There is no argument that the considerations for its legislation were unreasonable. It should be emphasized that both the enactment of the relevant law (the Enabling Law) and its operation by the Authority (the Ashkelon Municipality) were both carried out 40 years ago, prior to the enactment of the Basic Laws. In this way, the situation differs from the case in which only the relevant law was enacted before the Basic Laws, but was activated by the Authority afterwards (an example of this arose in the Bar-Ilan Road case). In the latter case, too, the authority enjoys the umbrella of the rule of observance of the laws (see the High Court of Justice Horev [17], the opinion of President Barak, at pp. 41-43). Moreover. About two years ago, the Ashkelon Municipality held a discussion "to examine a bylaw for Ashkelon, sea porkand pork." I have reviewed the minutes and it appears that the considerations were relevant and in the end it was decided not to amend the law.
From the perspective of the pig as a symbol, the position that a municipality should first consider not imposing a sweeping ban is not convincing. If the goal is to reduce the harm to a person who wants to sell or buy a pig, then it should be said that first consideration should be given to not imposing a prohibition at all. Of course, a municipality must consider all options. And indeed, this was done about two years ago.
It can be argued that the re-examination two years ago is too late, since the indictments that are the subject of this appeal were filed before the examination. I would respond to this argument in two ways.
First, we are dealing with basic laws. In my opinion, the vision must be broad. The purpose is to check whether the party considered the matter, and for this purpose the point of examination time is not decisive. We do not have before us a law with clauses such as those appearing in the Planning and Building Law, 5725-1965, which require consultation with one party or another before taking action. This is a technical requirement set forth in the law and must be respected. That's not the case here.