FAQ # 3 - Freedom of speech and opposition: legitimate protest
As much as one's freedom includes the right to freedom of speech, it should
also include the right to be heard – in the street, the press, the media,
in parliament – and the readiness of significant people to listen.
If no-one hears protest because the media do not want to broadcast or print
it, because there is no political dialogue or parliamentary debate, then opposition
views and protest remain within the opposition. In such cases, even the most
respectable and law-abiding opposition will feel frustrated and deprived of
legitimate status.
[In many democratic countries, the right to free speech excludes harmful
incitement, incitement to racial hatred, slander, libel, while legal minors
may be protected from some forms of freedom of expression (advertising, media);
the law differs from country to country, as do public prosecution policies;
legal interpretation and severity of sentencing also vary in the Courts of
Law.]
These are the main conundrums of legitimate protest:
a. Not all non-violent protest will necessarily fall within the law (civil
disobedience);
b. Legal protest may be within the letter of the law but go beyond the spirit
of the law and beyond accepted behavior; there is a thin line between normative
or accepted behaviour and the language of potential incitement - or deliberate
escalation into a hostile environment;
c. For all opposition, there is always an extreme periphery which will act
outside the law, threatening both the mainstream opposition and the right
to govern;
d. For the survival of democracy, the space for opposition is vital. The democratic
judiciary acts therefore to protect democracy, by declaring some restrictive
laws unconstitutional or determining certain actions to be in conflict with
the principles of constitutionality or International Law;
e. On the other hand, a democratic government has a right to govern, and democracy
must therefore act through its legal system to judge whether the opposition,
or persons belonging to it, have over-stepped the line of due and legal behaviour.
What is going on in Israeli society, will there be a civil war?
The best estimate is that there is a great deal of resentment, and a highly
flammable situation, in terms of emotions [See B:6]. To an extent. it may
be all part of the psychological warfare that is going on for and against
Disengagement – the opponents being far more organized because they
feel threatened.
Even if Disengagement passes relatively peacefully, it will be traumatic
for the people evacuated, their extended families and friends. Even if and
when they are all successfully integrated into new environments, employment
and schools, it is a major life event; many will not have a successful passage
into a new life. In political terms, however, it can be expected to leave
an enduring scar, but one that will heal with time. However, if a hostile
environment is all-pervading during Disengagement operations, and it cannot
be contained, the consequences would be further-reaching.
What do Jewish sources say?
Points to Ponder
References
Hebrew
The limits of protest (legitimate protest) – the Rabin assassination
– texts, presentation and assignments
http://www.snunit.k12.il/minhal/word/4205.doc
English
198 Methods of Non-Violent Protest
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations.php3?
orgid=88&typeID=15&action=printContentTypeHome
G.A.