarily, free speech.

Concerns Over Freedom of Speech After Ad Campaign Disqualified

Wednesday’s decision by Judge Elyakim Rubinstein of the Central Election Committee to disqualify a planned ad campaign by the right wing party Otzma LeYisrael on the grounds that it was racist has spurred a debate in Israel on the freedoms of political expression and the fine line between what is legal and what is incitement.

The petition, filed by the left wing party Meretz and several activists claimed the slogan “Loyalty – No Duties, No Rights” constituted a smear campaign against the Israeli-Arab population and was therefore racist.

In his ruling, Rubinstein wrote that, “The campaign aims to present the Arab sector as disloyal to the State of Israel… It is the defamation of the entire Arab sector.”

However, Dan Yakir, the legal advisor of the The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, while agreeing that the slogan might have been distasteful, holds that the election committee does not and should not have the authority to dictate a party’s campaign ads unless there is a clear incitement to violence. “The campaign of Otzma LeYisrael is obscene, and its clear purpose is to delegitimize the Arab public,” said Yakir.

“However, the decision to reject the ad campaign raises objections,” he added, saying that Rubinstein’s decision, “was given with a lack of authority, since the law does not authorize the Chairman of the Election Committee to intervene in the content of billboards. This is problematic mainly because this is not the way to deal with incitement to racism. Political statements deserve wider constitutional protection – during elections in particular. Therefore it is appropriate to disqualify only expressions that lead to a near certain incitement to racism, and this is not the case. “

“A firm rejection like this is not the solution,” said Yakir. “What is needed is a determined struggle – the kind we do not see today – against racism, primarily on the part of public officials.”

I disagree with part of what the lawyer was arguing. I can’t see how such a statement telling all the Arabs that you intend to require loyalty or insist on obligations in exchange for citizenship is in any way an incitement to racism. No one has suggested that equal service whether for Arabs or Hareidi is incitement to racism. What’s the difference?