"The basic point of departure here is the removal of an individual from his place of residence and his forced transfer to another location, which seriously damage his freedom, dignity and property. A person's home is not just a roof over his head, it provides a means to his physical and social existence, his private life and his social relationships. Several basic human rights were violated as a result of the involuntary removal of an individual from his home to another location -- " These were the pointed words spoken by High Court justices against the decision by the authorities to remove a man from his home, even if the man in question had helped a suicide bomber while he was preparing to slaughter dozens of innocent people strap an explosive belt to his body.
Indeed, administrative restraining orders have some blaring disadvantages: The procedure seriously violates an individual's human rights, liberty, freedom of activity, property, and more. Another drawback to restraining orders is that their effectiveness is doubtful, because a large portion of what an individual does in his or her home he or she could just as easily do outside. In my opinion, in light of these reasons, the procedure may lack credibility. There is a reasonable doubt whether the procedure meets the legal requirements. "Secret evidence" does not allow the "removed person" the ability to confront the process. The case of Boaz Albert shows us truly how cruel and absurd the procedure of administrative restraining orders really is.
Boaz Albert from Yitzhar is a farmer and a family man, albeit one who was arrested on several occasions, though never indicted. It's worth noting that one of Albert's arrests ended up with police paying the man compensation and the censure of several Ariel police officers by their superiors. Seven years ago, it was decided to issue a restraining order against Albert, keeping him out of Judea and Samaria. Boaz declared that he would not heed the order out of conscience. He knew his decision would inevitably lead to his arrest, and so it came to pass.
In that very same winter of 2006, the Knesset plenum overwhelming approved a decision opposing administrative restraining orders. The following is a transcript of the wording of that decision: "The Knesset requires the legal authorities to launch an investigation against and bring to stand trial any Israeli citizen suspected of a crime, not to use restraining orders, administrative detention or other means that constitute extrajudicial punishment, except in exceptional cases where national security could be compromised." Every faction in the house signed off on that.
Seven years passed and Boaz Albert was arrested again. He managed to publish several articles expressing his unwavering stance throughout those seven interim years. He was heralded as the leader of a public movement whose opinions left the authorities feeling uncomfortable. Frankly, I also find it hard to agree with some of his ideas. But at the same time, it's perfectly clear to me that he has the right to express them. In the Internet age, keeping him out of Judea and Samaria would not hinder his freedom of expression anyway.
With all due respect to the importance of the Shin Bet's welcome activities, it scares me how easily one's liberty and basic rights can be dissolved. It is completely unacceptable that, once again in democratic country, an individual was arrested without trial or the basic right to defend himself. I am calling on the defense establishment to examine itself and check this shameful course of action once more.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו