Opinion | Do not give them guns. On the shirts Israel today

The country is tumultuous around wearing shirts with a picture of the M-16.

Last week, Palestinian workers who wore such shirts were also fired from their jobs in Ma'ale Adumim.

Where is the line between freedom of expression and support for terrorism?

Does the employer have the option to restrict the clothing of its employees?

In principle, section 2 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees, including their dismissal on the grounds of nationality, outlook or party affiliation.

However, expressing an opinion bordering on incitement may be considered a criminal offense.

As early as 1951, the High Court dealt with a case in which an employee's request for admission was denied, in view of the Defense Minister's intervention.

In the judgment (HCJ 144/50) it was determined that “if the views of a citizen are invalid, his life is not no man's land and his blood is not allowed;

And he does not have the gates of earning a living and does not come down to life in an administrative way only. "The development of technology since then has created a new and challenging reality.

In 2014, the labor courts dealt with cases in which employees who expressed themselves regarding "Tzuk Eitan" on social media were required to stop working.

For example, the Labor Court approved the dismissal of an urban psychologist on the one hand, but annulled the dismissal of an employee who shared an article linking the situation of the Palestinians to the Holocaust on the other.

The Labor Court clarified that in view of the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination, the employer is obliged to employ the employee.

The tribunal clarified that "the legislature's protection against discrimination on the basis of view is not intended to view a person trapped in his heart, but is intended to anchor freedom of expression and the right to express an opinion. Freedom of expression also extends to offensive, annoying, false and jarring expressions." 

However, it is clear that every right requires balance.

For example, when freedom of expression conflicts with national security and public peace, it must be restricted.

As early as 1953, Judge Agranat outlined in the Kol Ha'am High Court the "imminent certainty test," according to which when freedom of expression conflicts with another protected interest, freedom of expression will be withdrawn only when there is near certainty of harm.

In the ruling, the judge wanted to emphasize that "the right to freedom of expression does not mean that a person is allowed to voice or publish in writing, so that others can hear or read, whatever he pleases. A distinction must be made between freedom and promiscuity ...".

Section 24 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2016 prohibits the identification of an organization with terrorism and incitement to terrorism, including by way of public publication of a symbol.

And back to t-shirts - due to the congestion, labor courts are discussing delays while losing momentum, which puts employers in a difficult dilemma, especially when t-shirt workers may alienate customers and damage reputations.

In my opinion, an employer can justify its decision in the labor court when required, however to create the change, employers must present a clear line where they oppose wearing the shirts, which encourages terrorism and even infringes on their property right by excluding customers.

Marking the boundaries of discourse and defining the wearing of such shirts as an act that transcends the democratic compound can certainly start from the ground up.

Were we wrong?

Fixed!

If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us