A-G wants haredi site probed for attacks on Emmanuel judge

Levy was the subject of repeated attacks on the Web site.

311_Emmanuel demo (photo credit: Ariel Jerozolimski)
311_Emmanuel demo
(photo credit: Ariel Jerozolimski)
“His tongue is deep inside the rectums of the Ashkenazis at the Supreme Court” is a headline from the haredi Web site Tzofar, and one of the more vile references to Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy.
Comments like these on the site prompted the Attorney General’s Office on Thursday to recommend that police launch a criminal investigation, on suspicion of contempt of court, against the Web site’s editor and Shmuel Kooper, the writer who has produced numerous diatribes against the religious Sephardi justice.
Levy headed the three-member panel that recently ruled ordered parents who refused to return their daughters to Emmanuel’s Beit Ya’acov school to prison for contempt of court, after a previous ruling had a barrier erected in the school removed.
The court said that the separation was on ethnic grounds, as it created a defacto division between the majority of the Sephardi girls and those in the socalled hassidic track. Parents of girls from the hassidic track said that the motivation for the separation was religious stringency, not ethnicity, citing the fact that approximately a quarter of the girls in the track were Sephardi.
Yoav Laloum, who along with his Noar Kahalacha NGO filed the original petition against the state-funded Independent Education Center under which the school operated, was also a prime target of Tzofar, which claimed that he was on the New Israel Fund’s payroll to “fight the Torah of Israel.”
Levy was the subject of repeated attacks on the Web site, in which he was called “a lowlife,” who hates haredim and is seeking to appease his “Ashkenazi masters.”
In a decision pertaining to the Emmanuel affair from the end of June, the court had asked the attorney- general to look into “irregular remarks” against the court and especially one of the justices, presumably Levy, “to examine whether these are to be considered contempt of court.”