Friedmann High Court proposal generates debate

Bill limiting court power, approved by gov't Sunday, prompts argument on ramification for human rights.

By DAN IZENBERG
The bill approved by the cabinet Sunday to give the Knesset the right to re-legislate laws that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional, "is not so bad," according to former MK Uriel Lynn, who shepherded two basic laws protecting human rights through the Knesset in 1992. Nevertheless, Lynn supports the demand to increase the majority required to override a High Court decision to 70 instead of 61, as proposed in the bill drafted by Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann. Lynn said he was disappointed by the level of the criticism by the ministers in the cabinet who opposed the bill, calling it "superficial" and "shallow." But Lynn's criticism was mainly aimed at the charges made by some of the ministers that Friedmann's bill did away with human rights protections altogether. "I saw that they don't understand," he told The Jerusalem Post. "We have a written constitution. It isn't complete or uniform. Not every law is reinforced equally [i.e. different basic laws require different minimal majorities to pass legislation that violates them]. But we have a constitution that covers the main rights." Arik Carmon, head of the Israel Democracy Institute, described the bill as "grave, extremely bad and one which leaves a stain on democracy." He also charged that Friedmann was undermining the work of Knesset Law Committee chairman Menahem Ben-Sasson, who has been working since the beginning of the 17th Knesset on a comprehensive constitution which, among other things, would include a full bill of rights. "Approving Friedmann's legislation without a full bill of rights is a superficial decision," on the part of the cabinet, said Carmon. The existence of a full constitution would improve the level of Knesset legislation because the MKs would know that if their bill did not meet the demands of the bill of rights, the High Court would reject it, said Carmon. That situation would also justify requiring the Knesset to muster a majority of 80 MKs to override a High Court decision to nullify a bill. However, charged Carmon, instead of concentrating on drafting a comprehensive bill of rights, the Knesset and the government prefer to pour oil on the fire of their tensions with the High Court by restricting its power to protect rights. Yori Geiron, head of the Israel Bar Association, issued a statement saying he intended to call a meeting of the Bar's national council and hoped that it would back his position that Friedmann's legislation must be blocked, "especially at this time." He said that the Bar would also express this position during the meetings of the Knesset Law Committee to prepare the bill for second and third (final) reading, assuming that the plenum approves it in first reading. But there was disagreement within the Bar. Doron Barzilai, head of the Tel Aviv and Central District, said the cabinet had made a "brave and correct decision which properly and correctly balances the powers between the executive and legislative branches." He called on all four Kadima candidates for party leader - all of whom voted against Friedmann's bill - to declare that they would retain Friedmann as justice minister if they succeed in forming a new government. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) condemned the cabinet decision, charging that it was unconstitutional because it caused injury to human rights. "If the Knesset accepts the proposed amendment, it will not only cause damage to the status and authority of the court, but will also significantly reduce the limited constitutional protection of human rights," the organization declared in a statement. Parliaments tend to restrict human rights in times of crisis and it is precisely in these circumstances that it is important to maintain the checking and balancing power of the court, the statement continued.