Monday, March 28, 2011
Why are the Left afraid of this bill?
3/28/2011 11:27:00 AM |
Posted by
JoeSettler |
Edit Post
MK Danny Danon (Likud) is proposing a bill that would require any organization which petitions the Israeli Supreme Court to simultaneously supply the court with a list of their donors from the past 3 years.
YNet reports the details of this interesting bill:
Yet for some reason the Left is already up in arms claiming that this law targets them.
So let's examine that claim.
The organizations must be Israel based and work primarily in Israel.
I would assume if an organization claims to be an Israeli organization, then shouldn't it meet these qualifications?
I can imagine if Green Peace wanted to petition Israel, then it would have to be the Israeli offices of Green Peace that do it.
So why would this threaten Leftwing organizations in Israel?
just one petition at a time can be filed in the name of the injured party
This is actually a two-parter. First of all, that means no throwing petition after petition at the Supreme Court simultaneously in order to hope one sticks.
Is this a tactic the Left regularly uses that will be blocked?
Second, it requires there actually be an injured party.
Certainly an interested party needs to be required (it didn't use to be that way, and any Leftwing group would bring a petition, but now they have to typically find an Arab who claims to have been affected (an interested party), if I understand this correctly, it actually requires for there to be an injured party, not just an interested one.
Is this a tactic the Left uses that will be blocked?
a list of all donations and funds...
Shouldn't the judges have all the information at hand as to who is behind the petition? Is it really the petitioner and an Israeli organization? Or perhaps it is a foreign government trying to interfere in Israeli politics working through a shell organization.
Would exposure of this knowledge be detrimental to the way the Israeli Left works?
Assuming these answers are 'yes', it's clear why these Leftist organizations are afraid of this bill, it would expose them for what they really are, and block their attempts to alter Israeli democracy through non-democratic means.
YNet reports the details of this interesting bill:
The bill was proposed as an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary. It states that the High Court will only accept petitions making claims in the name of organizations based in Israel and operating mainly in the Jewish state.This law sounds quite fair and balanced to me. It doesn't target any group specifically. It sets down reasonable ground rules regarding who can petition the Supreme Court and why.
It also states that just one petition at a time can be filed in the name of the injured party, and that it must be related to a fundamental infringement of basic state order, a fundamental flaw in the operations of the civil administration against the public, or any matter of an outstanding public nature.
...any organization petitioning the High Court will have to present the court with a list of all donations and funds it has received in the past three years. The organization will have to outline the identity of the donor as well as the sum and aim of the funds.
Yet for some reason the Left is already up in arms claiming that this law targets them.
So let's examine that claim.
The organizations must be Israel based and work primarily in Israel.
I would assume if an organization claims to be an Israeli organization, then shouldn't it meet these qualifications?
I can imagine if Green Peace wanted to petition Israel, then it would have to be the Israeli offices of Green Peace that do it.
So why would this threaten Leftwing organizations in Israel?
just one petition at a time can be filed in the name of the injured party
This is actually a two-parter. First of all, that means no throwing petition after petition at the Supreme Court simultaneously in order to hope one sticks.
Is this a tactic the Left regularly uses that will be blocked?
Second, it requires there actually be an injured party.
Certainly an interested party needs to be required (it didn't use to be that way, and any Leftwing group would bring a petition, but now they have to typically find an Arab who claims to have been affected (an interested party), if I understand this correctly, it actually requires for there to be an injured party, not just an interested one.
Is this a tactic the Left uses that will be blocked?
a list of all donations and funds...
Shouldn't the judges have all the information at hand as to who is behind the petition? Is it really the petitioner and an Israeli organization? Or perhaps it is a foreign government trying to interfere in Israeli politics working through a shell organization.
Would exposure of this knowledge be detrimental to the way the Israeli Left works?
Assuming these answers are 'yes', it's clear why these Leftist organizations are afraid of this bill, it would expose them for what they really are, and block their attempts to alter Israeli democracy through non-democratic means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(1)
- ► December 2012 (1)
-
▼
2011
(44)
- ► October 2011 (1)
- ► September 2011 (3)
- ► August 2011 (5)
- ► April 2011 (5)
- ▼ March 2011 (7)
- ► February 2011 (6)
- ► January 2011 (6)
-
►
2010
(109)
- ► December 2010 (4)
- ► November 2010 (7)
- ► October 2010 (10)
- ► September 2010 (8)
- ► August 2010 (9)
- ► April 2010 (11)
- ► March 2010 (9)
- ► February 2010 (12)
- ► January 2010 (12)
-
►
2009
(277)
- ► December 2009 (14)
- ► November 2009 (14)
- ► October 2009 (17)
- ► September 2009 (19)
- ► August 2009 (17)
- ► April 2009 (18)
- ► March 2009 (34)
- ► February 2009 (32)
- ► January 2009 (29)
-
►
2008
(390)
- ► December 2008 (47)
- ► November 2008 (24)
- ► October 2008 (33)
- ► September 2008 (41)
- ► August 2008 (20)
- ► April 2008 (27)
- ► March 2008 (40)
- ► February 2008 (29)
- ► January 2008 (28)
-
►
2007
(318)
- ► December 2007 (14)
- ► November 2007 (26)
- ► October 2007 (25)
- ► September 2007 (20)
- ► August 2007 (32)
- ► April 2007 (31)
- ► March 2007 (34)
- ► February 2007 (28)
- ► January 2007 (18)
-
►
2006
(333)
- ► December 2006 (16)
- ► November 2006 (19)
- ► October 2006 (12)
- ► September 2006 (21)
- ► August 2006 (54)
- ► April 2006 (11)
- ► March 2006 (25)
- ► February 2006 (22)
- ► January 2006 (52)
-
►
2005
(88)
- ► December 2005 (32)
- ► November 2005 (18)
- ► October 2005 (5)
- ► September 2005 (12)
- ► August 2005 (21)
0 comments:
Post a Comment