Netanyahu orders redraft of law seen as protecting him

[G-Man]

[QUOTE]JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that a draft bill that sets limits on police investigators should be revised so it does not apply to criminal probes in which he is a suspect.

The proposed legislation, which has sparked protests in Israel, would prohibit the police from publicizing whether they have found sufficient grounds to charge a suspect.

Critics say the bill is an attempt to protect Netanyahu and keep the public in the dark regarding ongoing investigations in which he is a suspect, but its supporters said it is intended to protect suspects’ legal rights and reputations.

Some 20,000 Israelis demonstrated against the bill in Tel Aviv on Saturday and, as public pressure mounted, support among coalition members for the bill began to wane on Sunday, a day before parliament was expected to ratify it.

“For the debate on the bill to be topical and not be used for political propaganda, I have asked ... that (it) be worded so that it does not cover the ongoing investigations in my matters,” Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook page.

With ratification of the legislation delayed, he said he had told the bill’s proponent, David Amsalem, a lawmaker from his own right-wing Likud party, that it had become a “political battering ram against the government.”

But in justifying the legislation, Netanyahu said: “The bill is intended to prevent publication of police recommendations which would leave a cloud over innocent people, something that happens every day.”

Netanyahu is a suspect in two cases. In one, he is alleged to have meddled in the media industry and the other concerns gifts he received from wealthy businessmen. He denies any wrongdoing.

But, if charged, he would come under heavy pressure to resign or he could call an election to test whether he still has a mandate to govern.

Netanyahu has in the past said he had no interest in promoting personal legislation but he also did not order the bill’s sponsors, Amsalem, and David Bitan, another Likud confidant, to withdraw it.

Netanyahu has described himself as a victim of a political witch hunt and said he will be cleared. “There will be nothing because there is nothing,” he has said repeatedly.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-netanyahu-law/netanyahu-orders-redraft-of-law-seen-as-protecting-him-idUSKBN1DX0MQ?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5a243ccf04d3012e2581f585&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook"]Reuters.[/URL] Short article, so here's all of it.

[Sableye]

And there are people who are appalled that anyone could ever be critical of Israel over here, so much so that they want to make protesting them a crime.

[Nahash]

[QUOTE=Sableye;52943837]And there are people who are appalled that anyone could ever be critical of Israel over here, so much so that they want to make protesting them a crime.[/QUOTE]

That's plainly false, the bill you're talking about is about complying with sanctions that are imposed by the UN and such. It's not trying to make criticizing israel a crime.

I hope that Bibi is cleared of all charges, he's been one of Israels best leaders but if he's guilty, he's going to get the same punishment that the prime minister before him got.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52943857]That's plainly false, the bill you're talking about is about complying with sanctions that are imposed by the UN and such. It's not trying to make criticizing israel a crime.

I hope that Bibi is cleared of all charges, he's been one of Israels best leaders but if he's guilty, he's going to get the same punishment that the prime minister before him got.[/QUOTE]

The bill's text is in flux but it still was serious enough for the ACLU to pay attention, and they believed it had the effect of allowing persecution of US organizations involved in boycotts of Israel.

[Nahash]

[QUOTE=Sableye;52943889]The bill's text is in flux but it still was serious enough for the ACLU to pay attention, and they believed it had the effect of allowing persecution of US organizations involved in boycotts of Israel.[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720/text"]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720/text[/URL]

go read the text of the actual bill

It's pretty clear that it's not illegal to boycott israel or criticize israel. The only thing that it would make illegal is that if you said I am complying with the UN sanction to boycott Israel instead of just boycotting israel and saying nothing

[Morbo!!!]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52943935]The only thing that it would make illegal is that if you said I am complying with the UN sanction to boycott Israel instead of just boycotting israel and saying nothing[/QUOTE]

Nothing wrong with that, nope

[Nahash]

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52944349]Nothing wrong with that, nope[/QUOTE]

quoting an article

[QUOTE]Current law prohibits U.S. entities from participating in or cooperating with international boycotts organized by foreign countries. These measures, first adopted in 1977, were explicitly aimed at the Arab states’ boycott of Israel, but its language is far broader, not mentioning any particular countries.

Since then, these laws and the many detailed regulations pursuant to them, have been the basis for a large number of investigations and prosecutions of companies for boycott activity. The laws are administered by a special unit of the Commerce Department, the Office of Antiboycott Compliance.

The existing laws cover not just participation in a boycott, but also facilitating the boycott by answering questions or furnishing information, when done in furtherance of the boycott. For example, telling a Saudi company, “You know, we don’t happen to do business with the Zionist entity” would be prohibited. It is no defense for one who participates in the Arab League boycott to argue that they happen to hate Israel anyway. Nor is it a defense to argue that one loves Israel and is simply being pressured by Arab businesses. It is the conduct that matters, not the ideology.

That is why the law has been upheld against First Amendment challenges in the years after its passage and has not raised any constitutional concerns in nearly four decades since. Refusing to do business is not an inherently expressive activity, as the Supreme Court held in Rumsfeld v. FAIR. It can be motivated by many concerns. It is only the boycotter’s explanation of the action that sends a message, not the actual business conduct. Those expressions of views are protected, but they do not immunize the underlying economic conduct from regulation.

This distinction between the expression and the commercial conduct is crucial to the constitutionality of civil rights acts. In the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected. However, if a KKK member places his constitutionally protected expression of racial hatred within the context of a commercial transaction — for example, by publishing a “For Sale” notice that says that he will not sell his house to Jews or African Americans — it loses its constitutional protection. The Fair Housing Act forbids publishing such discriminatory notices, and few doubt the constitutionality of the Fair Housing Act.

If the anti-boycott measures are unconstitutional, as the ACLU argues, it would mean that most foreign sanctions laws are unconstitutional. If refusing to do business with a country is protected speech because it could send a message of opposition to that country’s policies, doing business would also be protected speech. Thus, anyone barred from doing business with Iran, Cuba or Sudan would be free to do so if they said it was a message of support for the revolution, or opposition to U.S. policy, or whatever.

The best example of a criticism based on exaggeration is a claim that the bill would forbid anti-Israel activists from even expressing “support” for boycotts. There is nothing in the bill to sustain such a criticism. The old law already forbids “support” for foreign state boycotts of Israel, and the many regulations enacted pursuant to the law already define “support” to be limited to “certain specified actions” that go well beyond merely “speech” support. See 15 C.F.R. § 760.1(e)(1). Those actions, enumerated in detail in 15 C.F.R. § 760.2, allow for none of the free-speech-scare scenarios conjured by the ACLU. The new bill does not change or alter the meaning of “support.” It simply clarifies the list of foreign boycotts covered by the law.

[/QUOTE]

You're right, there is nothing wrong with this. It's a small extension to an already existing law that's been found as constitutional and generally the people who are bitching about it have no idea what they are talking about