Gila Kanfi-Steinitz Judge
|
Judge Ofer Grosskopf:
I agree with the main points of the opinion of my colleague, the Vice President, Noam Sohlberg, and the clear result he reached. This is a lost and invalid act of legislation, over which not one black flag, but a number of distinct black flags fly over it. As my colleague does well to prove this act of legislation is done in a corrupt way, which does not conform to the rule of recognition (rule of recognition) that the Knesset has set for itself; and worse, its content is invalid of all invalidity, since it violates the constitutional right to equality without even approximating meeting the conditions of the limitation clause that was established In section 8 to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Thus, in my view, it is already in direct contradiction not only to the democratic values of the State of Israel, but also to its Jewish character. I will clarify this last point, and in this addendum to the words of my colleague, I will suffice.
The First Condition Established by the Limitation Clause in section 8 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty Recognition of the Knesset's authority to establish in the law an arrangement that contradicts the basic rights enumerated Sections 2-7 The Basic Law is that it will be discussed in an arrangement "Appropriate to the values of the State of Israel". from combining this provision with Section 1A The Basic Law indicates that these values are, first and foremost, "The Values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State(See also: High Court of Justice 5026/04 Design 22 - Shark Deluxe Furniture Ltd.From v. Head of the Shabbat Work Permits Branch - Supervision Division, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, IsrSC 60(1) 38,53-54 (2005)). It is clear to me that the act of legislation in question is incompatible with the democratic values of the State of Israel, and I do not see the need to expand beyond the words of my colleague, the Vice-President. Solberg in his opinion (which, although he did not discuss this directly, is required by his determination that this is constitutional discrimination that has no proper purpose). My colleague also noted that he doubts whether a legal arrangement that exempts a yeshiva student is compatible with Jewish law (see paragraphs 109-115 of his opinion). This issue goes beyond my area of expertise, but even if I assume that one can find faces here and there in Jewish law on this matter, it is clear and obvious to me that the act of legislation in question contradicts the meaning that should be attributed to "The Values of the State of Israel as a Jewish State", in Israeli legislation in general, and in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty in particular (compare: High Court of Justice 6427/02 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. The Knesset, IsrSC 619(1) 619,735-731 (2006) (in the minority opinion of the Vice President (Ret.) Mishael Cheshin , Deceased); and in general regarding the meaning that should be attributed to this term: Aharon Barak Human Dignity and his liberty and the law-יסוד: Freedom of Occupation - Volume 1 - The Theory of Constitutional Rights 589-586 (2023)).