Israel Hayom | High Court: State may punish anti-Israel boycotters

High Court: State may punish anti-Israel boycotters

Some four years after state passes anti-boycott law, justices rule that protecting the well-being of the state trumps the right to boycott and does not infringe on free speech • Law makes the call for the boycott of Israel a civil offense.

Edna Adato

The High Court of Justice largely upheld the anti-boycott law on Wednesday |  Photo credit: Lior Mizrahi

The Knesset did not trample constitutional rights when it legislated a bill aimed at punishing those who call for a boycott of Israel, the High Court of Justice said on Wednesday.

An extended panel of nine justices said the law, known as the Law for the Prevention of Boycotts Targeting Israel, passed constitutional muster, noting that the state has the right to defend itself against those who want to forcefully undermine its very foundation. The court said that it was possible to reconcile freedom of speech with certain restrictions on boycotts, so long as these were designed to protect the state from a real threat to its wellbeing, noting that the punitive measures mentioned in law were within reason.

The 2011 law, sponsored by then-Coalition Chairman Zeev Elkin (Likud), says that the government may seek damages from anyone who actively promotes an economic, cultural or academic boycott of Israel or any other entity because of its affiliation with Israel. This applies to boycott campaigns that target produce from Judea and Samaria. The law allows the finance minister to prevent those who promote such boycott or take part in it from submitting bids for various projects and to deny them state funding and other benefits.

During the court hearings, the state said the bill would help safeguard Israel's stature on the world stage and protect its foreign relations.

Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel had petitioned the High Court of Justice shortly after the law's enactment, saying it imposed a "price tag" on legitimate political views and undermines the public discourse on the most controversial issues in Israeli society.

"The High Court refused to do the obvious thing -- protect free speech," the organizations said following Wednesday's decision. Despite siding overwhelmingly with the state, the court did strike down one provision which allowed the court to award damages on boycott-related offenses even without proof of wrongful conduct. The judges said this was an excessive measure.

Do you let your kids "free-range" or are they caged and corn-fed?

I saw the below article regarding parents who let their children (8 & 10) walk one mile home without adult supervision. Apparently they are "free range" children. This is quite common in Israel and the parents in the article have an Israeli sounding last name.

I will try to do some research on the law here in Israel regarding this. In the meantime, see below for the full article.

FAMILY LAW

Parents investigated for allowing their ‘free-range’ kids to walk home alone

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Jan 15, 2015, 06:52 am CST

A Maryland couple who believe in “free-range” parenting say they are under investigation for allowing their children to walk home alone from a Silver Spring park.
The children are 10 and 6, and the walk home was a mile in length, the Washington Post reports. Police picked up the children on Dec. 20 about halfway through their journey. The children that day weren’t carrying their laminated card that reads, “I am not lost. I am a free-range kid.”
The parents, Danielle and Alexander Meitiv, say Montgomery County Child Protective Services has launched a neglect investigation. CPS spokesperson Mary Anderson refused comment on the case, but said neglect investigations typically look for guidance to a state law that says children younger than 8 must be left with a reliable person who is at least 13 years old. The law applies to dwellings, enclosures and vehicles.
Danielle, a climate-science consultant, told the Washington Post that her children have proven themselves responsible. “The world is actually even safer than when I was a child, and I just want to give them the same freedom and independence that I had—basically an old-fashioned childhood,” she said. “I think it’s absolutely critical for their development—to learn responsibility, to experience the world, to gain confidence and competency.”
Alexander Meitiv, a physicist at the National Institutes of Health, also objected to the investigation. “We feel we’re being bullied into a point of view about child-rearing that we strongly disagree with,” he said.

Israel Hayom | AG: IDF protocol does not permit shooting abducted soldier

Israel Hayom | AG: IDF protocol does not permit shooting abducted soldier:

AG: IDF protocol does not permit shooting abducted soldier

Military can act to prevent abductions, even at risk to victim, but cannot use deadly force on victim, says Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, following inquiry by civil rights group • The Hannibal Protocol must meet international legal criteria, he says.

Edna Adato and Israel Hayom Staff

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein  |  Photo credit: Lior Mizrahi

The Israel Defense Forces' abduction prevention measures must follow international legal criteria and cannot entail the use of deadly force against the victim, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein said Monday.

Weinstein was responding to an inquiry by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel requesting clarification on the military's Hannibal Protocol, which is designed to thwart the capture of Israeli security forces by enemy agents and allows commanders in the field to take whatever actions are necessary to foil such abductions.

The association petitioned Weinstein in August following the failed rescue attempt of Lt. Hadar Goldin, who was killed near Rafah during Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip, and asked Weinstein to make the directives associated with Hannibal Protocol public. The Justice Ministry denied the petition, saying the protocol was classified. The ministry did, however, say the protocol had been recently revised following lengthy preparatory work by the military.

The directives, Weinstein said, do not suggest, directly or indirectly, that preventing a soldier's abduction entails using deadly force on the victim.

"We believe the directives exercised as part of this protocol reflect the proper balance of the various considerations intrinsic to such situations," his response said.

"A military operation meant to thwart an ongoing abduction attempt almost always entails placing the abductee in a certain amount of danger. Israeli and international law do not bar the actions necessary to prevent abductions, even if they may endanger the abductee's life, but nevertheless, the operational directives bar the use of deadly force meant to cause the abductee's death."

The military is still investigating the circumstances of Goldin's death, and Weinstein stressed Monday that the final decision on any future proceedings in the case falls to Military Judge Advocate General Maj. Gen. Danny Efroni.

"Exercising the authority vested him by the Military Jurisdiction Act, the judge advocate general has sole jurisdiction on the matter. His actions are independent and he is guided only by legal considerations," Weinstein said.

JPost: Health Minister German outlaws fluoridation of all tap water

Here is another in our series of posts regarding mandatory medical treatment.

An article by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich reports that the Israeli Health Minister, Yael German, has directed that Israel's water cupply should no longer be fluoridated.

But she added that instead of forcing all Israelis to consume fluoridated water to benefit children’s teeth, the delivery system should be changed so each parent can decide and take action individually if they wanted their child to get dental protection...

Prof. Arnon Afek, German’s director-general whom she recently handpicked and who is an expert in pathology and medical administration (but not dentistry or public health), told The Jerusalem Post Sunday that he personally supported the health minister’s decision to prohibit fluoridation. “Mandatory fluoridation is medical treatment. Individuals have the right to decide if they want it or not. The question is not if fluoride is beneficial but how it should be delivered. We cannot force people. It is legitimate that experts in the field oppose the health minister’s decision, but we have a policy,” said the director-general. “The ministry supported it for over 40 years, but this is a new era. The world has changed, and we can educate parents.”

The United States Should Exercise Restraint in Ferguson

We call on the United States and the Ferguson Police Department to exercise maximum restraint and avoid killing innocent civilians.

John Oliver on Ferguson: No Police Department Needs Giant Military Vehicles - The Wire:

Absence from Internship for Reserve Duty not Counted

The Israel Bar Association clarified today that the period an intern is absent from his/her legal internship in order to perform IDF reserve duty is not included when calculating the 30 days of absence allowed to a legal intern.

Israel Hayom | Israel Medical Association opposes force-feeding law

In another story related to coercion of medical procedures, there is this story from Israel Hayom (see prior related posts here, here and here). The proposed law would require doctors to force-feed hunger strikers. If a certain doctor refuses, he would be obligated to transfer the care of the patient to another doctor. There are potentially two people being coerced here, the hunger strikers and the doctors.

According to the article, the Chairman of the Israeli Medical Association claims that this clause would cause doctors to violate the Israeli code of medical ethics. But I am not certain how. Perhaps the relevant clauses are on page 24:

k) The right to continue proper medical treatment 

1. The physician shall respect the patient's right to continue medical treatment with another physician or as part of some other medical arrangement. 

2. The physician shall respect the patient's right to receive continuous treatment, with full cooperation from the physicians treating him. 

If the patient has the right to switch doctors, presumably he has the right to keep his current doctor (who refuses to force-feed him).

I never quite understood the issue with hunger strikes. How exactly do the strikers force their captors or others to release them by not eating? According to Wikipedia, it works mainly by guilt or public perception. The jailing entity does not want to suffer the public outcry that would result from the death of the prisoners while incarcerated. I guess it just depends on the will of the jailor and the striker.