T. Belman. The article correctly says what the Right wants is “a nationalistic right less concerned with the individual, that prizes Jewish nationalist values”. In essence Jews nationalism is being elevated above equality. I am all for it. Israel is the state of the Jews, not of all its citizens. Many countries place foundational values above equality. Nothing wrong with that.
In clash over High Court override, it’s minority rights against majority’s will
By Amos Schocken, HAARETZ 18.11.22
Jews and Arabs against racism rally in Tel Aviv, 2021.Credit: Ofer Vaknin
Thirty years after its legislation, the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty will effectively be nullified: The intended passage of a law that would allow a 61-member Knesset majority to overturn Supreme Court rulings, signals this. Such a move reflects the deterioration of the Israeli right wing, from a liberal right that prioritized the singular citizen to a nationalistic right less concerned with the individual, that prizes Jewish nationalist values, that views non-Jews as a nuisance – in a state in which over one-fifth of its citizens are not Jewish.
The Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty enshrined human and civil rights in several areas: human dignity and liberty; preservation of life, body and dignity; protection of property; personal liberty that may not be restricted in any way; the right granted to every human being to leave Israel, and the right granted to every citizen to enter the country; and the right to privacy and intimacy.
The court interpreted the term “dignity” in the law to mean equality among human beings and citizens. This is in line with the fundamental principles as they appear in the first section of the Basic Law: “The basic human rights in Israel are based on the recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of his life, and his being a free person, and they shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles included in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.”
The Declaration of the State of Israel lays down several principles, including equality, and they warrant mention:
“The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its citizens irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
“The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.”
In an effort to enshrine the rights set down in the Basic Law, the lawmakers essentially imposed, with some restrictions, an obligation on the court to nullify any future legislation that might harm these rights. Section 8 of the law states:
“One is not to violate the rights accordance by this Basic Law save by means of a law that corresponds to the values of the State of Israel, which serves an appropriate purpose, and to an extent that does not exceed what is required, or on the basis of a law, as aforementioned, by force of an explicit authorization therein.”
If and when a petitioner submits an appeal to the court against a new law that they believe harms their rights according to the Basic Law, the court must rule on whether that harm is in line with the values of the State of Israel, whether it is intended for an appropriate purpose and whether it is proportional. If the court concludes that the new law does not meet these criteria, it is incumbent on the court to nullify it.
This Basic Law is unique, and should serve as a source of pride and appreciation for Israelis in the lawmakers who enacted it. Incidentally, the law was passed during a Likud government, headed by Yitzhak Shamir. Those who worked to promote the law included Justice Minister Dan Meridor; Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee chair Uriel Lynn; opposition MK Amnon Rubinstein; and MK Yitzhak Levy of the National Religious Party. They spearheaded a move that was supported in the final vote by Knesset members from the coalition and opposition alike, as befitting a Basic Law.
The Knesset members who supported the law fulfilled their roles modestly (such a thing no longer exists): The members of Knesset are but emissaries of the public, which is the sovereign, which is the “one in charge,” and that public includes Jews and non-Jews, citizens and non-citizens. They expressed the notion that the basic rights defined in the Basic Law must be enshrined in such a way that the public’s emissaries, those who legislate the law today and those who will follow in their wake in the future, would not be able to harm those rights.
Crowning glory
In the view of the right wing at the time, the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty was considered the crowning glory of its legislation. In the view of the right wing of today and of recent years, the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty is anathema.
The right cannot tolerate this basis for democracy, equal rights between citizens and equal rights between human beings. In cases where the High Court of Justice handed down a ruling – as the Basic Law compelled it to – and nullified any law that harms rights, the outcry raised against the court by senior (and ostensibly serious) political leaders disregarded the fact that this is the very purpose of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, which was passed by the Knesset, and upon which the court is obligated to act.
The law stands in the way of the inequity that the right wishes to promote between Jewish citizens and their non-Jewish neighbors, between Israelis and asylum seekers and Palestinians. Take, for instance, the Citizenship Law, which prevents the unification of Palestinians in Israel married to Palestinians from the territories. Former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked openly said that it is inadequate that this law can only be amended on security-related grounds; there must be an option to prevent such marriages on demographic grounds, she claimed, the harm to human and civil rights notwithstanding.
The late Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy stated, conversely, in one ruling on amendments to the Citizenship Law, that “arrangements that are not individually sensitive to every request placed at the doorstep of the security authorities are inconsistent with the intention to recognize the central position of the right to family life and the right to equality.”
In the same vein, Shaked cited the verdict the High Court of Justice handed down on the Kaadan case in 2000, which forbade inequity between Jews and Arabs in acceptance into communal settlements, as a reason to oppose the rights derived from the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty. It is in this context that the fascist Basic Law on Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People was passed in 2018. Indeed, Section 7 of that law states: “The State views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.”
They forgot “the spirit of the principles included in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” on which the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty explicitly rests, including the principle that the state “will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants.”
It is disappointing that, following the petitions filed against the nation-state law, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut’s verdict did not strike down the law – even after her long-winded effort to say that Section 7 does not hamper equality in developing the country for non-Jewish citizens as well, and in spite of having herself reached the conclusion (which she did not hide) that her effort failed to accomplish its goal. It would only have been right to nullify it, if just for the contradiction between its Section 7 and the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, the commitment laid down in the Declaration of Independence and the Kaaden verdict.
One of the main reasons Hayut offered in her decision not to nullify the law is that there is a sort of harmony between the Basic Laws. The existence of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty will influence court rulings that would be influenced, as well, by the Basic Law on Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. It is hard to accept this reasoning, given the contradiction between the two laws. In any event, the passage of the override law with a simple majority would mean one thing in regard to the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom: its elimination.
@Seymour cc Peloni ooh, good one. (FYI colon followed by capital D makes the laughing icon rather than a question mark. Learned that thanks to Peloni. Wish I knew some others.)
@Sebastien Thanks for clarifying that. Yeah. Actually I might have mentioned Fellini’s 8+1/2 with mastroianni. But your list is fine. ?
@Seymour “Section 8 was a category of discharge from the United States military, used for a service member judged mentally unfit for service. Section 8 was also often given to cross-dressers, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.[1]…
‘..Section 8 became a household phrase when used in the 1970s TV series M*A*S*H, in which the character Corporal Klinger was continually seeking one (until he eventually abandoned his efforts).[5] His preferred method of doing so was cross-dressing, but other attempts included setting himself on fire and consuming a Jeep piece by piece.[6][7]…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(military)
“Most often mentioned in the context of the death penalty, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, but also mentions “excessive fines…”
“behind the eight ball
phrase of eight ball
INFORMAL
at a disadvantage.
“don’t let cash-flow crises put you behind the eight ball”
“What happened to Henry the 8th wives?
What happened to Henry VIII Wives? He divorced two of his wives (Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn), he beheaded two of his wives (Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard), and one of his wives (Jane Seymour) died shortly after giving birth. His last wife, Catherine Parr, outlived him.”
“Eighty-six or 86 is American English slang used to indicate that an item is no longer available, traditionally from a food or drinks establishment; …”
“According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, it means to “refuse to serve (a customer)”, to “get rid of” or “throw out” someone or something. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it may be used as a noun or verb.”
“Maxwell Smart, a.k.a. Agent 86, works for CONTROL, a Washington, D.C.-based counterintelligence agency. Totally inept as a secret agent, Smart can barely use the gadgetry the agency provides him (including a phone embedded in his shoe). …”
Golf (game of) “The “Abominable Snowman” is a typical term for an 8 on a hole, especially if it comes on a par 3. Just “snowman” is also used. There are a lot of other terms golfers use, but most are not suitable for polite company. They’re similar to what people say when they hit their thumb with a hammer, step barefoot on a Lego block, or back their car into the garage door.”
Aptly entitled piece of legislation; it would seem to be in good company, historically speaking.
😀
@Seymour Section 8 was a category of discharge from the United States military, used for a service member judged mentally unfit for service. Section 8 was also often given to cross-dressers, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.[1]”
I remembered it from MASH 😀
“In culture
Section 8 became a household phrase when used in the 1970s TV series M*A*S*H, in which the character Corporal Klinger was continually seeking one (until he eventually abandoned his efforts).[5] His preferred method of doing so was cross-dressing, but other attempts included setting himself on fire and consuming a Jeep piece by piece.[6][7]
In Modern Warfare 2019, the character Sgt. Wayne Dylan Davis (“D-Day”) is given a Section 8 discharge after the failed rescue attempt of a teammate
In the 2003 movie Basic, a DEA agent Tom Hardy (played by John Travolta) investigates a group of apparently insane mercenary Rangers turned drug dealers calling themselves Section 8.[citation needed]
In Stanley Kubrick’s 1987 film Full Metal Jacket the character of Pvt. Leonard “Gomer Pyle” Lawrence (played by Vincent D’Onofrio) is described as potentially being a Section 8 when it is noticed that he talks to his rifle, and another rifleman in the Lusthog Squad, aptly named Hand Job, was sent to a Navy psychologist due to excessive masturbation (as Cowboy put it, “jerking off 10 times a day”) and was instantly classified as a Section 8 after he started masturbating in the waiting room.[8]
American deathcore band Whitechapel featured a song called “Section 8” on their self-titled album from 2012.
In the war novel A Separate Peace the character Elwin “Leper” Lepellier gets a Section Eight discharge from the ski troops because he was hallucinating due to trauma.
Notable examples
During World War II, in November 1943, at age 17, actor Sidney Poitier lied about his age and enlisted in the Army. He was assigned to a Veteran’s Administration hospital in Northport, New York, and was trained to work with psychiatric patients. Poitier became upset with how the hospital treated its patients and feigned mental illness to obtain a discharge. Poitier confessed to a psychiatrist that he was faking his condition, but the doctor was sympathetic and granted his discharge under Section VIII of Army regulation 615–360 in December 1944.[9]”
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(military)
We should be less concerned with equal rights than with our inalienable rights.
If Parliaments can force medical mandates and “vaxxine passports” then we are thru not only as a People but as a free civilised world.
We need to have dignity and freedom in our Land or we are just an ID number.
We are China.
Democracy has failed us.
Our neighbours have failed us.
As a retired lawyer I just feel the need to say that section 8 is one of the most ridiculous provisions I have seen in any statute and I thought I had seen everything. It’s a party for the legal profession, the cozy partnership of activist litigators and the judiciary who know it all. It just begs repeal.