Judge Dafna Barak-Erez:
I agree with the judgment of my colleague Vice-President N. Sohlberg, both with regard to the defects that occurred in the legislative process and with regard to the failure of the law before us to comply with the conditions of the limitation clause. Therefore, like my colleagues, I will suffice with short remarks.
With regard to the reasoning of my colleague the Vice-President, I will add that in my own opinion, I am inclined to the approach that the examination of the purpose of the law should not be limited to its explicit language. I will further clarify that in my opinion, "the suspension of the detention of yeshiva students whose Torah is their art" is not a concrete purpose of the law, but rather the means chosen by the legislature to realize the general purpose mentioned therein, namely, recognition of the importance of Torah study. Since this is the purpose to which we should focus, the conclusion that this is a measure that in the circumstances of the case is inappropriate and disproportionate becomes even sharper. I would also like to join my colleague Justice's comments Y. Willner, which have now been brought before me, with regard to the application of the proportionality tests.
On a more general level, I will add that from my point of view, the law under review is a harmful and invalid law, first and foremost, because it undermines an institutionalized foundation of the rule of law - equality in the enforcement of criminal law. This is not discrimination that is the result of chance, or a lack of means, but rather institutionalized discrimination by enforcement, whose place will not be recognized in the statute book. Such blatant discrimination erodes the sense of justice and undermines the legitimacy of law enforcement in other contexts as well. Even if there may be different opinions on the issue of setting delimiting exceptions to the obligation to conscript, there can be no dispute about the state's basic duty to ensure equality before the law.