Justice was done this week: the district court heard the appeal of Tomer Mor, chairman of a restaurateur association who was accused by the competition authority of recommending a course of action and harming competition.
The court ruled that the sentence of conviction following his confession should be annulled, since the offense was of a low level and was done in good faith.
Of all the threats of bureaucracy and the rules of organized society, Kafkaism is the most terrible and threatening.
A person can say something unnecessary out of his heart or in his anger or in the heat of an argument, and find himself tossing between courts, needing lawyers and finding his name smeared in newspaper headlines.
Fear of God will preserve.
The indictment against Moore was filed in July of this year.
Moore was interviewed on the radio, grumbled about the eroding profitability of restaurants and said that he thought prices should be raised.
According to the indictment, he also wrote things in this spirit to the members of the association.
For this, he was charged according to the section in the Competition Authority's bylaws which states that "recommendation to take a course of action" is a violation of the Competition Law.
Kafka could not have written it better.
Kishon couldn't have written it better.
what did we get
The indignation and aggravation, precision and meticulousness that at times seemed like an excessive use of force.
The clause in question can be subject to a thousand interpretations
Orderly permission, by its very nature, should be the most delicate and pleasant thing in the world.
It operates in a democratic space where freedom of association and freedom of expression are fundamental principles.
It operates in a reality where financial freedom is not a slogan but a way of life.
If this is the case with every regulatory authority, even more so with the competition authority.
From its inception, it did not arise except to ensure that the principles of economic freedom, of which competition is almost the first, are met.
what did we get
The indignation and aggravation, precision and meticulousness that at times seemed like an excessive use of force.
The clause in question can be subject to a thousand interpretations.
His words, and especially the tone of Moore's words, were - and thus were recognized by all their listeners - as bitter heartbreak, and they were also, by the way, true and right.
And here another factor enters the picture, which also needs to be mentioned: restaurateurs are also human.
They also need to live and they also need to earn.
And when an authority abuses someone in order to serve "the people", you should remember that he is also the people.
So an indictment?
evidence and proof?
Closing speeches and objection and cross-examination?
They went completely crazy.
In any such case of doubt - the decision of the Masadara authority must be final.
The defense of freedom and the sanctity of non-interference should prevail over any doubt from the other side.
I heard that Tomer Mor has already served 100 days in the reserves.
Blessings on his head.
Not that it's relevant, the claim should be rejected even if it weren't for this, but it's good that the beneficiary of the ruling is also a righteous man who defends his people.
Now the Authority has requested a delay of execution and is considering its steps.
Dear Competition Authority officials!
I know that everything you did, you did not do in your honor but only for the sake of us consumers, etc., etc.
So then, accept my flat request before you: relax.
Your adherence to the lawsuit against Tomer Mor scares me much more than any restaurant cartel.
I can choose not to go to the restaurant.
A government authority is myself.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us