Jurists: Akko driver cannot be indicted
Israeli law professors say charge of 'offense to religion' insufficient to indict Taufik Jamal, whose actions are thought to have sparked Akko riots on Yom Kippur
The primary consideration that led police to arrest Arab driver Taufik Jamal from Akko was an offense to religion. But Israeli jurists have questioned the validity of an indictment based on such a consideration.
Jamal's drive through a Jewish Akko neighborhood on Yom Kippur sparked violent, interethnic riots in the northern city.
"Such an indictment has no place in the modern age," Professor Emeritus Aharon Enker told Ynet. Enker, an expert in criminal law at Bar-Ilan University, believes that "this is a psychological move undertaken to calm the waters…. This is a rare transgression."
According to Enker, "The accused's liberties are being harmed and, as such, he should only be brought to trial in extreme cases based on such an indictment. This is why many indictments are not delivered."
One extreme case that Enker produced as an example was the 1997 case of Tatiana Suskin, who was indicted, convicted and sent to prison for drawing and distributing a drawing of Muhammad in the image of a pig. She was sentenced for two years, with an additional two-year probation, for citations including an offense to religion and racism.
"Everyone can understand that the case of the Akko driver is not similar to the case of the pig drawings," said Enker. "In this case of the drawings, the act was a lot more direct and the act in and of itself demonstrated defiance and intent. It is difficult to make a clear case for defiance in this case."
"A man drove down a street in a city with a mixed religious population. He was in a public location in a city that contains Jews, Christians and Muslims," Enker explained.
"The implications of indicting him for this act suggest that anyone who drives through a religious neighborhood on Shabbat is offending religion. Does this mean that all Jews must not drive?" he queried.
"It's possible that police (arrested the driver) in order to calm the waters. In any case, I am willing to be that this won't go to trial. How will they get out of the predicament? People will call down, both sides will apologize and the indictment will not be handed down," he said.
Offense to religion not primary indictment
Professor Ariel Bendor, of the University of Haifa, agreed that religious intolerance was an insufficient consideration to lead to indictment in this case."I imagine that was not the primary cause for the indictment, but rather that reckless endangerment (due to fast driving) was the cause," he said.
The transgression of offending religion "is archaic and its use it rightly rare, because… indicting for it restricts the freedom of expression, just like laws against insulting a public officials or inciting to mutiny," Bendor added.
"If they indicted people on such counts on a regular basis, it would be impossible to maintain a democratic society. An integral part of a democracy is the fact that people are allowed to hurt each other's feelings. Of course, there need to be bounders, but they need to be broad," he said.
