Accordingly, weight and significance should be given to the provision that existing laws should be interpreted in the spirit of the provisions of the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, which, as stated, also applies to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and should not be viewed as a statement of the glory of the wording. Thus it has already been held in a number of judgments, the exhaustive and accurate summary of which can be found in the words of President E. Barak in his judgment in the Gnimat case [13], at p. 653 that:
"The constitutional status of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty radiates itself to all parts of Israeli law. This projection does not skip the old law... The old law has been preserved. The intensity of the radiation of the Basic Law towards it is, therefore, less powerful than the intensity of the projection of a new law. The old law is protected before the annulment... But it is not protected from a new exegetical conception as to what we mean... There is no possibility of distinguishing between an old law and a new law with regard to the interpretive effects of the Basic Laws. Any judicial discretion granted under the old law must be exercised in the spirit of the Basic Laws; And in general, every legislative norm must be interpreted as inspired by the Basic Law."
This is a spur and they apply equally to the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, and in this regard we may add the most recent judgment that has not yet been published regarding the shortening of the days of detention of soldiers without bringing them before a judge by virtue of the provisions of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.
In this context, the dilemma regarding the prohibition of the sale of pork in the area of a local authority in general is certainly not easy. On the one hand, there is the centrality and power of the prohibition of eating pork in the Jewish religion, and it has already been held in many judgments that taking into account the feelings of the religious public is not improper (see, for example, the judgment of Justice Y. Cohen, as he was then called, in the Lapid case [5]). On the other hand, it was stated by President Barak in the judgment of the High Court of Justice 806/88 Universal City Studios Inc. et al. v. Board of Film and Playwrights et al. [14], at p. 39, that "in a democratic society, a certain offense to religious feelings must be recognized. Only in this way will it be possible to live together with people with different religious opinions." Thus, for example, the existence of transportation on Shabbat harms the feelings of the observant of tradition, but this harm is not sufficient to prohibit the use of transportation on Shabbat in general, although it does, as stated in the High Court of Justice 531/77 Baruch et al. v. Supervisor of Traffic [15], a place to prohibit the use of a vehicle near a synagogue, and this is also stated in one of the judgments regarding clearly religious areas, such as within the city limits of Bnei Brak. In this respect, if the prohibition of the sale of pig meat in general within the boundaries of a local authority creates a difficulty for that sector of the population that is interested in eating pork, it should not necessarily be said that this difficulty harms the proper balance and the principle of proportionality, since there is no prohibition on eating and keeping pork, and those who are interested in this can also purchase pork outside that local authority, even if it involves a certain amount of trouble and it is difficult to say that it is forbidden The sale of pig meat, even in a comprehensive and sweeping manner within the boundaries of a local authority, is contrary to the spirit of the Basic Laws of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.