Posts
Association for Civil Rights in Israel on democracy’s heart attack (Long)
From the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, reprinted by permission.
Ed’s note: This is long, but close enough to our mission to warrant reprinting in full. Here you have the definite guide to anti-democracy bills in the Israeli Knesset, some that will be familiar to readers of this blog, some that even close followers of Israeli democracy will be unaware of. Did you know that the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) might consider banning face veils? Or that there was a bill to restrict the Israeli cinema? Or that Israel’s embattled political opposition faced further restrictions in one bill that passed its first reading? None of these bills have passed as of yet. But they offer a window into what the next outrage might be and clearly illustrate the steep downward trendlines of Israeli democracy. No doubt not all of these bills will become law, but each will do their part to send a message to Israel’s political and national minorities and oppressed groups about where things are headed. And exactly none of them will be mentioned next time an official Israeli film festival comes to town, or the next time an Israeli or American leader goes on about our shared democratic heritage.
October 2010
For links to the texts of all Knesset bills and document cited, please view the complete PDF version of this document.
Background
Over the past two years, we have been increasingly troubled by expanding tendencies to harm Israel’s democracy. These trends are extensively surveyed in the State of the Democracy Report – published by The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in intermittent chapters. The two chapters that have been published so far deal with education system, and with the status of the Arab minority in Israel. The three future chapters will address the Knesset and the judicial system, free media, and freedom of protest and political activity.
A source of great concern is the fact that one of the key rings in which the Israeli democracy is threatened is the parliament itself – the very heart of democracy. Ahead of the upcoming opening of the Knesset’s Winter Session, we have drafted this brief review. It surveys the main aspects of anti-democratic trends in the Knesset, focusing on anti-democratic legislation, which includes bills that harm basic democratic rights – mainly the freedom of expression and political protest, and equality before the law; verbal and even physical abuse of members of the Knesset minority factions at this time;[1] attempts to delegitimize and infringe on the legitimate and much-needed operations of human-rights and social-change organizations;[2] and attempts to restrict the freedom of Israel’s academy. The above are most troubling signs, attesting to the deterioration of Israel’s democratic regime.
The attacks against Israel’s democracy are mainly characterized by attempts to silence social or political minorities’ views or public criticism; attempts to delegitimize political rivals, human-rights organizations, and minorities; attempts to restrict parties with positions or activities that do not coincide with the political majority’s desired direction; and by presenting minorities in the Israeli society as enemies of the State, generalizing in an attempt to infringe on their civil and political rights.
As a result, the basic principles of the Israeli democratic system are harmed; there is ongoing infringement on issues such as the freedom of expression, and human dignity and equality; on the possibility of upholding the pluralism of views and thoughts; on the freedom to congregate and protest; and on the legitimacy of certain views and stands. We are witnessing a reality of increasing tyranny against social, political, and national minorities, which harms their very rights.
It should be noted that these events have been taking place against the backdrop of a social and political reality which is always very loaded and often very harsh. Over the past 2 years, for example, we witnessed the continuation of the occupation and all that it entails: fire on Israel’s southern area, the military operation in Gaza, the flotilla affair, terror attacks, and more. We believe, however, that raising the banner of “A Self-Defending Democracy” is a cynical attempt to infringe on a democratic right of some minority (ethnic, social, or political) and is neither legitimate nor just. We believe that the State of Israel and its democracy must be defended, albeit proportionally and appropriately, and that basic rights may be denied or restricted only in the most extreme cases – as the Israeli law currently stipulates. It is inappropriate to legitimize the denial of minority rights as a matter of routine.
These anti-democratic moves employ various means, most troubling of which is the use of allegedly legitimate parliamentary tools, mainly through legislation. In recent years, we witnessed harsh and unprecedented remarks by senior politicians against political and human rights organizations, as well as various minorities, coupled by a variety of restrictive moves against them. At the same time, attempts were made to promote legislative initiatives and bills that clearly impair on the Israeli democracy and the rights, positions, and civil status of parties that did not belong to the political majority at the time.
It should be remembered that remarks and/or moves by senior members of the Israeli political establishment, particularly members of the Knesset, which has been a symbol of Israel’s democracy and its main upholder, have far-reaching implications on the Israeli public stands and attitudes toward democracy, human rights, and political, social, and ethnic minority groups. Surveys that the media carried over the past two years indicate that the Israeli public, mainly Israeli youths, support undemocratic and racist views.
Ahead of the Knesset’s October 2010 Winter Session
The 18th Knesset’s Winter Session 2010-11 will commence on October 10th. Anticipating it, we wish to warn against the troubling trend of infringement against democracy in Israel as expressed through the persistent promotion of anti-democratic bills, decisionmaking process, and conduct by Members of Knesset (MK). The Knesset plenum and committees have recently served as platforms for offensive and anti-democratic discourse.
In July 2010, at the close of the last Knesset Summer Session, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) sent a letter to the prime minister and the Knesset speaker in which we warned about the troubling trend of infringement on democracy, pointing at the important role the Knesset plays in defending democracy, and calling on them to take steps to end that trend.[3]
In the letter, we presented a list of bills promoted in the Knesset to demonstrate this troubling trend. At this time, ahead of the opening of the Winter Session, we wish to offer an update on these bills, some of which were not promoted while others were.
First, we wish to address bills that were listed in the aforementioned letter, and new bills that were submitted since and were not promoted because the Ministerial Legislation Committee rejected them, probably due to lack of agreement among its members (additionally, we list a bill that was passed and thus, naturally, will not be discussed in the upcoming Knesset session).
1. Bill on MK’s Pledge of Allegiance (David Rotem)
According to this bill, all MKs are required to pledge allegiance to the State of Israel as Jewish a democratic state, to its laws, symbols, and national anthem. The bill intends to delegitimize and even practically prevent minority groups from partaking in the Israeli democratic process.
Status: Not promoted due to lack of coalition agreement.
2. Bill Denying the High Court’s Right to Rule on Nationalization (Rotem and another 44 MKs)
This bill, which intends to bypass the High Court of Justice (HCJ), was devised in the wake of HCJ discussions of the Nationalization Act, though the court has not yet ruled against it, but probably may do so in the future.
Status: Not promoted due to lack of coalition agreement.
3. Bill for the Establishment of a Constitution Court (David Rotem)
This bill wishes to restrict the Supreme Court. In a democracy, the separation of powers means that the court must defend the rule of the law and prevent harm to human rights in general and to constitutional rights in particular through legislation, among other things. The proposed bill, which aims at denying the HCJ powers through a series of acts, severely harms the principle of the separation of powers, the protection of human rights, and the democratic system.
Status: Not promoted
4. A series of government-initiated bills that intend to restrict the Knesset’s opposition factions
Seven MKs may split from a Knesset faction to establish a new faction – not one-third of the original faction members; increasing the quorum needed for budget-related bills to 55 MKs; if after a vote of no-confidence is endorsed by a Knesset majority, the new candidate for prime minister should fail to form a coalition-based government, the ousted government should regain its seat; a cabinet member who quits the Knesset shall be replaced by another on his faction list.
Status: passed the first reading; it seems there is no intention to promote further it at this time.
5. Bill or Pardoning Disengagement Offenders (Rivlin et al)
Though legislation that eases punitive measures against persons who exercised their right to political protest is welcome in principle, this particular bill is problematic because it makes a distinction between political and ideological activists of various groups. Instead of promoting a general principles of “going easy” on protesters, this bill was promoted by the current political majority in favor of their electorate alone .[4]
Status: the Knesset passed the bill; the HCJ is currently reading a petition against its inequality.
6. The Cinema bill
According to this bill, the entire crew of a film that seeks public funding will have to pledge allegiance to the State of Israel as Jewish a democratic state, its laws, symbols, etc. This bill infringes on the freedom of expression, protest, and artistic and creative expression – referring only to a specific political, national, and social group.
Status: not promoted.
7. Bill on Denying an MK’s Parliamentary Status (Dani Danon)
According to this bill, the parliamentary status of an MK may be revoked by a majority of 80 MKs if he expressed his opposition Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state, incited to racism, or supported an armed struggle against the State of Israel.
Status: Not approved by the government.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
It may be expected, however, that some of the bills that the Knesset started promoting in the previous session will be actively promoted further in the upcoming session. Following is a list of bills that we believe carry high probability of promotion and even ratification, with such or other wording, and turn into state laws in the coming Winter Session.
1. The Nakba Bill (Alex Miller)
According to this bill, persons marking Nakba Day as a day of mourning for the establishment of the State of Israel will be sentenced to prison. The government endorsed the bill but, in the wake of public protests, its wording was changed to state that persons marking Nakba Day shall be denied public funds. Even this “minimized” version still legally impairs on the freedom of expression, as the political majority bans a certain political view.
Status: The bill passed the first reading and will be discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee ahead of its second and third reading.
2. Anti-Incitement Bill (Zvulun Orlev)
An amendment of the existing act, according to which persons publishing a call that denies the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state shall be arrested. This is an extension of the penal code, which intends to incriminate a political view that another political group does not accept.
Status: Passed the preliminary reading and may be discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee ahead of its first reading.
3. Nationalization, Pledge of Allegiance (David Rotem)
According to this bill, all Israeli citizens will have to pledge allegiance to the State of Israel as Jewish a democratic state, and do a term of military or national service.
Status: The government did not endorse this bill; a ministerial committee rejected it in May 2010, but another attempt was made in July to get the cabinet to endorse it and failed. Additional attempts to promote this bill may be expected.
4. Bill on Admission Committees of Communal Settlements (David Rotem, Israel Hason, Shay Hermesh)
According to this bill, admission committees may turn down candidates for membership with a communal settlement if they “fail to meet the fundamental views of the settlement,” its social fabric, and so on. The bill primarily intends to deny ethnic minorities’ access to Jewish settlements, offering the possibility to reject anyone who does not concur with the settlement committee’s positions, religion, political views, and so on. It should be noted that ACRI filed petition against this bill, which is pending with the HCJ. [5]
Status: The bill passed the first reading and will be discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee ahead of its second and third reading.
5. Bill on Funds from Foreign Political Entities (Elkin et al)
According to the (original version) of this bill, any person or group financed by a foreign nation must register with the party registrar and immediately report each contribution, mark every document in this spirit, and state at the opening of any remark they make that they are funded by a foreign state. The bill names strict penalties too. In practice, the bill intends to delegitimize and impair on the activities of organizations that receive funds from, among other sources, foreign states. Though the Israeli law already makes reporting such donations imperative, this bill wishes to expand the existing law and force certain civil organizations to mark their activities as subversive and illegitimate. Furthermore, the bill practically refers to the activities of specific civil groups, focusing on human rights organizations, implicitly incriminating them when compared with other bodies or individuals funded by foreign non-state entities.[6] It should be noted that we sent a letter to the foreign minister recently warning against the state’s illegitimate intervention in fundraising by Israel’s civil organizations.[7]
Status: An amended version of the bill was endorsed by the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee; and will soon be presented for a first reading and then discussed by the committee ahead of its second and third reading.
6. Bill on Infiltration (Government)
The bill stipulates, among other things, that infiltrators based on their country of origin, and persons who assist them (!) may be sentenced to 5 to 7 years in prison. This bill follows the trend of delegitimizing human rights and aid organizations and individuals who help refugees and labor immigrants.
Status: The government pulled back the bill, but key points from it will be introduced through a new bill which, to the best of our knowledge, is currently drafted by the Justice Ministry.[8]
7. Bill Against Boycott (Elkin et al)
According to this bill, persons who initiate, promote, or publish material that might serve as grounds for imposing a boycott against Israel are committing a crime and a civil wrong, and may be ordered to compensate parties economically affected by that boycott, including fixed reparations to the tune of 30,000 shekels, freeing the plaintiffs from the need to prove damages. If the felon is a foreign citizen, he may be banned from entering or doing business with Israel; and if it is a foreign state, Israel may not repay the debts it owes that state, and use the money to compensate offended parties; that state may additionally be banned from conducting business affairs in Israel. And if that is not enough, the above shall apply one year retroactively.
This too is a bill that discriminates against certain political groups in Israel, and is introduced by the political majority in an attempt to neutralize the political opposition it is facing. Primarily, the bill intends to reject legitimate boycotts of products of settlements, and thus severely impairs on a legitimate, legal, and nonviolent protest tool that is internationally accepted (including by Israel), while impairing on the Israeli citizens’ freedom of expression, protest, and congregation.[9]
Status: The bill passed a preliminary reading and the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee will discuss it ahead of its first reading. It should be noted that a ministerial committee rejected the chapters pertaining to foreign citizens and states, probably out of consideration for Israel’s foreign relations, and spiked the retroactive clause.
8. Bill on Revoking the Citizenship of Persons Convicted of Terrorism or Espionage (David Rotem)
This bill infringes on the basic rights of Israel’s citizens because when a citizenship (which in itself is a basic right) is denied, a series of basic rights that follow from it are denied too. Furthermore, the Israeli Penal Code already specifies ways of dealing with persons convicted of terrorism or espionage.[10]
Status: The bill was discussed by the Knesset Interior Committee, which will continue discussing it ahead of its first reading.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
On top of these, two additional bills submitted over the past 2 months may be promoted in the coming session:
1. An Associations Bill (ban on filing suits abroad against Israeli politicians or army officers), according to which an association that deals with suits against senior Israeli officials abroad may not be established, or will be shut down.
2. Bill banning wearing veils in public, according to which, it would be illegal to cover one’s face in any public location, under penalty of imprisonment.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
We further wish to stress that there is a tough and intolerant approach toward minority members and stands in the Knesset, as expressed in plenum and committees’ discussions. This trend was particularly visible after the flotilla affair, and included verbal and even physical abuse against MK Zuabi, as well as other Arab MKs, during and after the plenum discussion, when the Knesset discussed the revocation of her parliamentary rights. It should be noted that a petition was filed with the HCJ against that revocation, under the pretext that it was an undemocratic act.
The prevailing atmosphere is not expected to change soon, certainly not during the current loaded period of talks with the Palestinians, terror attacks, rocket firing from Gaza, and the debate over freezing or not freezing construction works in the territories.
Answering our letter, dated July 2010, the Knesset speaker wrote that he too is uncomfortable with some of the bills mentioned in our letter, saying that he feel that “the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish nation, and as a Jewish and democratic state, is strong enough and needs no ‘fortifications’ such as those proposed by the bills you mentioned in your letter. I believe that, often unintentionally, they actually weaken and not bolster it.”[11]
Additional Issues on the Knesset Agenda Ahead of the October 2010 Session
While dealing with anti-democratic laws, we constantly work against legislation that impairs on human rights in all aspects of life.
At this time, we deem it particularly important to address two topical and central issues that carry human-rights implications that the Knesset will discuss in the upcoming session:
The Planning and Housing Reform – A new planning and construction law is about to be introduced that has far-reaching implications that might impact on all aspects of the Israeli residents’ lives. We believe that the currently proposed reform might impair on the public’s participation in related forums and on the protection of public interests. Cooperating with other organizations, we work to amend and correct the suggested reform so as to introduce tools that would ensure appropriate representation, the implementation of the public’s participation, and that various social interests are considered.
The State Budget and the Arrangements Act – Israel’s biannual budget for 2011-12 will be discussed and sealed in the coming months. We feel that the suggested budget contains numerous resolutions and amendments that impair on human rights in a wide range of issues. On behalf of ACRI and in collaboration with additional organizations, we drafted several position papers on issues such as – impairing on the courts’ accessibility; impairing on the rights of the unemployed and seekers of state allowances; harming the laborers’ rights; infringing on the residential rights of inhabitants of public housing, and so on.
Below are a few additional issues (samples only) that we handle and which are expected to be raised in the upcoming Knesset session:
1. A long line of bills dealing with immigration and civil status is expected to be discussed as part of the Arrangements Act, government deliberations ahead of the forming act, the new anti-infiltration bill, and more.
2. An amendment we initiated, banning discrimination in public services that will not allow further selection at club entrances, will be discussed by the Knesset Economic Committee in preparation for a second and third reading.
3. An amendment of the National Health Act, adding a standing mechanism for updating the medications basket that will ratify continuity, which we initiated together with the Knesset Labor Committee, will be discussed soon, having passed the first reading in the previous Knesset.
4. A bill we initiated offering a program to replace the Wisconsin Program, which the Knesset Labor Committee will discuss.
Summary
Anti-democratic tendencies in the Knesset are gaining momentum and, regrettably, the Winter Session is expected to follow on the last session’s trends. We feel, however, that it is important to point out that not all the anti-democratic bills were promoted, and that some of those that were promoted have undergone significant changes that minimized the damage they might cause. The last Knesset session stood out in laying the foundations for anti-democratic legislation, but the vast majority of the legislation processes concerning the aforementioned bills is not yet over. In this respect, the coming session will be a trying time. If the said bills should ripen and turn into state laws, their potential damage to democracy would be realized; but should the Knesset sober up and restrain itself, protecting our democracy against the tyranny of the majority, the Israeli parliament will pass the important test of the democracy’s durability.
Even if the anti-democratic bills – some, or even all, of them – do not eventually become laws – even then, Israeli democracy will have already sustained a serious blow. For the issue has yet another, public and educational, lasting aspect. The winds blowing from the Knesset, through these legislative efforts, are already affecting the public, helping to create a public perception of Israeli Arabs as always suspect, of human rights activists and organizations as enemies of the State, and of basic democratic norms as subject to the majority’s whims. Thus, the activities of many MKs, often supported by leading cabinet members, effectively provide the public with ongoing classes in anti-democracy.
In conclusion, we would like to cite remarks that the Knesset speaker made on 2 August 2010, addressing Foreign Ministry cadets, as published in Haaretz: “Certain MKs address the people’s sentiments, and in doing so create an international image of Israel as an Apartheid state…. [Such MKs] create a wrongful discourse between Jews and Arabs in the Knesset that reflects on the existing conflict in the Israeli society.”[12]
We hope that in the upcoming session, the MKs will sober up and change the parliament’s direction, and that the trends of tyranny of the majority will be replaced by new approaches that will restore essential democratic values and reintroduce the need to protect them into the heart of our democracy. Either way – whether the Knesset mends its ways or not – ACRI will keep guarding democratic values, monitoring the Knesset’s legislative processes, and doing everything it can to help promoting the values of equality, social justice, and human rights.
Ed’s note: This is long, but close enough to our mission to warrant reprinting in full. Here you have the definite guide to anti-democracy bills in the Israeli Knesset, some that will be familiar to readers of this blog, some that even close followers of Israeli democracy will be unaware of. Did you know that the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) might consider banning face veils? Or that there was a bill to restrict the Israeli cinema? Or that Israel’s embattled political opposition faced further restrictions in one bill that passed its first reading? None of these bills have passed as of yet. But they offer a window into what the next outrage might be and clearly illustrate the steep downward trendlines of Israeli democracy. No doubt not all of these bills will become law, but each will do their part to send a message to Israel’s political and national minorities and oppressed groups about where things are headed. And exactly none of them will be mentioned next time an official Israeli film festival comes to town, or the next time an Israeli or American leader goes on about our shared democratic heritage.
Harming Democracy in the Heart of Democracy
by Attorney Debbie Gild-HayoOctober 2010
For links to the texts of all Knesset bills and document cited, please view the complete PDF version of this document.
Background
Over the past two years, we have been increasingly troubled by expanding tendencies to harm Israel’s democracy. These trends are extensively surveyed in the State of the Democracy Report – published by The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in intermittent chapters. The two chapters that have been published so far deal with education system, and with the status of the Arab minority in Israel. The three future chapters will address the Knesset and the judicial system, free media, and freedom of protest and political activity.
A source of great concern is the fact that one of the key rings in which the Israeli democracy is threatened is the parliament itself – the very heart of democracy. Ahead of the upcoming opening of the Knesset’s Winter Session, we have drafted this brief review. It surveys the main aspects of anti-democratic trends in the Knesset, focusing on anti-democratic legislation, which includes bills that harm basic democratic rights – mainly the freedom of expression and political protest, and equality before the law; verbal and even physical abuse of members of the Knesset minority factions at this time;[1] attempts to delegitimize and infringe on the legitimate and much-needed operations of human-rights and social-change organizations;[2] and attempts to restrict the freedom of Israel’s academy. The above are most troubling signs, attesting to the deterioration of Israel’s democratic regime.
The attacks against Israel’s democracy are mainly characterized by attempts to silence social or political minorities’ views or public criticism; attempts to delegitimize political rivals, human-rights organizations, and minorities; attempts to restrict parties with positions or activities that do not coincide with the political majority’s desired direction; and by presenting minorities in the Israeli society as enemies of the State, generalizing in an attempt to infringe on their civil and political rights.
As a result, the basic principles of the Israeli democratic system are harmed; there is ongoing infringement on issues such as the freedom of expression, and human dignity and equality; on the possibility of upholding the pluralism of views and thoughts; on the freedom to congregate and protest; and on the legitimacy of certain views and stands. We are witnessing a reality of increasing tyranny against social, political, and national minorities, which harms their very rights.
It should be noted that these events have been taking place against the backdrop of a social and political reality which is always very loaded and often very harsh. Over the past 2 years, for example, we witnessed the continuation of the occupation and all that it entails: fire on Israel’s southern area, the military operation in Gaza, the flotilla affair, terror attacks, and more. We believe, however, that raising the banner of “A Self-Defending Democracy” is a cynical attempt to infringe on a democratic right of some minority (ethnic, social, or political) and is neither legitimate nor just. We believe that the State of Israel and its democracy must be defended, albeit proportionally and appropriately, and that basic rights may be denied or restricted only in the most extreme cases – as the Israeli law currently stipulates. It is inappropriate to legitimize the denial of minority rights as a matter of routine.
These anti-democratic moves employ various means, most troubling of which is the use of allegedly legitimate parliamentary tools, mainly through legislation. In recent years, we witnessed harsh and unprecedented remarks by senior politicians against political and human rights organizations, as well as various minorities, coupled by a variety of restrictive moves against them. At the same time, attempts were made to promote legislative initiatives and bills that clearly impair on the Israeli democracy and the rights, positions, and civil status of parties that did not belong to the political majority at the time.
It should be remembered that remarks and/or moves by senior members of the Israeli political establishment, particularly members of the Knesset, which has been a symbol of Israel’s democracy and its main upholder, have far-reaching implications on the Israeli public stands and attitudes toward democracy, human rights, and political, social, and ethnic minority groups. Surveys that the media carried over the past two years indicate that the Israeli public, mainly Israeli youths, support undemocratic and racist views.
Ahead of the Knesset’s October 2010 Winter Session
The 18th Knesset’s Winter Session 2010-11 will commence on October 10th. Anticipating it, we wish to warn against the troubling trend of infringement against democracy in Israel as expressed through the persistent promotion of anti-democratic bills, decisionmaking process, and conduct by Members of Knesset (MK). The Knesset plenum and committees have recently served as platforms for offensive and anti-democratic discourse.
In July 2010, at the close of the last Knesset Summer Session, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) sent a letter to the prime minister and the Knesset speaker in which we warned about the troubling trend of infringement on democracy, pointing at the important role the Knesset plays in defending democracy, and calling on them to take steps to end that trend.[3]
In the letter, we presented a list of bills promoted in the Knesset to demonstrate this troubling trend. At this time, ahead of the opening of the Winter Session, we wish to offer an update on these bills, some of which were not promoted while others were.
First, we wish to address bills that were listed in the aforementioned letter, and new bills that were submitted since and were not promoted because the Ministerial Legislation Committee rejected them, probably due to lack of agreement among its members (additionally, we list a bill that was passed and thus, naturally, will not be discussed in the upcoming Knesset session).
1. Bill on MK’s Pledge of Allegiance (David Rotem)
According to this bill, all MKs are required to pledge allegiance to the State of Israel as Jewish a democratic state, to its laws, symbols, and national anthem. The bill intends to delegitimize and even practically prevent minority groups from partaking in the Israeli democratic process.
Status: Not promoted due to lack of coalition agreement.
2. Bill Denying the High Court’s Right to Rule on Nationalization (Rotem and another 44 MKs)
This bill, which intends to bypass the High Court of Justice (HCJ), was devised in the wake of HCJ discussions of the Nationalization Act, though the court has not yet ruled against it, but probably may do so in the future.
Status: Not promoted due to lack of coalition agreement.
3. Bill for the Establishment of a Constitution Court (David Rotem)
This bill wishes to restrict the Supreme Court. In a democracy, the separation of powers means that the court must defend the rule of the law and prevent harm to human rights in general and to constitutional rights in particular through legislation, among other things. The proposed bill, which aims at denying the HCJ powers through a series of acts, severely harms the principle of the separation of powers, the protection of human rights, and the democratic system.
Status: Not promoted
4. A series of government-initiated bills that intend to restrict the Knesset’s opposition factions
Seven MKs may split from a Knesset faction to establish a new faction – not one-third of the original faction members; increasing the quorum needed for budget-related bills to 55 MKs; if after a vote of no-confidence is endorsed by a Knesset majority, the new candidate for prime minister should fail to form a coalition-based government, the ousted government should regain its seat; a cabinet member who quits the Knesset shall be replaced by another on his faction list.
Status: passed the first reading; it seems there is no intention to promote further it at this time.
5. Bill or Pardoning Disengagement Offenders (Rivlin et al)
Though legislation that eases punitive measures against persons who exercised their right to political protest is welcome in principle, this particular bill is problematic because it makes a distinction between political and ideological activists of various groups. Instead of promoting a general principles of “going easy” on protesters, this bill was promoted by the current political majority in favor of their electorate alone .[4]
Status: the Knesset passed the bill; the HCJ is currently reading a petition against its inequality.
6. The Cinema bill
According to this bill, the entire crew of a film that seeks public funding will have to pledge allegiance to the State of Israel as Jewish a democratic state, its laws, symbols, etc. This bill infringes on the freedom of expression, protest, and artistic and creative expression – referring only to a specific political, national, and social group.
Status: not promoted.
7. Bill on Denying an MK’s Parliamentary Status (Dani Danon)
According to this bill, the parliamentary status of an MK may be revoked by a majority of 80 MKs if he expressed his opposition Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state, incited to racism, or supported an armed struggle against the State of Israel.
Status: Not approved by the government.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
It may be expected, however, that some of the bills that the Knesset started promoting in the previous session will be actively promoted further in the upcoming session. Following is a list of bills that we believe carry high probability of promotion and even ratification, with such or other wording, and turn into state laws in the coming Winter Session.
1. The Nakba Bill (Alex Miller)
According to this bill, persons marking Nakba Day as a day of mourning for the establishment of the State of Israel will be sentenced to prison. The government endorsed the bill but, in the wake of public protests, its wording was changed to state that persons marking Nakba Day shall be denied public funds. Even this “minimized” version still legally impairs on the freedom of expression, as the political majority bans a certain political view.
Status: The bill passed the first reading and will be discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee ahead of its second and third reading.
2. Anti-Incitement Bill (Zvulun Orlev)
An amendment of the existing act, according to which persons publishing a call that denies the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state shall be arrested. This is an extension of the penal code, which intends to incriminate a political view that another political group does not accept.
Status: Passed the preliminary reading and may be discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee ahead of its first reading.
3. Nationalization, Pledge of Allegiance (David Rotem)
According to this bill, all Israeli citizens will have to pledge allegiance to the State of Israel as Jewish a democratic state, and do a term of military or national service.
Status: The government did not endorse this bill; a ministerial committee rejected it in May 2010, but another attempt was made in July to get the cabinet to endorse it and failed. Additional attempts to promote this bill may be expected.
4. Bill on Admission Committees of Communal Settlements (David Rotem, Israel Hason, Shay Hermesh)
According to this bill, admission committees may turn down candidates for membership with a communal settlement if they “fail to meet the fundamental views of the settlement,” its social fabric, and so on. The bill primarily intends to deny ethnic minorities’ access to Jewish settlements, offering the possibility to reject anyone who does not concur with the settlement committee’s positions, religion, political views, and so on. It should be noted that ACRI filed petition against this bill, which is pending with the HCJ. [5]
Status: The bill passed the first reading and will be discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee ahead of its second and third reading.
5. Bill on Funds from Foreign Political Entities (Elkin et al)
According to the (original version) of this bill, any person or group financed by a foreign nation must register with the party registrar and immediately report each contribution, mark every document in this spirit, and state at the opening of any remark they make that they are funded by a foreign state. The bill names strict penalties too. In practice, the bill intends to delegitimize and impair on the activities of organizations that receive funds from, among other sources, foreign states. Though the Israeli law already makes reporting such donations imperative, this bill wishes to expand the existing law and force certain civil organizations to mark their activities as subversive and illegitimate. Furthermore, the bill practically refers to the activities of specific civil groups, focusing on human rights organizations, implicitly incriminating them when compared with other bodies or individuals funded by foreign non-state entities.[6] It should be noted that we sent a letter to the foreign minister recently warning against the state’s illegitimate intervention in fundraising by Israel’s civil organizations.[7]
Status: An amended version of the bill was endorsed by the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee; and will soon be presented for a first reading and then discussed by the committee ahead of its second and third reading.
6. Bill on Infiltration (Government)
The bill stipulates, among other things, that infiltrators based on their country of origin, and persons who assist them (!) may be sentenced to 5 to 7 years in prison. This bill follows the trend of delegitimizing human rights and aid organizations and individuals who help refugees and labor immigrants.
Status: The government pulled back the bill, but key points from it will be introduced through a new bill which, to the best of our knowledge, is currently drafted by the Justice Ministry.[8]
7. Bill Against Boycott (Elkin et al)
According to this bill, persons who initiate, promote, or publish material that might serve as grounds for imposing a boycott against Israel are committing a crime and a civil wrong, and may be ordered to compensate parties economically affected by that boycott, including fixed reparations to the tune of 30,000 shekels, freeing the plaintiffs from the need to prove damages. If the felon is a foreign citizen, he may be banned from entering or doing business with Israel; and if it is a foreign state, Israel may not repay the debts it owes that state, and use the money to compensate offended parties; that state may additionally be banned from conducting business affairs in Israel. And if that is not enough, the above shall apply one year retroactively.
This too is a bill that discriminates against certain political groups in Israel, and is introduced by the political majority in an attempt to neutralize the political opposition it is facing. Primarily, the bill intends to reject legitimate boycotts of products of settlements, and thus severely impairs on a legitimate, legal, and nonviolent protest tool that is internationally accepted (including by Israel), while impairing on the Israeli citizens’ freedom of expression, protest, and congregation.[9]
Status: The bill passed a preliminary reading and the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee will discuss it ahead of its first reading. It should be noted that a ministerial committee rejected the chapters pertaining to foreign citizens and states, probably out of consideration for Israel’s foreign relations, and spiked the retroactive clause.
8. Bill on Revoking the Citizenship of Persons Convicted of Terrorism or Espionage (David Rotem)
This bill infringes on the basic rights of Israel’s citizens because when a citizenship (which in itself is a basic right) is denied, a series of basic rights that follow from it are denied too. Furthermore, the Israeli Penal Code already specifies ways of dealing with persons convicted of terrorism or espionage.[10]
Status: The bill was discussed by the Knesset Interior Committee, which will continue discussing it ahead of its first reading.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
On top of these, two additional bills submitted over the past 2 months may be promoted in the coming session:
1. An Associations Bill (ban on filing suits abroad against Israeli politicians or army officers), according to which an association that deals with suits against senior Israeli officials abroad may not be established, or will be shut down.
2. Bill banning wearing veils in public, according to which, it would be illegal to cover one’s face in any public location, under penalty of imprisonment.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
We further wish to stress that there is a tough and intolerant approach toward minority members and stands in the Knesset, as expressed in plenum and committees’ discussions. This trend was particularly visible after the flotilla affair, and included verbal and even physical abuse against MK Zuabi, as well as other Arab MKs, during and after the plenum discussion, when the Knesset discussed the revocation of her parliamentary rights. It should be noted that a petition was filed with the HCJ against that revocation, under the pretext that it was an undemocratic act.
The prevailing atmosphere is not expected to change soon, certainly not during the current loaded period of talks with the Palestinians, terror attacks, rocket firing from Gaza, and the debate over freezing or not freezing construction works in the territories.
Answering our letter, dated July 2010, the Knesset speaker wrote that he too is uncomfortable with some of the bills mentioned in our letter, saying that he feel that “the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish nation, and as a Jewish and democratic state, is strong enough and needs no ‘fortifications’ such as those proposed by the bills you mentioned in your letter. I believe that, often unintentionally, they actually weaken and not bolster it.”[11]
Additional Issues on the Knesset Agenda Ahead of the October 2010 Session
While dealing with anti-democratic laws, we constantly work against legislation that impairs on human rights in all aspects of life.
At this time, we deem it particularly important to address two topical and central issues that carry human-rights implications that the Knesset will discuss in the upcoming session:
The Planning and Housing Reform – A new planning and construction law is about to be introduced that has far-reaching implications that might impact on all aspects of the Israeli residents’ lives. We believe that the currently proposed reform might impair on the public’s participation in related forums and on the protection of public interests. Cooperating with other organizations, we work to amend and correct the suggested reform so as to introduce tools that would ensure appropriate representation, the implementation of the public’s participation, and that various social interests are considered.
The State Budget and the Arrangements Act – Israel’s biannual budget for 2011-12 will be discussed and sealed in the coming months. We feel that the suggested budget contains numerous resolutions and amendments that impair on human rights in a wide range of issues. On behalf of ACRI and in collaboration with additional organizations, we drafted several position papers on issues such as – impairing on the courts’ accessibility; impairing on the rights of the unemployed and seekers of state allowances; harming the laborers’ rights; infringing on the residential rights of inhabitants of public housing, and so on.
Below are a few additional issues (samples only) that we handle and which are expected to be raised in the upcoming Knesset session:
1. A long line of bills dealing with immigration and civil status is expected to be discussed as part of the Arrangements Act, government deliberations ahead of the forming act, the new anti-infiltration bill, and more.
2. An amendment we initiated, banning discrimination in public services that will not allow further selection at club entrances, will be discussed by the Knesset Economic Committee in preparation for a second and third reading.
3. An amendment of the National Health Act, adding a standing mechanism for updating the medications basket that will ratify continuity, which we initiated together with the Knesset Labor Committee, will be discussed soon, having passed the first reading in the previous Knesset.
4. A bill we initiated offering a program to replace the Wisconsin Program, which the Knesset Labor Committee will discuss.
Summary
Anti-democratic tendencies in the Knesset are gaining momentum and, regrettably, the Winter Session is expected to follow on the last session’s trends. We feel, however, that it is important to point out that not all the anti-democratic bills were promoted, and that some of those that were promoted have undergone significant changes that minimized the damage they might cause. The last Knesset session stood out in laying the foundations for anti-democratic legislation, but the vast majority of the legislation processes concerning the aforementioned bills is not yet over. In this respect, the coming session will be a trying time. If the said bills should ripen and turn into state laws, their potential damage to democracy would be realized; but should the Knesset sober up and restrain itself, protecting our democracy against the tyranny of the majority, the Israeli parliament will pass the important test of the democracy’s durability.
Even if the anti-democratic bills – some, or even all, of them – do not eventually become laws – even then, Israeli democracy will have already sustained a serious blow. For the issue has yet another, public and educational, lasting aspect. The winds blowing from the Knesset, through these legislative efforts, are already affecting the public, helping to create a public perception of Israeli Arabs as always suspect, of human rights activists and organizations as enemies of the State, and of basic democratic norms as subject to the majority’s whims. Thus, the activities of many MKs, often supported by leading cabinet members, effectively provide the public with ongoing classes in anti-democracy.
In conclusion, we would like to cite remarks that the Knesset speaker made on 2 August 2010, addressing Foreign Ministry cadets, as published in Haaretz: “Certain MKs address the people’s sentiments, and in doing so create an international image of Israel as an Apartheid state…. [Such MKs] create a wrongful discourse between Jews and Arabs in the Knesset that reflects on the existing conflict in the Israeli society.”[12]
We hope that in the upcoming session, the MKs will sober up and change the parliament’s direction, and that the trends of tyranny of the majority will be replaced by new approaches that will restore essential democratic values and reintroduce the need to protect them into the heart of our democracy. Either way – whether the Knesset mends its ways or not – ACRI will keep guarding democratic values, monitoring the Knesset’s legislative processes, and doing everything it can to help promoting the values of equality, social justice, and human rights.
[1] See our letter to the Knesset speaker, dated 6 June 2010, following the flotilla events, and his reply dated 10 June 2010.
[2] See our letter to the President, the prime minister, and the Knesset speaker, dated 31 January 2010, concerning the delegitimization of human rights organizations.
[4] See an ACRI position paper on the issue dated 25 June 2010.
[5] See an ACRI position paper on the issue dated 21 December 2009.
[6] See an ACRI position paper on the issue dated 9 August 2010.
[8] See an ACRI position paper by the Refugees’ Rights Forum on the issue dated 4 June 2008.
[9] See a position paper on the issue dated 7 September 2010.
[10] See an ACRI position paper on the issue dated 4 July 2010.
[12] http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1182847.html. Read the English translation of the article here.
More Recent Articles
Iraq War LogsDiary DigBrowse the diaries and make complex searches.War LogsBrowse the diaries, rate and comment the reports.Support usAbout WikileaksSubmissions | 1. Introduction to WikiLeaks"Could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act." - Time Magazine1.1 About WikiLeaksWikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. We are a young organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of dedicated volunteers around the globe. Since 2007, when the organisation was officially launched, WikiLeaks has worked to report on and publish important information. We also develop and adapt technologies to support these activities.WikiLeaks has sustained and triumphed against legal and political attacks designed to silence our publishing organisation, our journalists and our anonymous sources. The broader principles on which our work is based are the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history. We derive these principles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, Article 19 inspires the work of our journalists and other volunteers. It states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. We agree, and we seek to uphold this and the other Articles of the Declaration. 1.2 How WikiLeaks worksWikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles. Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum protection to our sources. We are fearless in our efforts to get the unvarnished truth out to the public. When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves. Our news stories are in the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although the two organisations are not otherwise related. Unlike Wikipedia, random readers can not edit our source documents.As the media organisation has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been developing and improving a harm minimisation procedure. We do not censor our news, but from time to time we may remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents to protect life and limb of innocent people. We accept leaked material in person and via postal drops as alternative methods, although we recommend the anonymous electronic drop box as the preferred method of submitting any material. We do not ask for material, but we make sure that if material is going to be submitted it is done securely and that the source is well protected. Because we receive so much information, and we have limited resources, it may take time to review a source's submission. We also have a network of talented lawyers around the globe who are personally committed to the principles that WikiLeaks is based on, and who defend our media organisation. 1.3 Why the media (and particularly Wiki leaks) is importantPublishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree. We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media. In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the world's publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change. WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media. We don't hoard our information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories that are often picked up by other media outlets. We encourage this. We believe the world's media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership. 1.4 How WikiLeaks verifies its news storiesWe assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates, eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.Publishing the original source material behind each of our stories is the way in which we show the public that our story is authentic. Readers don't have to take our word for it; they can see for themselves. In this way, we also support the work of other journalism organisations, for they can view and use the original documents freely as well. Other journalists may well see an angle or detail in the document that we were not aware of in the first instance. By making the documents freely available, we hope to expand analysis and comment by all the media. Most of all, we want readers know the truth so they can make up their own minds. 1.5 The people behind WikiLeaksWikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press. It's probably pretty clear by now that WikiLeaks is not a front for any intelligence agency or government despite a rumour to that effect. This rumour was started early in WikiLeaks' existence, possibly by the intelligence agencies themselves. WikiLeaks is an independent global group of people with a long standing dedication to the idea of a free press and the improved transparency in society that comes from this. The group includes accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians and others.To determine the truth of our statements on this, simply look at the evidence. By definition, intelligence agencies want to hoard information. By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wants to do just the opposite. Our track record shows we go to great lengths to bring the truth to the world without fear or favour. The great American president Thomas Jefferson once observed that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We believe the journalistic media plays a key role in this vigilance. 1.6 Anonymity for sourcesAs far as we can ascertain, WikiLeaks has never revealed any of its sources. We can not provide details about the security of our media organisation or its anonymous drop box for sources because to do so would help those who would like to compromise the security of our organisation and its sources. What we can say is that we operate a number of servers across multiple international jurisdictions and we we do not keep logs. Hence these logs can not be seized. Anonymization occurs early in the WikiLeaks network, long before information passes to our web servers. Without specialized global internet traffic analysis, multiple parts of our organisation must conspire with each other to strip submitters of their anonymity.However, we also provide instructions on how to submit material to us, via net cafes, wireless hot spots and even the post so that even if WikiLeaks is infiltrated by an external agency, sources can still not be traced. Because sources who are of substantial political or intelligence interest may have their computers bugged or their homes fitted with hidden video cameras, we suggest that if sources are going to send WikiLeaks something very sensitive, they do so away from the home and work. A number of governments block access to any address with WikiLeaks in the name. There are ways around this. WikiLeaks has many cover domains, such as https://destiny.mooo.com, that don't have the organisation in the name. It is possible to write to us or ask around for other cover domain addresses. Please make sure the cryptographic certificate says wikileaks.org . 2. WikiLeaks' journalism record2.1 Prizes and backgroundWikiLeaks is the winner of:
2.2 Some of the stories we have broken
War, killings, torture and detention
Government, trade and corporate transparency
Suppression of free speech and a free press
Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence
Ecology, climate, nature and sciences
Corruption, finance, taxes, trading
Censorship technology and internet filtering
Cults and other religious organizations
Abuse, violence, violation
3. Short essays on how a more inquiring media can make a difference in the world3.1 The Malaria Case Study: the antidote is good governance born from a strong mediaMalaria is a case study in why good governance not just good science is the solution to so much human suffering. This year, the mosquito borne disease will kill over one million people. More than 80% of these will be children. Great Britain used to have malaria. In North America, malaria was epidemic and there are still a handful of infections each year. In Africa malaria kills over 100 people per hour. In Russia, amidst the corruption of the 1990s, malaria re-established itself. What is the difference between these cases?Why does Malaria kill so many people in one place but barely take hold in another? Why has malaria been allowed to gain a foothold in places like Russia where it was previously eradicated? We know how to prevent malaria epidemics. The science is universal. The difference is good governance. Put another way, unresponsive or corrupt government, through malaria alone, causes a children's "9/11" every day. [1] It is only when the people know the true plans and behaviour of their governments that they can meaningfully choose to support or reject them. Historically, the most resilient forms of open government are those where publication and revelation are protected. Where that protection does not exist, it is our mission to provide it through an energetic and watchful media. In Kenya, malaria was estimated to cause 20% of all deaths in children under five. Before the Dec 2007 national elections, WikiLeaks exposed $3 billion of Kenyan corruption, which swung the vote by 10%. This led to changes in the constitution and the establishment of a more open government. It is too soon to know if it will contribute to a change in the human cost of malaria in Kenya but in the long term we believe it may. It is one of many reforms catalyzed by WikiLeaks unvarnished reporting. < 3.2 The importance of principled leaking to journalism, good government and a healthy societyPrincipled leaking has changed the course of history for the better. It can alter the course of history in the present, and it can lead us to a better future.Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has sunk in deceiving the American people about the war. Yet the public and the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross dishonesty practised by their own government. In spite of those secrecy laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite criminal charges against Ellsberg, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon Papers shocks the world, exposes the government lying and helps to shorten the war and save thousands of both American and Vietnamese lives. The power of principled leaking to call governments, corporations and institutions to account is amply demonstrated through recent history. The public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Which official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the most effective method of promoting good governance. Today, with authoritarian governments in power in much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever. WikiLeaks interest is the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, as a media publisher WikiLeaks relies upon the power of overt fact to enable and empower citizens to bring feared and corrupt governments and corporations to justice. With its anonymous drop box, WikiLeaks provides an avenue for every government official, every bureaucrat, and every corporate worker, who becomes privy to damning information that their institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WikiLeaks can broadcast to the world. It is telling that a number of government agencies in different countries (and indeed some entire countries) have tried to ban access to WikiLeaks. This is of course a silly response, akin to the ostrich burying its head in the sand. A far better response would be to behave in more ethical ways. Authoritarian governments, oppressive institutions and corrupt corporations should be subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy, freedom of information laws or even periodic elections, but of something far stronger - the consciences of the people within them. 3.3 Should the press really be free?In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.The ruling stated that "paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell." It is easy to perceive the connection between publication and the complaints people make about publication. But this generates a perception bias, because it overlooks the vastness of the invisible. It overlooks the unintended consequences of failing to publish and it overlooks all those who are emancipated by a climate of free speech. Such a climate is a motivating force for governments and corporations to act justly. If acting in a just manner is easier than acting in an unjust manner, most actions will be just. Sufficient principled leaking in tandem with fearless reporting will bring down administrations that rely on concealing reality from their own citizens. It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud, followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC. Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud. Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and turnover of some corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some nation states. When comparing countries, after observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations. Such comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations. Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state reveals the following properties:
Through governmental corruption, political influence, or manipulation of the judicial system, abusive corporations are able to gain control over the defining element of government the sole right to deploy coercive force. Just like a country, a corrupt or unethical corporation is a menace to all inside and outside it. Corporations will behave more ethically if the world is watching closely. WikiLeaks has exposed unethical plans and behaviour in corporations and this as resulted in recompense or other forms of justice forms of justice for victims. 3.4 Could oppressive regimes potentially come to face legal consequences as a result of evidence posted on WikiLeaks?The laws and immunities that are applied in national and international courts, committees and other legal institutions vary, and we can't comment on them in particular. The probative value of documents posted on WikiLeaks in a court of law is a question for courts to decide.While a secure chain of custody cannot be established for anonymous leaks, these leaks can lead to successful court cases. In many cases, it is easier for journalists or investigators to confirm the existence of a known document through official channels (such as an FOI law or legal discovery) than it is to find this information when starting from nothing. Having the title, author or relevant page numbers of an important document can accelerate an investigation, even if the content itself has not been confirmed. In this way, even unverified information is an enabling jump-off point for media, civil society or official investigations. Principled leaking has been shown to contribute to bringing justice to victims via the court system. |
