Recently, the debate has arisen again about the need to split the roles of the Attorney General, who, just like in the play "The Servant of Two Masters," wears two hats: the attorney general and the head of the prosecution.
As I have explained in this section, it is necessary to split between the roles, mainly because they concentrate too much power in the hands of one person, create a conflict of interest, there is no positive relationship between them, and each justifies a full-time job.
Another important question now arises: What exactly is the proper role perception of the consultant? A few days ago, it was reported that Avichai Mandelblit had approved the imposition of restrictions on the unvaccinated, regardless of the epidemiological effectiveness expected from the restrictions. This is a dramatic change in the position of the counsel, who has previously correctly stated that medical justification is required for restrictions and professional opinion of the Ministry of Health regarding epidemiological efficacy. No wonder that with the announcement of the adviser's zigzag, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz were considering proposals aimed at tightening restrictions on the unvaccinated.
One of the restrictions being considered is to prevent unvaccinated people from entering malls and other places, even if they present a negative corona test. First, entering such places is not a privilege that the government will willingly grant to the nationals and willfully deprive them of, but is an integral part of human freedom in a free and democratic state. Second, it's nonsense, because medically unvaccinated with a recent negative test result is far less dangerous than an unvaccinated vaccine. The proposed restriction, under the auspices of the counsel's approval, sharpens the fact that in the absence of any medical justification, it is in fact a matter of punishing the unvaccinated.
Is the counsel authorized to punish citizens without an explicit provision in the law? After all, the law does not impose a duty of immunization - and that is a good thing. Such an obligation would trample on a person's liberty, his autonomy over his body and his dignity. It would reflect insensitivity to the fears of the unvaccinated and disrespectful to their assessments and choices, and would create a severe sense of alienation. The imposition of such an obligation is contrary to the basic principles of criminal law. Not all areas of life have to be settled through criminal law, which is the most drastic and final means, due to the accompanying disgrace, the difficult and humiliating procedure, and the punishment. It is accepted that if a proposed prohibition is seriously controversial, it is a strong indication that it should not be enacted. Imposing a vaccination obligation creates a default offense, whose violation of human freedom is greater than a normal ban on action. Therefore default offenses are few, and generally do not impose a general obligation to act. Had a duty to get vaccinated been enacted, Israel would have become much less free and democratic. Therefore do not dare to legislate such an obligation.
According to the publications, the dramatic change in the position of the adviser is due to steps taken in other countries. But its role is to advise the government in accordance with existing law, and not to enact new decrees. And since he has already interpreted the existing law so as not to allow sanctions against the unvaccinated, he cannot interpret it otherwise today. The change, which is undesirable, is the sole responsibility of the Knesset.
What exactly is the role of the counselor in terms of substance?
The adviser is supposed to restrain the government from violating the rights of the citizens, and certainly not to incite it to violate them.
Certainly and certainly when there is no legal obligation to get vaccinated.
This is not just a punishment without a trial, but a punishment without a law - contrary to the principle of legality according to which there is no offense and there is no punishment unless provided by law.
It is also an unjustified punishment - neither rewarding nor beneficial.
A government that punishes its citizens without justification and without a basis in law is a totalitarian government.
Mandelblit is at the end of his term.
It is to be hoped that a replacement or substitute with a more appropriate role will be appointed;
Let them come to restrain the government and protect the citizens, certainly not to incite the government to abuse the citizens or a group of them.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
