The Movement for Fairness in Government filed an appeal for
another High Court hearing against the Prime Minister after
an appeal demanding Shinui ministers be disqualified from
serving in the government due to alleged incitement and
prejudice against the chareidi public, was rejected last
month.
The original appeal claimed Shinui figures had made harsh
remarks with prejudicial undertones aimed at generating fear
and revulsion toward the sector at which the incitement was
directed. The appellants cited detailed examples of severe
pronouncements during the last few years as proof of the
prejudicial nature of propaganda and actions by Shinui and
party spokesmen.
Last month the High Court refused to hear the appeal,
claiming it "raises clearly political questions that have no
place within the four walls of this court" and was "in
essence an appeal to disqualify political party heads from
serving as ministers due to their political opinions and
remarks." The judges also claimed the appellants had not
turned to the Prime Minister after the government was sworn
in or before the appeal was filed, and they had not exhausted
preliminary procedures.
The High Court appeal filed last week argues that according
to the previous ruling allegations that individuals or a
party engage in incitement against a sector of the population
cannot be voiced in court. The appellants also claim branding
hatred, incitement and prejudice as "politics" is further
grounds for disqualifying them from public office, adding
that the High Court decision prevents them from attacking the
suitability of Shinui ministers as participants in the
government and in government posts as representatives of a
party that engages in disseminating hatred and prejudicial
incitement toward a large sector of the population.
According to the appellants, the decision demonstrates "the
High Court sees matters of incitement and hatred against
minority groups `as not justiciable' merely because they were
adopted as `political' by those engaging in hatred and
incitement. This, they say, harms the chances for "minority
groups to see the court as a body that can be turned to in
order to receive protection against incitement and the
dissemination of hatred against them."
The court has not yet announced whether it will hear last
week's appeal, and if so when and before which judges also
remains to be decided.
