Uri Shoham, the Ombudsman for Complaints Against Judges, ruled in his decision that Rishon LeZion, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, is prohibited from expressing an opinion on the issue of the 'kashrut reform' promoted by the government - since it is a political opinion that is in public controversy.
The vaccine for children aged 5-11 is recommended by doctors: a special response for parents
It's unimaginable: injury, hunger, and thirst • So how should mice be caught?
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
Everyone adopts one vaccinated person: Have you already convinced a friend, neighbor, or relative?
Therefore, they determine that the Minister of Religious Services will summon the Chief Rabbi of Israel and determine whether he is worthy of continuing in his position as a judge in the Great Rabbinical Court, and unfortunately, we will summon him and give him a severe reprimand.
The intolerable frivolity of the Commissioner that they accept a complaint against the Chief Rabbi of Israel has no place in it.
This is Rishon LeZion, who, in addition to serving as a judicial member of the Great Court, also serves as the Chief Rabbi of Israel and is supposed to express his opinion on halachic questions - and in particular on such a fundamental halachic question as the 'kashrut reform' that the government is promoting, as the Rishon LeZion did in this case.
•
The bewilderment over the Commissioner is heightened when we recall a much more serious case: a complaint against Judge Meni Mazuz, who said at a conference at the University of Haifa - "The situation of a Minister of Justice opposing me or a minister opposing me in general is a problematic, disturbing, and annoying situation." He added: "This is a situation that the legal system did not choose, it cannot influence the identity of the minister, and it is not supposed to influence. But it makes it difficult, it obviously makes it difficult for it to function, and the decision in this matter is not left to the legal system.".
Following the words of Judge Mazuz, a petition was filed against Justice Minister Ohana's decision to appoint Attorney Dan Eldad as Deputy State Attorney. Minister Ohana contacted Mazuz and asked him to disqualify himself from discussing the petition against him, in light of the statements made against him at the Haifa conference.
However, Mazuz refused to disqualify himself and claimed in response to Minister Ohana's petition that he did not specifically refer to Ohana at the conference in Haifa. He explained his decision not to disqualify himself, despite what he said at the conference in Haifa, as follows: "These brief words, which were an answer to the question, did not refer specifically to the applicant (Ohana), or to a concrete action of his, but rather in general to the phenomenon of 'minister against me,' when the example cited referred specifically to the Minister of Environmental Protection, and all this while emphasizing that the identity of the minister is not a matter for the decision of the legal system.. These words do not express any personal position towards the applicant (Ohana), or a concrete action or decision that he took.".
Following Judge Mazuz's untrue reasoning in his decision not to disqualify himself, the Tselmo organization filed a complaint against Mazuz with the Judicial Complaints Commissioner - Uri Shoham.
The complaint alleged that Mazuz had said something that was not true, and so Commissioner Shoham - Mazuz's former colleague, was required to investigate a complaint against his former colleague, who sat next to him on the bench during their tenure as Supreme Court justices.
Commissioner Shoham resolved the unpleasantness by deciding against his colleague in a very simple and easy way. He simply dodged.
On the one hand, he rejected the claim in the complaint that Mazuz did not tell the truth, saying: "I would emphasize that, based on the material before me, I do not see the judge as being attributing any failure to tell the truth in his decision in question.".
But on the other hand, Shoham did not deny the facts alleged in the complaint against Mazuz and Shoham's words in his decision: "The listener to Judge Mazuz's question and answer may get the impression that Mazuz's words were specifically directed at the incumbent Minister of Justice... From the very possibility that the judge's words would be interpreted in this way, the conclusion is drawn that it would have been appropriate to avoid saying the words in the way they were said.".
At the end of the decision, Shoham stated that a judge should be careful in his statements and noted: "In my comments as stated above, the investigation of the complaints has been exhausted.".
•
Now I would be happy to receive a solution to the riddle: What is the difference between the decision of the Commissioner Shoham who dismissed the complaint in the case of Mazuz, because a judge should be careful in his statements and that his comments exhaust the investigation of the complaints, when Judge Mazuz said things that are not true and also said things that are a clear political opinion - which are in fierce dispute between the right and the left, and the decision of the Commissioner Shoham in the matter of the complaint against the Rishon LeZion, who also serves as the Chief Rabbi and arbiter of halakhah for Israel, in which he determined that the Minister of Religious Services will summon the Chief Rabbi of Israel and determine whether he is fit to continue in his position as a judge in the Great Rabbinical Court, and unfortunately, he will summon him and give him a severe reprimand.
In the framed article, I will note that the committee for selecting the Commissioner is authorized to make use of Section 8 of the Ombudsman for Judges Law and remove the Commissioner from office, in other words, if he is not performing his duties properly.
