Adalah Accuses Security Personel at Hebrew University in Jerusalem of Harming the Basic Rights of Palestinian Students Bahar, Odeh.
(This
is the translation of a letter sent by Attorney Abeer Baker of Adalah www.adalah.org to the Dean of Students at the
Hebrew University. This edited version of the letter was translated from Hebrew
by the Alternative Information Center. For more information, click here.)
Re: Demand the return
of the student cards of the students Ali Bahar and Nassar Odeh, which were
illegally and without authority confiscated by university security officials
I
am writing to you in the aforementioned matter and request your immediate
intervention to order the return of the student cards illegally confiscated from
my clients, as follows:
-
My clients,
students Ali Bahar and Nassar Odeh, are regular students at the Hebrew University. Mr. Bahar is studying
accounting and economics and Mr. Odeh is studying accounting and political
science.
-
The student
Bahar refused on this day to shake the hand of State President Mr. Shimon
Peres, during his visit to the university. Mr. Bahar explained his refusal:
“[I] will not shake the hand of one responsible for the murder of
children.” In response to the refusal of Mr. Bahar, the President’s
security personnel fell upon him and detained him for more than 2.5 hours.
In parallel, the security officials detained the student Nassar Odeh who
hurried to save Bahar from the security personnel. During the detention of
my clients, the president’s security personnel made various threats,
including threats to derail their continued academic studies and to harm
their professional future.
-
Following the
detention of my clients, security personnel from the university approached
my clients and announced the confiscation of the student cards in their
possession, until further notice. It was contended to my clients that the
cards would be returned following a disciplinary committee hearing in their
matter.
-
The confiscation
of the student cards from my clients is tantamount to preventing their
entrance into the university, negating their right to use various academic
services within the university and preventing them from entering the
student dormitories. In essence, my clients were de facto banished from
the university with the complete absence of an appropriate, fair and fitting
procedure.
-
It is unclear to
us from where the university security personnel derived the authority to
order the confiscation of a student card, with everything related to this.
There exists no need to expand on this matter, as their absence of
authority to conduct these actions speaks for itself and necessitates the
immediate annulment of their decision. The security personnel in this
matter became the prosecutor, witness and judge.
-
The refusal of a
person to shake the hand of the state president due to political opinion
is protected by the legal right to freedom of expression. The harsh criticism
of actions to which the state president undertook within the framework of
implementation of his previous political and security positions, is at the
core of the right to freedom of expression.
-
The principle of
freedom of expression necessitates the freedom to express and make
opinions heard, even if these are difficult to hear and unpleasant to the
ears of someone. Freedom of expression is precisely intended to protect
those exceptional opinions which are not accepted by the general public
and which parts of the public may view as particularly outrageous or
harmful expressions, as noted by the court in the matter of Novik:
“As has been emphasized more than once,
freedom of expression is intended to protect not only accepted and popular
opinions, which are sounded in peaceful and calm conditions, but also—and this
is the principle test of freedom of expression—for exceptional, outrageous and irritating
opinions made heard on the background of stormy incidents and in a scathing and
unpleasant manner.“
HCJ 2888/97, Novik et al. v the Second
Authority for Television and Radio, p.d. na (5) 193,201.
-
The meaning of
this ruling is that the guiding principle in the matter of restricting
freedom of expression and the taking of sanctions in the matter must be if
in the wake of the expression, the possibility for the endangerment of
public security is almost certain. The expression of a general tendency in
this direction within the expression is insufficient to restrict the
expression, what to mention taking administrative sanctions due to it and
in an illegal manner. These things were expressed by the court in the
1950’s, and their meaning in these days and particularly following
legislation of the Basic Laws: Human Liberty and Dignity only receives more
authority.
-
The rights of
students to demonstrate and freedom of expression are anchored in the Law
of Student Rights, 2007. Only a few months ago the Beer Sheva Regional Court annulled a
directive in the articles of Ben
Gurion University
which prohibited the holding of demonstrations in political matters or concerning
controversial topics. The court determined that the prohibition of the
university is illegal and must be annulled due to the exalted status of
freedom of expression and due to its contradiction with the directives of
the aforementioned Law of Student Rights.
-
It is appropriate
to note that the obligation of every academic institution toward
fundamental rights derives from its status as a dual-nature institution
which is obligated to the principles of the public law. Your obligation
exists in its own right, even in the absence of the last legislation that explicitly
anchored the right of the student to freedom of expression.
-
In the matter of
the directives, there was no legal basis for accosting my clients and confiscating
the student cards in their possession. In these acts, the security
personnel violated their obligations and derogated from their authority in
an exceptional manner. This raises concern that these acts were done with
the intention to instill fear in the students lest they be brave and
express their opinions in public.
-
The role of the
security personnel at the university is to keep order at the university
and nothing more. It is neither their role nor interest to take upon
themselves the authority to prosecute and rule and to limit the freedoms
of the students in a disproportionate manner, not to mention the lack of a
fair procedure and in its absence, a fear of a violation.
Accordingly,
and in light of the atrocious illegality of the actions of the university
security personnel, I request the following:
To order the immediate return of the student
cards to my clients and to permit their entrance into all university facilities
with no delay;
To direct the authorities responsible for the
university security personnel to investigate the circumstances of this event
and to take all necessary measures against the security personnel who derogated
from their authorities in accordance with the law and caused a disproportionate
harm to the basic rights of my clients;
To prevent the conduct of any procedure
against my clients and to permit them to begin the academic year without
interference.
Due
to the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate your immediate intervention
and response.
|
News 
